As the situation in Egypt heated up last week, we learned that the Obama administration is applying the heat to Egyptian military rulers in the hope it can influence Egypt’s political future. According to press reports, the administration’s concern is focused on the need for faster democratic reforms and stricter restrictions on the Egyptian security forces that are being blamed for the many deaths during the recent street protests in and around Tahrir Square.
Apparently, most of the heat came as a result of administration fears that the ongoing Egyptian unrest is threatening what the Obama administration hopes will be a smooth transition to democratic rule in that country. And therein lies the rub!
“Smooth transitions to democratic rule” have certain prerequisites. Most important, irrespective of the location of the hoped-for changeover, is some sort of history or experience with the most important aspects of democratic rule. Those are: the active, unfettered participation of the people in politics and civil life; national tolerance of pluralism; the right to vote in free elections; the existence of the rule of law and unbiased courts; the guarantee of basic human rights, particularly religious; the separation of powers and freedom of speech, opinion, press and religion. Absent these preconditions, the struggle for democracy will rarely be won.
Egypt formally ended its colonial period in 1922 when England issued a unilateral declaration of Egypt’s independence, resulting in the creation of the Kingdom of Egypt. That kingdom limped along with persistent British manipulation until 1953 when the Egyptian military, led by Gamal Abdul Nasser took power. From then until the January 2011 uprising, the Egyptian military, successively under Generals Naguib, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak, has maintained control of Egypt. In fact, they control Egypt today.
The Egyptian election cycle started on November 28. The question that needs to be examined is what are the likely outcomes of this process?
Given the fact that Egypt has virtually no experience with democracy, it is difficult to see the cohesive support that a triumph for democracy would demand. There are, essentially, two national organizations that have the requisite organizational and political experience to compete effectively in these elections. They are the military establishment that has ruled the country, to the ire of much of the population, for almost 60 years and the Muslim Brotherhood that was founded in Egypt in 1928 and has been actively engaged in Egyptian politics, albeit often surreptitiously, ever since.
There is no democratic organization in Egypt that has the political or organizational experience that would make it a contender in these ongoing elections. Even if there were, such an organization would be perpetually in the crosshairs of both the military and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Why, then, have we Americans staked so much on a “democratic” outcome for Egypt or any other Muslim country, if such a result in so unlikely? Of course, we do it because we believe it is the absolute best system of government for all of mankind. We do it because we are a collection of ethnocentric human beings who have little to no understanding of Egypt or Islam.
Egypt has Islam. Islam provides its Egyptian believers with complete and comprehensive rules for behavior. Most believers are comfortable with those rules. Many see no benefit to them, either nationally or individually, in democracy. In fact, the existing Islamic parties offer a viable alternative to the corrupt, repressive, long-serving dictators who have clearly been seen by Muslims to have been kept in power by western “democratic” governments.
On November 25th, Morocco’s first post-Arab Spring elections were won by an Islamist Party. The only thing that is important here is that the Moroccan and other Islamist parties actually reflect the will of their peoples. What we should be concerned about here is not “democracy” but “self-determination”. Once these Muslim nations have decided what form or forms of government they wish to have, we should support them unreservedly, while maintaining our own convictions that our system has something to offer the rest of mankind – if they agree and if they should choose to adopt it.
It is absurd and counterproductive for the Obama administration to be up in arms about the Eqyptian elections. The notion in the administration and in Congress that we will refuse to contribute foreign assistance to them because they “do not become a democracy” is absolutely absurd, particularly if it is in our national interest to support them. They will become what they become and no amount of American pressure will change that.
Rural Ruminations 