(BRUSSELS) — They were all there, the winners of the 2011 Sakharov price of the European Parliament for Freedom of Thought, an award given every year to individuals who dedicate their lives to defend human rights.
Asmaa Mahfouz, a young political Egyptian activist, who helped spark the mass uprising which ultimately led to the Egyptian revolution; Ali Ferzat, a renowned Syrian political cartoonist, who, as the Syrian uprising against the rule of Bashar al-Assad gained momentum, became more direct in his anti-regime cartoons; and Ahmed El-Zuber El Zenussi, a 77-year-old dissident and Libya’s longest serving “prisoner of conscience” who was released in August 2001 alongside dozens of other political prisoners.
They had been invited by the European Parliament for a debate entitled, “Voices for democracy: Citizenship in the making.” They were meant to represent the Arab Spring and all those who, in Arab countries, had fought or were still fighting against dictators for the benefit of democracy and human rights.
And the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, reminded the audience that at the heart of the European Union lay a community of member states that respect fundamental rights. He stressed that the European Parliament was attached to the promotion of human rights and democracy and wanted them to be respected and applied everywhere in the world.
Unfortunately, he said, “a majority of U.N. member states today do not respect human rights.” And addressing more particularly Ferzat, whose country is still in turmoil, he added: “Those who have the courage to defy dictatorship, to struggle against murderers, act in their name, but also for the entire humankind. They are heroes that deserve our admiration and our thanking. Their struggle is also our struggle. And their suffering is a price they have paid for all of us.”
Schulz might have forgotten that for years, the European Union supported most of these Arab dictators, with no sign of remorse or
shame. He might not be willing to remember that these same Europeans who claim to be defenders of human rights everywhere on the planet never raised their voices when those who were arrested and imprisoned in Egypt were Muslim Brotherhood members. And how come no one had ever heard about, nor cared for, El-Zuber El Zenussi before, during the 31 years he spent in prison in Libya –that is four more years than Nelson Mandela – and during which, in his own words, “Europe would pretend not to see.”
Mahfouz, Ferzat and El-Zuber El Zenussi were thus there to represent the Arab people’s revolution against “barbarian” and “blood-thirsty” regimes; they were meant to be the heroes of the European leaders. Europeans have always been fond of heroes that look like them, think like them and speak like them; people who would have the same narrative of events, the same way of looking at things and the same way of saying it; people who would put their countries on the path to governments and states very similar to the European – call it Western – model and would so become part of that international community they claim to represent.
But how is it then that Mahfouz referred to the demonstrations that were still going on in Egypt to ask for freedom and dignity and social justice? Why then did she say that the Egyptian people would continue its fight despite all the attempts by several countries to control and dominate Egypt? Why does she express her solidarity with the people of Greece and Spain and Portugal and the United States, people who are “also trying to recover their rights, their freedom and fighting for a fairer economic system”; and launches an appeal for the people everywhere “to unite so as to claim our freedom and democracy because unfortunately governments build alliances between them to defend their own interests, at the expense of the people.”
Why does Ferzat also refer to transactions going on behind the scenes between major powers, comparing his own country, Syria, to a huge cake of which everyone was trying to get the biggest piece? And what made El-Zuber El Zenussi remind the audience of the ancient and brilliant Muslim civilization that prevailed in the Arab world for years; a civilization in which people from all cultures lived side by side in peace with no racism?
European and American governments probably want us to believe that the struggle in Arab countries is against an old type of regime that is no longer relevant; and that in the end, these countries will adopt the same model of state as their own.
But why would Arab people want the same model? Have European governments forgotten that Europe is in a deep crisis, not only an economic and financial one, but also a crisis of credibility and thrust?
Demonstrations all over Europe and in the United States show the extent to which there is now a gap between governments and their citizens, a gap that is questioning democracy and the system of government itself.
Yet, these same governments declare themselves ready to help Arab countries. To do what exactly? Help them create the same kind of government? Arm and support so-called ‘radical Islamists’ in one country while pretending they are dangerous in another? Support those who serve their interests and criticize those that don’t agree with their approach?
Then why is it that Ferzat suddenly gets up from his chair and in his quiet and soft voice stresses that Syrians are not asking for anything, that they do not want anything from anyone: they don’t want a military intervention, they do not want political meddling, because they themselves will take care of their revolution. They just want civilians to have a safe place, where they could find a shelter and food and care.
And why does Mahfouz feel the need to explain that if a majority of Egyptians has voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, it is not because they are “intolerant,” but because they thought the Brotherhood would free them from the control the U.S. and Israel exert over Egypt’s political and economic systems?
But, she adds, “unfortunately, this is not what happened. And negotiations under the table are back; the U.S. is trying to strike a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, and by this I mean the leaders, because the Muslim Brotherhood is a very large movement and I think only the leadership has failed us. Unfortunately, some of the European governments are helping in that. Even though they had promised us that they would stop supporting tyranny and dictatorship.”
It looked like Mahfouz and Ferzat and El-Zuber El Zenussi were not ready to play the part they were assigned. They don’t want to be the heroes of the Europeans after all. Could it be then that this is about something entirely different? Could it be that this is not so much about creating a Western-type of government as about dignity, humanity and justice, three words that kept coming back in Mahfouz and Ferzat’s interventions? Otherwise, Mahfouz wouldn’t feel the need to refer to the Indignados in Spain, to the demonstrations in Athens, to the Occupy Wall Street movement and say “we are fighting for the entire humankind.”
It looks like Mahfouz has sensed how citizens around the Western world are disenchanted with democracy; frustrated with what they perceive as a flawed capitalist world order that has only benefited an elite few – but not the many; fed up with untrustworthy and corrupt politicians defending their own interests instead of the people who voted for them. And demonstrations everywhere in Europe and in the United States should be interpreted as a general critique of existing governing structures and doctrines.
So, no, Arab people do not want to become like “us.” Nor are they fighting for a Western model of democracy, which they don’t perceive as being democratic in the first place. Arab people have already moved beyond that model.
They have joined those who, in Europe and the United States, fight the prevailing system, the Spanish Indignados, the Greek demonstrators, the American Occupy Wall Street movement, all of which are asking for a different kind of government and state.
And this is why Mahfouz speaks about a world revolution. This is why she refers to a fight for all and for humanity. This is not about the Arab world; this is about so much more. And Schulz may be right after all: The Arab people are fighting for their freedom; but they are also fighting for ours.