Egypt’s spring fling

One major staple of former President Bush’s foreign policy was the notion that all human beings long for freedom, and that such longings are best achieved by—and instantiated in—democracy. As is well known, this noble principle stood as at least partial justification for the Iraq War. Though the war itself became overwhelmingly unpopular, most critics focused on the absence of “WMDs,” some version of neo-isolationism or conspiratorial sloganeering about oil, leaving President Bush’s political anthropology largely unscathed and unquestioned. Indeed, when the democracy question was raised at all, critics voiced their objection to the imposition of democracy though “the barrel of a gun,” and were thus largely concerned with the method of delivery rather than the sufficiency or universal appropriateness of democracy as such.

It is perhaps in light of this accepted sanctity of democracy that we can best understand the optimism (albeit cautious) with which the Western media has treated the Arab Spring phenomenon. Here we have various Middle Eastern nations from Morocco to Syria challenging their oppressive governments with minimal to no U.S. involvement. The uprisings have completely toppled the dictatorial leaders of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. As the unofficial motto of the movement clearly stipulates, “the people want to bring down the regime.” Considering that most such regimes are oppressive and dictatorial, to bring them down seems like a great idea on paper, but realistically we must consider not just what is taken down, but also what is built in its place. The sanguine assumption is that the method of replacement will be democratic and the substance of replacement more liberal, but a closer attention to the history and circumstances of the region gives us pause.

Iran, currently the Middle East’s most troublesome and dangerous theocracy, serves as a cautionary case of comparison. The deposed shah, like Egypt’s Mubarak, was as much of an ally as the United States could expect from the region. Both leaders brought their people a sea of trouble against which they could justifiably take arms, and in both cases a tentative alliance among secularists, socialists/leftists and religious fundamentalists was formed. The fundamentalists, not surprisingly, proved the tougher force in the end, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Why should we suspect a similar outcome for Egypt? In a June 2010 Pew opinion survey, 59 percent of Egyptians said they backed Islamists, as compared to 27 percent who favored modernization. According to the same survey, 82 percent of Egyptians support the death penalty by stoning for convicted adulterers, and another 84 percent support executing those who convert from Islam to another faith.

If such figures point to the possibility of a domestic nightmare, the implications of an Egyptian regime change and democratic elections are still more serious on an international scale. Consider that half of Egyptians support the (democratically elected) terrorist group Hamas. The most recent Pew poll, taken after Mubarak’s ousting, reveals that over half of Egyptians support the repeal of Egypt’s long-standing peace agreement with Israel, a key to regional stability. Tensions between Israel and Egypt remain high after a Sept. 10 incident in which thousands of “freedom” protestors decided to pay a visit to the Israeli embassy. In violation of the most basic expectations of diplomacy, the Egyptian government stood silent as the mob took a battering ram to the embassy wall, while as shouting the obligatory anti-Jewish chants and burning flags on the sidelines. A Muslim Brotherhood rally at a major Cairo mosque last Friday drew a crowd of approximately 5,000 people who chanted “Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Judgment Day has come,” and vowing to “one day kill all the Jews.” The Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group, enjoys the “very favorable” opinion of 37 percent of Egyptians (according to Pew) and the “somewhat favorable” opinion of an additional 38 percent. They have already outmaneuvered many of the more secular activist groups and expect considerable success in the coming elections.

The prospects don’t look so great for the Copts, the Arab world’s largest non-Muslim minority, either. Since the beginning of the year, several Coptic churches have been burned and looted, including St. Mina’s, Church of the Virgin Mary, St. Mary and St. Abinob. In keeping with the practice under Mubarak, the Egyptian authorities have barely acknowledged these attacks, let alone have they taken steps to punish the perpetrators. In what is now called the Maspero massacre, the Egyptian government murdered dozens of Copts and wounded hundreds more. Video and eyewitness evidence shows tanks chasing after and running over unarmed civilians. Many others were shot. Our incomparable President Obama resorted to the typical absurd equivalencies, urging both sides to exercise restraint. Bush was simply not smart enough to reach Obama’s heights of stupidity.

In short, if the growing unrest concerning the collapse of global financial system calls into question certain assumptions about capitalism’s connection to democracy, the so-called “Arab Spring,” particularly in Egypt, may very well demand an analogous re-evaluation of the supposed connection between democracy and freedom. Though the coming election may in fact bring good tidings, we might do well to recall Machiavelli’s sober advice that a city, corrupted after generations of despotism, will find it next to impossible to live in freedom, even if the offending princes and all of their descendants are destroyed.

Darren Beattie is a third-year Ph.D. candidate in political science. His column runs every other Monday.