Egypt Is Far From Democracy
Recent events in Egypt revealed to the world, Arabs, Egyptian citizens as well as the United States that democracy does not exist. More importantly it is not ready to exist.
Mahmoud Mekky and Hesham Bastawisi, two Egyptian judges were faced with charges of violating judiciary rules by talking about the abuses in last September’s elections. In retaliation, thousands of demonstrators marched to the streets of Cairo chanting, “Judges, judges, save us from the tyrants.”
The protest was a conglomeration of an array of different political party members in Egypt. A one of a kind demonstration hosted by individuals from the Kefaya party, the Muslim Brotherhood as well as other leftist organizations, the event signified a new, progressive phase in Egyptian society.
People want their voices heard.
However, as has been a priori, there is no such thing as free speech in Egypt per se. Plainclothes police officers and the Egyptian police have historically used brutal methods to break up demonstrations as well as detain protestors. Moreover, the confiscation of cameras, cameramen and any broadcasting on-sight is crucial in preventing a wide announcement of their undemocratic and inhumane methods.
As I’ve argued in a previous post, “Democracy: Does It and Will It Work In the Middle East?” the region remains in a primitive and archaic stage unready to willingly accept liberal democratic norms and ideals. However, the recent demonstrations and the response of the government have also proven that change from the top needs to take place.
Fear from a Muslim Brotherhood takeover, Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) will continue to use methods of acquiescence and detainment in order to jump hurdles and pave through obstacles. These methods have perpetrated basic human rights and have kept Egyptians living in the ‘dark.’
Last week, 48 people were detained (including Alaa Abdel Fatah, an Egyptian democratic activist and power blogger) during a solidarity movement supporting the independence of the judiciary in Egypt. They have been arrested for 15 days “pending investigation.” Men and women detainees were sent to the Torah and Qanatir prisons respectively where brutality, sexual molestation and abuse are rampant.
Déjà vu?
These events are not uncommon in today’s Egypt – unfortunately. It has been a common recurrence and certain legislation (which I will discuss in a later post) has allowed an incredible state control over its citizens.
Is there a solution?
The detainees from these protests will be eventually released – no doubt. There has been massive pressure from within Egypt’s borders as well as outside to free the arrested. Many people have turned to the United States for help, a country which has constantly put pressure on Hosni Mubarak to inject ideals of democracy in to the corrupt-ridden, archaic socio-political system of Egypt.
However, listening to the United States is a multi-faceted dilemma.
Last year, Mubarak allowed other parties to run against his presidency (such as Kefaya and Ghad) and even allowed ‘independent members’ of the Muslim Brotherhood to run for parliament. This came after incredible scrutiny from the United States to democratize, modernize and find compatible ways of fusing Islam and progressiveness in to one. However, this in fact backfired for Mubarak. He realized that there is much more hatred against his party and its members than his administration initially thought. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood managed to secure a substantial amount of seats in parliament and this led to even further fear.
In retrospect, Mubarak is thinking twice about following American advice and allowing their involvement. The United States carries its own political agenda and one can argue that a takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is in fact in the Americans’ interest (since the MB is a moderate Islamist faction and will act as a buffer against Al Qaeda). Reading the story with such skepticism from the NDP’s perspective has re-encouraged them to use their old methods of acquiescence and suppression.
This story is certainly ben trovato and the NDP will continue to believe that they should do anything in their capacity to retain their current position of power.
Democracy activists and protagonists should be weary of allowing the United States to take control of the situation. Mubarak is already a pseudo-American puppet and Egypt receives $2.3 billion of aid per year, this could further allow more American control of domestic issues. There are many caveats of fully allowing the Americans to meddle with Egyptian affairs and so cautiousness and care needs to take place. The US’ democratic trials have backfired in Palestine after Hamas was elected and Iraq is in the brink of civil war, Egypt should NOT turn out to be the same.
Mahmoud Mekky and Hesham Bastawisi, two Egyptian judges were faced with charges of violating judiciary rules by talking about the abuses in last September’s elections. In retaliation, thousands of demonstrators marched to the streets of Cairo chanting, “Judges, judges, save us from the tyrants.”
The protest was a conglomeration of an array of different political party members in Egypt. A one of a kind demonstration hosted by individuals from the Kefaya party, the Muslim Brotherhood as well as other leftist organizations, the event signified a new, progressive phase in Egyptian society.
