This piece was published by Libya.TV on June 16, 2011
Why exactly does Libya need democracy?
Everyone these days speaks about the necessity for a democratic system in post Gaddafi Libya. Most, speak of it in vague terms that make it sound as the magic pill that will solve all of Libya’s problems. Yet, much of that discussion seems to take place in the absence of what does that really means and how will this, undefined democracy, meet the needs of the country and its people.
Let me start off by stating categorically that I too believe that Libya needs a democratic system of government, if it has any hope in surviving as a country, let alone begin the hard work of solving its problems, where I want to be clear and what I want to write about is why I believe that, in the simplest possible way I know how.
So let me start by stating my first basic supposition; a democratic system of government is not an objective in itself; it is simply a means to an end. The objective is not simply having the right to vote, but the objective I have in my mind, is how best to set up a system that will allow me, as an individual citizen, to live in peace and security with the rest of my society, be able to live out my principles and participate in economic life on equitable bases, and have forums and channels that allow me to get the information I want, and speak my mind with legal protections that will not impose on me the values or will of others.
The second supposition I have in my mind is that there is a distinction between the principle value of democracy, which is the right of all people to participate freely in the management of their public affairs and institutions, and the methods we choose to do that. The first is a universal principle that transcends all times, cultures and societies; the second is subject to how each society decides to organize its public life to achieve that. How and what form a democratic systems takes, is subject to the historical developments and cultural values of each society. For example, one society can organize its politics in the form of a constitutional monarchy, another a presidential system, a third a parliamentary system, and yet a fourth a system of cantons as in Switzerland. The important thing however is to focus not so much on the type of system we set up, but that the system must meet the following three fundamental conditions.
Inclusiveness
Any democratic system worthy of the name must, as a priority, include everyone in society irrespective of ethnicity, religion, gender, political views, etc. Everyone in society must be legally included in the process without any prejudice, coercion, or exclusion. Their views and rights must be protected without any conditions or pre-requests.
The most basic measure of a viable democratic system is its ability and consistency in protecting and ensuring the rights of any minority, including even a minority of one, against the tyranny of society to force people to conform to a mythical ideal. One example of this is the right of an individual to even burn the flag of the country in public and feeling protected while doing it.
Accountability
Accountability must be built into the very structure and fabric of any credible governance framework. First, everyone in society must be held accountable before the law. No one, not a beggar and not the president, are above the law, period. If, even if once, anyone is put above the law, then it’s not a law worthy of respect at all , and we would be back on the same slippery slope that brought us to the “great leader” and the “king of kings” etc.
Second, the system of governance must also include very detailed and clear processes on how to question and hold responsible any and all public officials, with very simple and straightforward processes that allow people to file complaints and ask questions of their public representatives and servants and receive remedies.
Transparency
The only way to gain credibility in public life is through transparency. There is no other way. So a democratic system must build the principle of transparency and disclosure into its very structures as well. The public must know what the government is doing, where public money is going, how decisions are made, and why. The only exceptions to that rule must be as few as possible, and only because they relate to national security or matters that may produce more damage than public good. Even so, those exceptions must themselves be made and debated in public to decide whether they should be exempted. Here is where civil society and freedom of speech and the media is absolutely fundamental, for it ensures the people’s right to know.
In conclusion, let me say that If I leave you with one thought about this subject, I want it to be: democracy is not the goal, its simply a process that will allow us to define the goals, how we can reach them, who we want to do the work, and how we can hold them accountable. If there is any misstep in how the process is put together, then we have no hope of achieving any goals whatsoever. So if we lose this, then we would have lost everything.
