Professor Mahdi Elmandjra is a prominent scholar and a renowned humanist.
He is staunchly fighting for human dignity and against exploitation of
Third World countries. Below are the views and comments he conveyed to
"Réalités" on the major events in the Maghreb, the Arab region
and worldwide :
R.: : Should the Islamic "FIS" movement come to power in Algeria, is this likely to stifle the nascent democracy in that country?
M.E.: The "FIS," just like any other movement in a country which is beginning to experience a certain form of democracy, availed itself of a given opportunity at a given juncture. More specifically, it took advantage of the cultural alienation of the intellectual elite in the Maghreb, which is known as "Hezb Faransa" (the pro-french party).
Although I do not belong to any political movement or party, I believe that the democratic process initiated in Algeria is a major event which marks the beginning of the liberation of Arab countries and of the Third World at large. Never since the end of World War II, were elections in any Third World country, as free as they were in Algeria. This is a valuable asset which must be preserved. No group whatsoever should be allowed to monopolize it and use it for any purpose other than the establishment of a civilized society with freedom and justice for all. Therefore the problem, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the FIS and I refuse to indulge in oversimplification and reductionism.
R.: We would still like to know what will happen if the FIS comes to power and stifles all the expectations raised by the birth of real democracy in a Third World country.
M.E.: Why do you want me to prejudge the outcome of a democratically conducted electoral process? If the general elections in Algeria proceed democratically, in full respect of the citizen's rights and liberties, one must, if one is a democrat, accept in advance the verdict of the ballot box. Electors who know how to express their preferences and make their choice freely in normal circumstances, can change their minds and make another choice if they think it is necessary. The democratic system should be taken as a whole, you either take it or leave it. Apart from this fact, one can only speculate or, even worse, engage in a campaign of misrepresentation and disinformation - this is precisely what I refer to as the "new crusade". It began a few years ago in the West, and it is directed against the Arabs, Islam and the Third World in general.
R.: Do you think that the Arab Maghreb Union (UMA) can be taken seriously at this stage? Do you expect it to develop into a genuine instrument of cooperation and unity between the countries of the Maghreb?
M.E.: As a true Maghrebian, I can only be happy each time a step is taken towards full integration. However, the first requisite is the construction of a common vision as to the type of society we want to build. There should also be a unified approach in dealing with the rest of the world as well as a common desire to establish an entity strong enough to put up with the big challenges which await the turn of the century.
Surely, the UMA Treaty is positive in so far as it has contributed to easing years of political uncertainty in the Maghreb. This is, in itself, an achievement which should not be overlooked. In fact, it was followed by some concrete steps in the form of technical studies and surveys designed to boost trade and financial relations and to improve communications in general. Nevertheless, I must confess that the achievements so far have been short of the real expectations of the people in the Maghreb countries.
R.: Have you not been disappointed by UMA's stand on the Gulf crisis, especially that each member of the Union went his own way?
M.E.: Actually, I was not surprised by what happened. As I said earlier, to reach a unanimous position on this matter implies that the members should have, first, harmonized their positions towards the outside world. If a unanimous position could not be reached even with respect to the closest neighbours in the Arab world, how could you expect an institution such as UMA to enjoy any measure of credibility in the minds of the people it is supposed to serve.
R.: How do you explain the fact that the Arab masses as well as intellectuals came out almost unanimously in support of Saddam Hussein, who is far from being the embodiment of democracy?
M.E.: I believe that the quasi-unanimous support expressed by Arab and Third World populations was basically intended for the Iraqi people. It was also a reaction of indignation against the occupation of a region in the Arab World, by American and other Western forces. I think we should learn to perceive problems as they are beyond names and persons.
Saddam Hussein is not a champion of democracy. I only know it too well.
I haven't set foot in Baghdad since 1955 when I was a student doing research
work for my thesis on the Arab World. I happen to travel a yearly mileage
equivalent to going four or five times around the world, but I would not
set foot in a country where the rule of the law is systematically flouted.
What is at stake, under the circumstances, is not so much the survival of a man or a regime, it is the fate of the Arab World. I do not think that Saddam Hussein should be personally credited with this popular support. I believe, instead, that it is a massive reaction against this assault on the dignity of Arabs, men, women and children alike. I also believe that such a response shows to what extent Arab masses are cut off from their rulers. In fact, no Arab government today is, in my view, qualified to teach lessons of democracy to another Arab country. Indeed, the real cause of our tragedy lies in the absence of democracy, and the West which has always manoeuvered to keep the situation as it is, is now in a position to reap the benefits of its policy, at least for a while.
R.: It is often said that things will never be the same again in the world, and particularly in the Arab region. What is, in your opinion, the likeliest scenario after the conflict?
M.E.: The Arab World, Africa and the South, in general, are already different from what they used to be. For years, I have been talking about North-South ruptures, and the North's incomprehension towards the South as well as the West's reluctance to accept the slightest change in the status quo concerning the world economic order, the international financial system and the balance of power.
The rupture which was looming in the horizon has now materialized and
brought with it an era of North-South confrontation. The Gulf events are
but the first episode of a long serial, called "post-colonialism."
Réalités, n 271, Tunis, 2-8 November 1990