Contrary to what the Algerian ambassador in Paris told RTL radio today, the defining criteria for a democratic regime are not different from country to country. This is what ambassador Missoum Sbih said this morning in an interview by Jean-Michel Aphatie:

Aphatie: Mr. Ambassador, there are riots in your country.  Can you tell us what is happening in your country?

Sbih: Riots? What riots? There were some events a few weeks ago. You are talking about the prohibition of manifestations.  (...) The Algerian government has considered that the public order was threatened, and has prohibited that manifestion. This is the kind of restriction you also have in France. (...) You know that our press is completely free. (...)

Aphatie: There is a state of emergency in your country since 9 February 1992. (...) That does not resemble a democracy, Mr. Ambassador.

Sbih: You have criteria for democracy which are not necessarily ours. (...) I have to tell you one thing: Algeria is not Tunisia. (...)

A democracy is based on the balance of powers (which are distinct, but not necessarily completely separated), a majority vote, and the collection of fundamental freedoms or human rights.  Even the Chinese president has admitted this, even though he was only paying lip service. 

Certainly, these criteria exist in different forms and implementations, due to specific historical factors. The function of a President or a Prime Minister, or the relationship between the Executive and the Legislative powers can be different, but the People are the supreme sovereign, and the Representatives are acting in the name of the People.  QED.  Even if there is a permantent discrepancy between the Principles and the tangible social and political Reality.

Quibblingly, the Algerian ambassador argued that there is freedom of expression in his country. But  democracy can not be reduced to the mere expression of opinions. One should also have the opportunity to transform these opinions into tangible realities after they have become laws.  Furthermore, democracy is based on irreproachable and fraudless elections. This is not the case in Algeria. It is clear that in that country, political freedom has been made subordinate to a draconic acceptance of the public order, as we have seen in the violent repression of the manifestation of 22 January in Algiers.

The coming manifestation of 9 February by a number of trade unions, politicians and associations, shows that there is growing political and social unrest in Algeria which will not fade away by a denial of reality.  In this respect, the ambassador of Algeria to France with his wooden language was showing a dexterity similar to that of the ex-ambassador of Tunisia to the UNESCO.

Algeria is not Tunisia?  Wait and see...