Politics is not only necessary and essential but crucial. Where did it all start? “Most modern political ideals – such as, for example, justice, liberty, constitutional government and respect for the law – or, at least, the definitions of them, began with the reflection of Greek thinkers upon the institution of the city-state” (George H. Sabine – A History Of Political Theory). This beginning is said to go back to the fifth century BC and that it was, shall we say, “organised” by the likes of the great political philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
Why am I saying all this? To show politics did not start in our lifetime and that of our fathers or forefathers. It has had ample time to develop into a cunning art. It is a concept and an institution. I like to call it a game, which has developed over some 25 centuries. We read of many types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, democracy (May we add the fashionable term “meritocracy”?) and so on. One common (cunning) trait in this long development is exigency, a concept that can easily undermine the strict principles of professed democracy.
I claim no experience or knowledge of the subject and its development, save for a superficial introduction to political philosophy in my distant University days. Accordingly, I am very much aware I have ventured into an area which is not of my calling and am exposing myself to the scrutiny and judgment of many learned and erudite political philosophers in our midst. Any such scrutiny and judgment I shall accept without question.
So what, one may ask, is your point? My point is that every type of government is different and depends on the environment prevailing in a particular country or region, an environment created by diverse historical, cultural and economic traits. Democracy and the inseparable principle of the rule of law have been hailed as the best system in modern days, at least by their subjects. Basically, democracy means a state is indirectly run by its citizens through the due process of electing those they choose to be their representative while the rule of law guarantees that society is regulated by a body of rules that are above those who rule and to which, it follows, the latter are subject.
However, the interpretation of democracy and the rule of law depends very much on the man or men (read woman or women also, the greed of the female sort too often being the root and cause of their husband’s downfall, due to his parallel weakness, of course – vide Adam and Eve) at the helm of the state. Further, these supposed rigid principles are often tempered by political exigency, both in the interest of subjects and that of the rulers. In short, what does it pay to do? What do I, the ruler (or wider politician), feel is in the best interest of the citizens and what is in my best interest? Further, the established order in a democracy has to be safeguarded and sometimes this requires the very suspension of the observance of the rule of law in the face of lawlessness, such as insurgency or rioting.
This is what has happened recently in Tunisia. It has been accompanied by excessive and ruthless actions by the forces of law and order (sic). This, more than in the interest of the people of Tunisia, in that of its ruler. History has shown, however, that more often than not an uprising of citizens will lead to the overthrow of the leader and his regime. President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was overthrown not mainly due to a poor economic situation but because of his abuse of power, both by stifling freedom (of movement, of the media) and of being corrupt, amassing a large wealth taken from the state coffers and this together with his immediate and extended family. This is why he lost the confidence of Tunisians and this mainly among the intelligent and powerful middle class, who led the “revolution”.
He played his game of politics differently from what a leader would in the democratic world. And his game was a bad one. Ironically, however, many powerful western leaders backed Mr Ben Ali and his “democracy”. They supported his “democracy” because it was only a limited democracy or, at best, a belligerent dictatorship (look at it as you like). It was (and I suppose still is) risky to countries like the United States and France to actively propose full democracy in much of the Arab world. This would endanger law, order and stability, not only in Tunisia, but also in places like Algeria and Egypt, to mention three, and, conversely, damage the vested interests of these powers in the region and in the Arab world in general.
Too much freedom means too many ideas (once one suppresses or limits the ability to think than half the battle is one) and too many ideas will dilute the prevailing anti-Islam and anti-terrorism policies too much for the West’s liking. These countries in north Africa and the Middle East have largely cow-towed to Western wishes in this regard to gain recognition and respect. Where Arab countries refused to cow-tow (and went totally overboard vis-à-vis undemocratic practices and the downright suppression of freedom and human rights (read Afghanistan and Iraq), then they were invaded and their leaders uprooted.
Where has all this led us? Need I explain? This is where the exigencies of politics overrule its principles. And this happens to some degree or other in all states, including Malta. But perhaps another time – time up now!
(Acknowledgement for some of this thinking to journalist Robert Fisk, who wrote a brilliant analytical article in The Independent (UK) last week.)