By EDSON MUIRAZEQUE
On February 3rd 2011, The Economist[1] wrote an article that begins with this statement: “The West should celebrate, not fear, the upheaval in Egypt”. In that article the magazine shows that the popular upheaval that overthrew Mubarak in Egypt in 2011 is an opportunity to bring about democracy to that country. It criticizes those in the West who tend to put stability above democracy when dealing with the Middle East, and who sees the revolution in that country as a disturbing matter. Although the pessimists “point out that Egypt has neither the institutions nor the political leadership to ensure a smooth transition”, the article argues that there's no other better alternative to democracy.
I am beginning this essay quoting The Economist article only to show that it is difficult to say if the developments in Egypt will result in democracy or if we will see another authoritarian regime rising to power. After overthrowing Mubarak from power, the Egyptians are now facing there major challenge: how to overtake the tussle among the military, the Islamists and the liberals and conduct a successful democratic transition. The big question here is: which role each one of these actors will be playing in the new Egyptian political life?
All the three referred actors of the Egyptian political life are seeking power. The military seized the power after Mubarak fall, acting as the ultimate guarantor of stability in the country. Apparently, they are not interested in running the country and they are anxious to return to the position they occupied in the Mubarak regime. In public statements, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) guarantees the people that the military do not constitute an obstacle to a democratic transition. Actually, they are taking the task of “guiding the country toward a democratic transition, maintaining stability, and ensuring continuity until a parliament and a president are elected”[2]. But there is a difference between discourse and reality. What someone says in a discourse does not mean that he will do it in the real life.
The military are known to have had a privileged position during the Mubarak regime. According to Ottaway[3] the military have a big share in controlling the Egyptian economy, with estimates ranking from 5 to 40 percent. Actually, although the SCAF states that the military are not interested in replacing a civilian government, they not interested in subordinating their self to one. They fear that subordinating their self to a civilian government can mean losing their assets in the economy. Well, the military are facing a dilemma. If they give up to power and put it in a civilian democratic elected government they risk losing the privileges they had on the Mubarak regime. But, on the contrary, if they maintain the power for themselves they will break the principle that has been guiding the military since the Mubarakan times: the idea that they are the ultimate guarantor of stability. Actually, the military backed the revolution in Tahrir Square by not intervening against the people who were protesting against the former president.
While the military are facing a certain uncertainty about what will be an Egipt post-Mubarak, the Islamists are viewing the recent developments in Egyptian politics as a unique opportunity to capture the power. The Mubarak regime used to forbid any kind of Islamic political party in the country. After decades of authoritarianism of Mubarak, a period in which Islamic political parties was banned from the Egyptian political life, the 2011 revolution brings hope for those who a eager to see the principles of Islam embedded in the Egyptian society. This means that there are people hoping that through a democratic electoral process the Islamists will prevail and they will use the ideals of the Qur'an and Sunnah as a way of life, as the main reference to the building of the Egyptian state. Actually, when in the Mubarak regime the political parties were disbanded, the only political groups that were capable of surviving the government repression was from the Islamists, mainly the Muslim Brotherhood. Under the authoritarian regime, the Muslim Brotherhood was the sole alternative to whom the people could count on with.
Because political parties were forbidden in the Egyptian political life, the people learnt to rely on the Islamists. The results of the elections occurring in the country shows the Islamists up front and “analysts says preliminary results suggest Freedom and Justice Party [a political branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] could win as many 40% of seats in new legislature”[4]. Although the Islamists are going to dominate the new parliament pos-Mubarak through democratic means, they will be facing the challenge of a stereotyped image that have been created about them. Unfortunately for the Islamists, there is a negative image that follows them when they involve themselves in politics. There is the fear that when an Islamic party rises to power that means that the other religious sects will be disbanded and forbidden. The big challenge of the Islamists in case of dominating the political processes will be overcoming this image and running a country that has different sects without discriminating any.
The liberals are becoming, as Ottaways calls them, illiberals[5]. According to this author, in Egypt illiberal democrats are those who advocate democracy, but in the end are so worried that democracy will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power that they turn to illiberal positions and advocate illiberal policies in the hope of avoiding such an outcome. What I am trying to say with this quotation is that, after all, democracy is a relative concept. Although it is defined as government by the people, rule of the majority, or a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections[6], usually democracy is limited to the interests of those who consider themselves democratic. There are people who believe in democratic principles only if they do not put on power who they consider non-democratic. Because they fear the Islamists, they prefer to go on with an authoritarian government than let those who were chosen by the people to run the country.
Going back to the question asked I would say that the outcome of the tussle among the military, the Islamists and the liberals in Egypt depends on whether they are committed to satisfy the peoples will or if they are eager to meet their own interests. All the tree actors must respect the peoples will. And if that people will means put the military in the back seat of the issues of running the country, being there as the guarantor of the country's stability, then be it. And if that means put the Islamists in power and the so-called liberals in the opposition, then let it be as the people wants. Above all, if what is going to result is a democracy or some other form of rule that depends in how committed are the tree actors and the people as a whole to the form of rule they are going to build in the country.
But there is also a say about the role the international community should play in Egypt. And for this way of thinking is quite simple: let the Egyptians decide themselves on what is best for them. Unfortunately, the international community sometimes contributes to negative outcomes of political processes even if it occurs in a democratic way. This is what happened when the Hamas won the elections in Palestine. Instead of rewarding the Palestinian people for being able to make its own choice, the international community punished it for not making the choice the so-called international community wanted. The international community imposed sanctions on the movement but who suffered most was the helpless people.
On the role of the international community just say that, ideally speaking, it has to respect the choices of the Egyptian people and make every effort necessary to help the Egyptians in this new era of state building. But for that, the Egyptians must conduct their political processes respecting the views of each other and taking in account that they are an island, they are part of a big community of nations of the world.
[1] http://www.economist.com/node/18070190
[2] Ottaway, Marina. Egypt’s Democracy: Between the Military, Islamists, and Illiberal Democrats. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/11/03/egypt-s-democracy-between-military-islamists-and-illiberal-democrats/6lzl#
[3] Ibid.
[4] Shenker, Jack. Egypt election results put Muslim Brotherhood ahead. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/30/egypt-election-results-muslim-brotherhood
[5] Ottaway, Marina. Egypt’s Democracy: Between the Military, Islamists, and Illiberal Democrats. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/11/03/egypt-s-democracy-between-military-islamists-and-illiberal-democrats/6lzl#
[6] Merian-Webster. Democracy. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário