The revolutionary events in Tunisia and Egypt descended on the “international
community” like a lightening bolt. The two unpopular regimes, although
undemocratic, were not notorious for their brutal repression. On the contrary,
Tunisia was known as a mildly pro-Western regime in which both polygamy and the
veil were outlawed. Egypt was similarly regarded as a mild autocracy, and
President Hosni Mubarak was considered a moderate, peace-seeking pro- Western
stalwart. True, there were complaints from human rights NGOs, but in comparison
with the permanent anti-Israeli barrage, these were mere
twitterings.
Both Tunisia and Egypt were elected members of that circus
known as the UN Human Rights Commission. In its reports, along with mild
criticism, the commission complimented both regimes: Tunisia was praised for
building “a legal and constitutional framework for the promotion and protection
of human rights,” and Egypt was lauded for initiatives “taken in recent years as
regards human rights, in particular the creation of human rights divisions
within the ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs.” (Reading these excerpts,
one may be forgiven for thinking that the true demonstration should take place
in Geneva, seat of the Human Rights Commission.)
And, needless to say, nothing
we have read or seen in the world media prepared us for the horrific street
scenes and anti-regime accusations which burst out of our TV screens; the idea
that Mubarak is a dictator came as a shock to Western audiences.
What we
should learn from all this is that we know nothing of what truly happens in
non-democratic regimes. Just as in the 1930s, Western journalists touring
the Ukraine did not see the massive death by forced starvation around them, so
contemporary media do not fathom what truly lies under an ostensibly mild
non-democracy.
THE WORLD of news and NGO reports is slanted. It has a
tendency to find fault with open societies and is misled by repressive regimes
in which there are no free media or independent courts. Thus a paradox is
established: The more democratic and open a country is, the more exposed it will
be to allegations of human rights abuses.
This is true of both Egypt and
Tunisia. The regimes there were not more repressive than other Middle
Eastern regimes: Certainly their abuses were mild in comparison with Iranian and
Syrian brutality.
Indeed, because both countries were subject to Western
influence and pressure, they could not resort to the unbridled brutality with
which the Teheran regime met its pro-democracy opponents in 2009.
The
truth is even harder to digest: There is no substitute for democracy, even when
flawed. But in the Middle East, free elections – an essential part of democracy
– may lead to an Islamic Iranian-type regime which will stifle any sign of true
democracy.
We’ll have to wait a long time before we see a reversal of
this trend.
The writer is a professor of law at the Interdisciplinary
Center Herzliya, a former minister of education and Knesset member, and the
recipient of the 2006 Israel Prize in Law (www.amnonrubinstein.org).