El ejemplo de Al Jazeera: La democracia no es la panacea

Esta entrada correspondería en puridad al apartado Kiosko de Ideas, puesto que más que describir una rutina de trabajo se aprecia una actitud profesional. Si la cuelgo aquí es por su valor ejemplar.
De todos los medios que están informando sobre el terremoto social en el Norte de Africa, Al Jazeera es uno de los más completos, rigurosos y veraces. Me refiero a su balcón en inglés. Ignoro qué tipo de información y cómo la darán en árabe, aunque supongo que no será muy diferente.
Al Jazeera de emite desde el emirato de Qatar. Qatar es una monarquía en absoluto basada en la democracia o en una constitución. Por qué sostiene a Al Jazeera es un misterio para mí. Pero lo que importa en estos instantes es que la emisora y su web realizan una labor informativa esencial en el mundo árabe, sean cuales sean sus fundamentos ocultos (si es que existen) y sus hipotecas mediáticas.
En la siguiente página web
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011225181951493541.html

el lector con conocimiento del inglés puede encontrar un magnífico artículo de  Lev Grinberg, profesor de Economía Política y Sociología en la Universidad Ben-Gurion de Negev, Israel. El título es provocativo, y el contenido sumamente interesante. He copiado algunos párrafos, que suponen un resumen de las sugerentes ideas de Grinberg.

F.B.

Democracy is no panacea

…I would like to warn the democratic activists in Egypt and even more so their would-be followers in the Middle East that democracy is not the solution to all problems. Democracy does not necessarily solve problems related to poverty and economic inequality, nor does it resolve cultural conflicts related to the common identity of the nation's citizens.

The basic reason for democracy's lack of solutions to such problems is that its principles have been formulated in industrialised capitalist societies characterised by considerable cultural homogeneity and relatively small economic gaps

Democracy is a set of formal principles developed in Western Europe with the aim of facilitating the representation and articulation of the middle and working classes and designed to contain peacefully the conflicts between them and the upper class.

In the absence of a balance of power between classes, and a consensual unifying national identity, the automatic installation of formal democratic principles might only make matters worse.

In order to prevent such developments, it is necessary to comprehend the peculiar social and economic conditions of each country and install not only formal democratic principles, but also additional constitutional, institutional and policy elements.

When there is a systematic link between cultural identity and economic status, democracy becomes a problem, rather than a solution. It exacerbates cultural conflicts to the point of violence, because it provides a formal opportunity for the majority to force their will on the minority.

The oldest case, mind you, is the US - the cradle of the democratic constitution which announced a "government of the people" and began the massacre of the American indigenous people because they were not considered part of "we, the people" of America.

Whoever wants democracy under these conditions must first come up with a creative and consensual formula, according to which each cultural group would be free to live its unique cultural life without attempting to force its identity and customs on the entire citizen body.

In other words, demonstrating for democracy is not enough. What the countries of the Middle East require is political consensus on mutual recognition of rights and coexistence, guaranteed by a constitution and institutionalised by electoral procedures and representative institutions.