People want their voices heard.
However, as has been a priori, there is no such thing as free speech in Egypt per se. Plainclothes police officers and the Egyptian police have historically used brutal methods to break up demonstrations as well as detain protestors. Moreover, the confiscation of cameras, cameramen and any broadcasting on-sight is crucial in preventing a wide announcement of their undemocratic and inhumane methods.
As I’ve argued in a previous post, “Democracy: Does It and Will It Work In the Middle East?” the region remains in a primitive and archaic stage unready to willingly accept liberal democratic norms and ideals. However, the recent demonstrations and the response of the government have also proven that change from the top needs to take place.
Fear from a Muslim Brotherhood takeover, Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) will continue to use methods of acquiescence and detainment in order to jump hurdles and pave through obstacles. These methods have perpetrated basic human rights and have kept Egyptians living in the ‘dark.’
Last week, 48 people were detained (including Alaa Abdel Fatah, an Egyptian democratic activist and power blogger) during a solidarity movement supporting the independence of the judiciary in Egypt. They have been arrested for 15 days “pending investigation.” Men and women detainees were sent to the Torah and Qanatir prisons respectively where brutality, sexual molestation and abuse are rampant.
Déjà vu?
These events are not uncommon in today’s Egypt – unfortunately. It has been a common recurrence and certain legislation (which I will discuss in a later post) has allowed an incredible state control over its citizens.
Is there a solution?
The detainees from these protests will be eventually released – no doubt. There has been massive pressure from within Egypt’s borders as well as outside to free the arrested. Many people have turned to the United States for help, a country which has constantly put pressure on Hosni Mubarak to inject ideals of democracy in to the corrupt-ridden, archaic socio-political system of Egypt.
However, listening to the United States is a multi-faceted dilemma.
Last year, Mubarak allowed other parties to run against his presidency (such as Kefaya and Ghad) and even allowed ‘independent members’ of the Muslim Brotherhood to run for parliament. This came after incredible scrutiny from the United States to democratize, modernize and find compatible ways of fusing Islam and progressiveness in to one. However, this in fact backfired for Mubarak. He realized that there is much more hatred against his party and its members than his administration initially thought. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood managed to secure a substantial amount of seats in parliament and this led to even further fear.
In retrospect, Mubarak is thinking twice about following American advice and allowing their involvement. The United States carries its own political agenda and one can argue that a takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is in fact in the Americans’ interest (since the MB is a moderate Islamist faction and will act as a buffer against Al Qaeda). Reading the story with such skepticism from the NDP’s perspective has re-encouraged them to use their old methods of acquiescence and suppression.
This story is certainly ben trovato and the NDP will continue to believe that they should do anything in their capacity to retain their current position of power.
Democracy activists and protagonists should be weary of allowing the United States to take control of the situation. Mubarak is already a pseudo-American puppet and Egypt receives $2.3 billion of aid per year, this could further allow more American control of domestic issues. There are many caveats of fully allowing the Americans to meddle with Egyptian affairs and so cautiousness and care needs to take place. The US’ democratic trials have backfired in Palestine after Hamas was elected and Iraq is in the brink of civil war, Egypt should NOT turn out to be the same.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 9:12 AM
5 Comments:
It's apparent that Mubarak does not want democracy to take hold in Egypt, and even if we acknowledge the official spin on events (for example, that the judges' problem is an intra-organizational coflict), Mubarak failed to implement the democratic promises he laid down during his "election campaign", such as the end of emergency laws and, more to the point, a law gauranteeing judicial independence. He was merely putting a show infront of his own people as well as the Americans. The show infront of his people terminated following his re-election, while the show infront of the Americans terminated following the election of Hamas in Palestine, with the hypothesis that America having detected the islamist trend in the middle east, would not want the largest and most important arab country to fall under the rule of the MB.
Mubarak however understood the Americans' thinking correctly: i.e. he correctly believes that it's not in the interest of the US to push too hard for reform in Egypt now because, with this reform, comes the rise of the MB. And while the MB, as you say, might act as a buffer with the true extremist groups, a la Al Qaeda, the US is very aware that the MB would very likely cut diplomatic relations with Israel, as well as exhibit populist slogans like the ones shouted in Iran and Venezuela. Al Qaeda's appeal in the Arab and Muslim world is already sinking, thanks to the unfortunate bombings in Egypt, Jordan and Morocco, as well as the senseless killings in Iraq. If you sit in a coffee place in Egypt or Jordan these days, it'll be hard to find people heaping praise on Bin Laden, but there will be a lot wishing for Israel's destruction. America would NOT want these people to elect a representative with similar views. Hence having a "buffer" is not a matter of profound importance for the Americans, and any pros that might come with it, will surely be outweighed by its cons.
