In a Democracy, Is It Good Guys vs. Bad Guys? [Archives:1999/35/Focus]

It is understandable that the ruling party should want to maintain control of the reigns of power and authority in the country. That is a constitutional right granted to them. The General People’s Congress also enjoys a broad base of support among the population, especially among the traditional power wielders and social dignitaries, although its grass roots can not be recognized for their strong political activism and full unquestionable loyalty out of sincere political conviction. 
The reunification of Yemen – formerly composed of 2 diametrical regimes and political “philosophies” – brought with it political pluralism and democracy (the proponents thereof have pretty much been removed from the political theater as a result of the ungodly Civil War of 1994). It was not sure whether the introduction of this new political approach came out of a sincere belief in them, or that perhaps the once powerful, but increasingly threatened Yemeni Socialist Party saw it as a balancing act to overcome the strong political and military muscle of its former rivals – then partners in the new unified state. The YSP may have gambled that with political pluralism and democracy, its adversaries would lack the sophistication in a free for all political game, in which mass public appeal becomes the deciding factor of the winners and losers. The YSP was going to take on a populist platform, in order to assure itself the edge it needs accordingly. But the Civil War would never give the YSP the chance to see if its gamble would work and the will of the people was never given a chance to be truly tested, as the YSP had probably envisioned. 
Of course the political equations have long since (1994) shifted dramatically, with the Peoples General Congress and its “religious”/tribal offshoot, the Yemeni Congregation for Reform (Islah), pretty much carrying on as before unification, but now with uncontested control over a much larger territory and greater economic resources. The Yemeni Socialist Party lost the gamble and the semi-statehood status it enjoyed. With the balance of power now pretty much removed, as a significant political factor, what would happen to the political inputs of democracy and political pluralism, especially as those who were the proponents thereof, and who rested their hopes for survival on activating them in the political arena have now been sent packing out of the country? 
Not surprisingly, the “winners” of the disguised struggle for power, which has been decided, not by the voting polls or any other institutionalized democratic practice, but by the nozzle of the gun, have found good reason to maintain democracy and political pluralism, although not necessarily in tune with the conceptual and sincere political manifestations implied in a true democratic and pluralist framework, as originally envisaged by its proponents and as recognized and practiced in modern democratic societies. With the reigns of power and authority firmly in the hands of the PGC/YCR alliance, it was easy to placate the New World Order with the slogan “democracy and political pluralism” by having it continuously aired by the state media, and with a faint margin of democratic practice, such as some freedom of the press – subject to severe visible and invisible limitations, and elections, that are pretty much staged to yield results that could in no way disturb the existing political status quo. Nor can it translate into a “peaceful” transition of power, no matter how bad the existing status quo may provide the motivation for a change in the public will as to who should have a chance at managing the affairs of state in the country. On the other hand, the existing ruling “political parties” know full well that the prevailing socio-economic and cultural environment allows them a great degree of manipulative power to organize just the right political scene and “popular” political participation that will not in anyway upset any of their interests or firm hold on the elements of power and influence, which they have monopolized for the last 20 years. In an environment, with widespread lack of political awareness among the general population, in addition to the general apathy fostered by deteriorating economic conditions, unemployment, a vanishing middle class, which only just started to make its short-lived appearance, the absence of institutional frameworks, which cater to issues of public concerns and interests and which advocate for human rights and public interest, there is no problem for the ruling regime to project an image of civilized political behavior, while at the same time, bluntly and literally telling the people: “hay, this is not for you!”. It is a skill that the well entrenched regime has mastered to the point where democracy in Yemen has come to mean, as even the most misinformed laymen in the country have come to rightfully put it: “You say what you like – to a certain extent, and we do what we like – to an unlimited extent!” The existing regime really sees no threats to its unrelenting control of the political arena – and its direct or indirect control of the national economic resources and assets, by a lot of talk on democracy and political pluralism, but with really no substance behind all the flowery political jargon that is being used to promote the regime’s “strong commitment” to them.
 
On the other hand, the political activities fostered by “democratic practice”, Third World – and now Yemeni – style, such as “free elections” have become an institutionalized form of income generation for those who “volunteer” to actively participate in the voting and electioneering activities, as their reward for ensuring that the results are just what the rulers had in mind. Thus they are a way of channeling badly needed public funds from the purposes they are intended for to “divide the cake” among those civil servants who see a great opportunity to supplement their almost worthless salaries by extravagant per diem allowances for their “volunteer” work on behalf of a supposedly grateful regime. 
When we speak of political pluralism, we can expect that all those who the state has duly recognized as a viable political assembly, shall not be treated by the ruling party or the various state organs that fall under its control – which are all the state organs – as outcasts or villains that are subject to slander or insinuations of treason or unpatriotic activity, etc. As long as the constitution has guaranteed them rights – as limited as they are – they should not be subject to any name calling, simply because they stuck to a strong opposition stand to what the ruling regime is making out of the political process, which seems to suggest that the political game has now become more of a self serving enterprise rather than a true reflection of public will and mandate. Thus, it is not understandable why the ruling regime insists on using the terms that should have died with the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Yemen. Terms like “reactionary, secessionists, rebels, etc.” have no place in a democratic arena and certainly do not project a more enlightened image of the regime, if it insists on using such tactics to hide its misrepresentation of democratic political activity. Such tactics are also not good for the regime itself, as it would lead the other political organizations, especially those opposing the ruling regime, to likewise come out with their unfavorable terms to describe the elements that make up the ruling regime, including terms that the regime has used against the opposition, since there are elements in the regime who also could be considered as having been once also a part of the “untouchable” political forces, which the opposition being slandered as being in. In fact, because the elements in the ruling regime have had literally unrestricted and unregulated control over state resources, the opposition could come out with even more direct and slanderous terms that would illustrate an unfavorable and more true to life picture of the re, to say the least. 
The point to be made here, is that with so much power wielded by the ruling party, it serves no meaningful purpose to try to maintain that power, through rhetoric that seeks to slander, scare and put down any voice, which mostly is trying to say: “Look you guys, would you please stick to what you proclaim to be, or else forget about these political games, which you want us to partake in, but in the end give us no part to play in, except to give you a stamp of disguised “legitimacy”, which the people of Yemen are completely innocent of!” Furthermore, such political schemes have cost billions of Riyals, from the state treasury, with the people’s interest the last to be served accordingly. “We say what you do not like, you do what we do not like”. Isn’t that the way it really is?
——
[archive-e:35-v:1999-y:1999-d:1999-08-30-p:./1999/iss35/focus.htm]