It's a different matter in developing countries that do not have a democratic tradition. Egypt is but the latest example. Now that it seems certain that Mubarak's 30 year autocratic rule is at an end -- whether he leaves the country this week or drags it out a little longer -- the question arises: the people are crying for self-rule through democracy; but is the society ready for it?
Here we enter gray areas, multiple levels of gray areas. First, Mubarak argued that if he left now, chaos would be the result. Maybe, maybe not. But it's true there is no immediate organized group ready to take charge -- except the military. Which will probably be necessary as a transition, giving some time for free elections to be planned and carried out. There are indications that the Egyptian military (with whom we have a lot of influence) would be better than Mubarak's government trying to oversee the transition.
Looming on the fringes of the protest movement, but moving to become more central now, is the Muslim Brotherhood. And there are divided opinions about their intentions.
The conservatives, who want to see it all as black and white, paint the Brotherhood as all bad. An article in the conservative Washington Times cites a statement, reputedly quoting their "mission statement," saying that their work in North America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within. But the statement itself, citing "North America" suggests this may have nothing to do with the group in control of the Brotherhood in Egypt. And anything in the Washington Times is always suspect for objectivity.
What would be their role in Egyptian politics and governing bodies? As a different article in the New York Times points out,
"the Roman Catholic Church includes both those who practice leftist liberation theology and conservative anti-abortion advocates, so the Brotherhood includes both practical reformers and firebrand ideologues. Which of those tendencies might rise to dominance in a new Egypt is under intense discussion inside the Obama administration."We are fortunate to have the Obama administration, and Obama himself, in charge of our policy at this time, rather than a George W. Bush or a John McCain. Obama appreciates the complexity of the situation and has spoken with caution as this stunning political revolution takes shape.
Just as happened when Palestinians had elections and Hamas won such a sizable representation, we have to live with the results of free elections. Otherwise, we are saying we only support democracy when it goes our way -- which is not truly supporting democracy.
Hamas likewise has complex, multiple identities. Those who can see beyond the black/white surface know that it was the benevolent, social services providing Hamas that people voted for, not the militant jihadist Hamas.
So, too, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has its two sides. So far in this popular uprising, it seems not to be leading it so much as positioning itself to take part in the political process, hoping to win a sizable representation in a new government. Everyone seems to agree that the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge from this as a powerful political force in Egypt. If they renounce violence, accept the rule of law, and endorse democracy, then they should be welcomed into a representative new government -- as the Obama administration is saying.
Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institute said: “If we really want democracy in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be a big part of the picture. . . . Rather than demonizing them, we ought to start engaging them now." The New York Times article continues:
American politicians and pundits have used the Brotherhood as a sort of boogeyman, tagging it as a radical menace and the grandfather of Al Qaeda. That lineage is accurate in a literal sense: some Qaeda leaders . . . have roots in the organization. But Qaeda leaders despise the Brotherhood because it has renounced violence and chosen to compete in elections.The Brotherhood's deep hostility to Israel, which also reflects majority opinion in Egypt, presents one of the most difficult challenges for U. S. policy, along with its views on the rights of women and of religious minorities.
Another view is based in the fact that the Brotherhood was founded to promote social reformation by Islamic principles of preaching, outreach and the provision of social services to the people. Carrie Wickham, a political science professor at Emory and author of a 2002 book on Egypt and the Brotherhood, puts it this way: “It’s roughly analogous to the evangelical Christian goal of sharing the gospel. Politics were secondary.”
So, there is the dilemma. The Brotherhood will undoubtedly play a role in post-Mubarak Egyptian government. Will it be as a responsible partner or will it seek to take over? Was their past violence due to the repressive regime against which they were struggling? In a democracy would they be different? One of their leaders said, not long before the massive protests began, that they did not seek to monopolize power. “We want an atmosphere for fair competition now that can allow us to compete for power in the future. . . .And we want stability and freedom for people, not chaos."
Are we willing to trust that and allow a democratic process to evolve? Do we have any choice?
Ralph
Fareed Zakaria, writing in Time Magazine discusses Mubarak's mixed legacy. While a dictator, he has also been a stabilizing ally in the Middle East. While instituting some reforms, too many people have felt his repressive forces instead. And he stayed too long. Zakaria says:
ReplyDelete"Had Mubarak made the speech promising not to run again last year rather than on Feb. 1, he would have been hailed as a reformer ushering his country into a new era. Today, it seems too little, too late. But his reputation will depend in large part on what sort of regime succeeds him. If Egypt does descend into chaos or become an Iranian-style theocracy, people might look back at Mubarak's regime fondly. Ironically, if Egypt does better and turns into a functioning democracy, his legacy as the dictator who ruled his country before it moved to greater freedom will be more mixed."
That, of course, is the risk of giving people the right to select their government. It could go either way.
While I have no expertise in such matters, I did visit Egypt last year for 3 weeks. Of all the places I've visited, it was unique in that the people were modern and well educated, but living under what I considered grim circumstances. The unemployment is very high and visible. The infrastructure was crumbling. The overcrowding particularly in Cairo was palpable and the traffic was gridlock 24/7. In spite of that, the Egyptians were delightful, and I had great respect for their piety. Unless I missed something, Islam was as much a part of them as the air they breathed [through the smog]. It seemed like a personal Islam, not a crazy or political Islam - an organizing principle for personal life. I was impressed with the people, and with their religion. I was appalled by the conditions. The guides had pat explanations about future improvements to explain away the mess - building "another Nile" or a "new Egyptian Museum" - but ask anyone else and they laughed. It seemed "ungoverned" to me, in the sense of "uncared for." Alexandria, on the Mediterranean was a different scene entirely -manicured. My impression is that it was for the rich Egyptians.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be very surprised if it goes the way of Iran. I buy what the people themselves say. They just want better lives and a government that governs. They've got a very long way to go with 80 Million people in a country that's as long as the Nile, but only a very few miles wide. The rest is the sands of time.
I don't think what we do matters. We're not their problem. What they need is a government with a plan...