Currently, the US does not and would not explicitly provide support for Mubarak's actions, but I find it curious that the condemnations that were being heaped daily on Egypt from the State department have almost ceased now. I would argue that it's not in America's best interest to push too hard for democracy for egypt now. And even if it does, the mere association of any opposition group with American funding will likely contribute to the quick death of this opposition group. Hence:
a. given that the States is not too enthusiastic about pushing too hard for reform, and
b. no opposition group would want to associate itself with the States,
c. Mubarak is sitting happily, aware that there is no external pressure, which in turn implies a consistently weak opposition in face of the powerful government. He can stall on reform as much as he wants: the army is fiercly loyal and there is not even the remote possibility that conditions would become so bad that a coup d'etat would be inevitable.
Change is going to have to be internal, and it's going to be slow. And frankly, I am for that, for it's almost a fact that if free elections were held today, the MB would come to power, and from a personal viewpoint, I'd rather live under the draconian measures imposed by mubarak. I'd rather live under this pseudo-dictatorship until the middle east conflict is solved and islamist tendencies disappear. And yes, I know this could take a century or more. But rushing through change now is a sure recipe for disaster in a region that already has more than enough of its share of problems. That's however my personal viewpoint. If democracy is rushed in however, and this is a likely analysis, not merely an opinion, there will be DRAMATIC changes for Egypt; in its society, culture, foreign relations, and economic institutions. And while in the long-term they might lead to a better outcome, in the short-term however it's not going to be easy. It's the classic tradeoff between short term pain and long term gain.
A fellow Egyptian
@anonymous. Great points, you supplement and add to the points I made very nicely.
It does not seem that Mubarak genuinely wants democracy – that is true. Full fledged democracy will lead to his demise. What does this mean? Is he grooming his son for presidency? Will there be another pseudo-democratic election after six years? What should one expect?
Like you stated, there has been merely a façade of democracy and after the rise of Hamas, Egypt went back to its old ways, to the status quo which has provided Mubarak (and only him) a certain comfort which no Egyptian president has able to achieve before. People will remember him for steering Egypt away from war with Israel but people will also remember him for the exacerbation of the economic situation in Egypt as well as the implementation of dictatorial like policies which have infringed upon their sovereignty.
I believe that it is very difficult to weigh the pros and cons of having the MB rise to power (in the eyes of the US). Granted, you make valid points, however IF the US is genuinely acting in its own self-interest (and not in the interest of Israel or its lobby) then they would want the MB to gain more power, eradicate corruption and act as a buffer against Al Qaeda. Hamas might be seen as a terrorist organization by the US, but Hamas does not approve of Al Qaeda’s actions and their philosophy. Moreover, the MB greatly condemns Al Qaeda and the brutal violence it has used to achieve its goals. Thus, it might seem esoteric at this point as to what the MB will do when it comes to the Israeli issue however they will not instigate violence nor will they think of provoking Israel. They will continue to support Hamas (via funds etc.) as they have been doing already but I believe that they will refrain from using diatribes against Israel, a la Ahmadinejad, since they understand the potential political repercussions of such foolish audacity.
I agree with you that it is not in the interest of the US to fully introduce democracy and they are aware of its futility (if the Iraqi model would teach the administration anything). Change in Egypt will certainly be internal and it will be in the form of a massive revolution, similar to that of the 1950s. Otherwise, these sporadic protests will further antagonize the state and its citizens and will not instigate policy changes within the country’s borders.
I think that you and I would rather live under Mubarak’s draconian measures but think about the other 70 million people or so who are 1) not as wealthy or as 2) fortunate to use the current system to their advantage.
The country and the region is DEFINITELY not ready for democracy. These ideas should be embraced, Mubarak needs to understand that if the people do not want him in power, there is probably a pretty good reason but until then the status quo will certainly prevail.
