For long periods, India was an exception in this regard except for South Africa after the end of apartheid and Bangladesh and Indonesia after the end of military rule. Even Sri Lanka has botched its record because of the civil war, its brutal conclusion and the authoritarian proclivities of its present government. But, now that some of the Arab countries have succeeded in ousting their dictators, it is only natural that they will try to emulate India as they try to establish a free society.

It is not without reason that they are not mentioning America, the world’s oldest democracy, but turning to the Indian model, which is the largest. The reason is not far to seek. Since the US had supported many of the repressive rulers, and is doing so even now, for instance, in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and so on, it is not the most popular country in the region.

But even if India helps Egypt or any other country which approaches it, the enormous difficulty of the task will be obvious to all. As these countries begin the process of establishing a government of, by and for the people, it can seem to them that toppling the tyrants was the easy part. In contrast, to set up a system, root and branch, comprising any number of parties (India has 1,200 registered parties although only 150 of them are “active”, according to the Election Commission), a free judiciary, a free media, autonomous institutions such as the Election Commission, is nothing short of a Herculean endeavour.

But it isn’t only the façade – multiple parties, regular elections – which is important. Even more so are the men who run them. As Nepal’s example show, the distrust between the different leaders has brought the democratic experiment there to a standstill after just one election. India was lucky in having leaders of exceptional stature at the time of independence – Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Abul Kalam Azad – to ensure a relatively smooth transition from colonialism to democracy. Moreover, except for Gandhi and Patel, most of them lived long enough to keep the ship of state on an even keel.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t true in neigbouring Pakistan, where the deaths of stalwarts like Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan soon after independence meant that democracy could not take root as the years of military rule and the continuing influence of the army over the civilian authorities show. Apart from India, only South Africa had the benefit of the presence of a towering personality like Nelson Mandela to ensure that the delicate plant of democracy did not wither away.

There are no such charismatic figures in Egypt or anywhere else in the Arab world. As a result, even if the formal infrastructure of a democracy is set up, there may not be anyone to run it effectively. The name of the former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed Elbaradei, has been mentioned, but he cannot be compared to Nehru or Mandela. Nor is the presence of just one leader enough. It is not unusual in such cases for the country to slip back into one-party rule either after he is deposed by the army, like Soekarno in Indonesia, or via fraudulent elections as in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, which has been described by Mandela as the case of a “tragic failure of leadership”.

A foremost requirement of a democracy is the functioning of at least two parties, each under responsible leaders who are committed to the system, which means that they will accept electoral defeats in good grace and make way for their rivals to take charge. Although a commitment of this kind is the cornerstone of the system and is taken for granted in all mature democracies, yet it is among the first to be flouted in a new state, as Shiekh Mujibur Rahman did in Bangladesh by introducing one-party rule in the belief that his popularity could unite all the people under one banner. The fallout was that the country slipped under a military dictatorship.

It is too early to say whether the Arab countries, starting with Egypt, will succeed in ensuring that these rules of the game are followed without demur by all. Iraq can be said to have succeeded in abiding by these norms and conventions for the present, but it takes decades for the system to take root. The problem with all these countries is that they have emerged from dictatorships, which, by crushing dissent and emasculating the middle class, destroy all those with faith in the virtues of free debate. As a result, it is the people with closed minds, such as the religious fundamentalists, who are the enemies of democracy, who come to the forefront. Whether India’s example will be inspirational enough to keep them out is still very much uncertain. (IPA Service)