Full fledged democracy would definitely lead to Mubarak's demise, and that's why, as you said, he maintains a façade. As to whether or not he's grooming his son for presidency, he's denied that on several occasions, and so did Gamal himself. But of course, with the constitution giving the Parliament (which is NDP dominated) the power to cofirm a new president upon the older's one death, a scenario like the one that happened in Syria could potentially take place. If Mubarak survives until the next elections (and the parliament trap is avoided), then it would be embarrassing to Gamal, to say the least. One can then "hope" that relatively free elections would take place
As you mentioned, it's hard to predict what the MB would do when it comes to power, however judging by some of their recent statements (like explicitly denying the Holocaust, and praising Ahmadinejad - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1134309632655&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), we'll either become puppets of Iran or have our own maniacal president. I highly doubt the US would still regard the brotherhood as only a "buffer". But again, this is very hypothetical..who knows what happens in the next couple of years?
You're right, it's selfish of me to admit that I don't have problems with living under Mubarak's draconian measures, while the vast majority of the population is suffering. But I sincerely doubt that the MB would benefit the vast population either. We'll probably end up being isolated like Syria and Iran, and economic problems which, I think, are one of the root causes of misery, would multiply, not lessen. My only hope as a patriot, would be to have someone that can command the attention of egyptians, someone who has the charm and credibility, and yet the political acumen, to emerge in the next few years. Someone akin to a Amr Moussa.
I don't think MB is going to be better than Mubarak's regime. In Sudan we already got a taste of what it's like to be living under a party with similar views such as the MB. It wasn't and still isn't pleasant... All the promises they came with were not kept and instead they did the most disgusting, vile and un-Islamic things. I really don't think it's in America's interest for MB to take over but if you really want to examine from a realistic point of view then yes... If America truly does want democracy in the Middle East then it's going to have to risk anti-American & anti-Israeli groups taking over.
It's a terrible dilemma. I think what's most important is that the majority of Muslims must realize American isn't a demon backing up Israel and its interests but that it's also a nation that truly does want democracy in our region and does want to spread good ideals.
I guess America has to weigh which is more important, its interests or those of Arab Muslims.
@The Sudanese Thinker. Weighing the pros and cons on whether the NDP or the MB will better serve Egyptian society depends on these factors:
1) One's social status (i.e. a person who is poorer will have a very different perspective than someone who is wealthy).
2) One's religion (i.e. if one follows Coptic Christianity then they won't be too happy about the rise of the MB).
3) One's religiosity (this is tied with social status and religion; there is a trend between poverty and religiosity; the poorer a person is, the more spiritual/superstitous they become).
4) One's personal agenda for change (i.e. more free speech, more sharia law enforcement, better standard of living etc.)
These are only some of the many factors which come in to play. Given that 50% of Egyptians are illiterate and that the majority of the population lives under poverty, it seems that by de facto the MB has a more favorable presence among society. One should remember that Cairo and Alexandria represent a bias random sample and it is important to consider the pockets of the population which live in Upper and Lower Egypt as well.
There is much evidence to prove that America has in fact gone out of its way to support Israeli interests (refer to my posts regarding the Mearsheimer-Walt and Dershowitz rebuttal and I will comment on the formers' counterattack against skeptics) and unforunately America is not as benevolent as they might seem to be. The US has a hidden agenda which has implicated a vast majority of Middle Eastern countries. I will write a post summarizing my senior thesis at the University of Chicago which discusses in depth the American-Egyptian USAID relationship and how the US has used the $2.3 billion in annual aid as a political leverage against the Egyptian government.
I would be skeptical of American interests in Egypt as well as in other Middle Eastern countries. In retrospect, the US has realized that it is better to maintain the status quo in Egypt as they saw that an introduction of democracy in Palestine has led to the rise of Hamas (an organization they consider a terrorist organization).
Since it is not transparent as to how the MB will change Egyptian society, the US prefers to have Mubarak (a US puppet in one sense)remain in power along with his NDP party. This is a realization ONLY in retrospect and that is why their response on the recent protests has been VERY SOFT. On the other hand, there are the contemplations that the MB can act as a buffer against the extremist group al-Qaeda and that point has also gone in to their calculation.
They are taking a laissez-faire approach to the situation in Egypt and leaving Mubarak to deal with the internal issues the 'old way.'
Egypt is for Egyptians and only that, the country should welcome American support but at the same time NOT control. The country needs to establish democracy on its own and in its own terms. If the allow the US to meddle, the region will end up with another failed state such as Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home