Egypt deserves democracy
by Haluk Özdalga*

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has reached a point of exhaustion. Due to the Palestinian Papers recently released by Al Jazeera, Fatah’s reputation has hit a new low. A dangerous political crisis is simmering in Lebanon. Uncertainty continues in Iraq, and a solution to the tensions caused by Iran’s nuclear program is nowhere in sight.

Certainly, Egypt still faces major problems before it can achieve a transition to a stable democracy. However, it is one of the countries in the Middle East best suited for democracy, and it can achieve this. Egypt’s intellectual class, the heirs of a unique culture, has a capacity for strong, eloquent articulation. Four out of the five Nobel prizes awarded to those in the Arab world went to Egyptians. The country has a relatively strong entrepreneurial middle class with trade skills and a potential for rapid growth. Its economy is opening up to the world. And perhaps most important is the dynamic and growing demand for democracy from its people.

During the decades-long Mubarak era, Egypt, the political leader of the Arab world, followed a foreign policy guided by the US and Israel. As a result, its strategic weight and credibility in the region all but vanished. One terrible mark of its submission was the attempt to build an underground steel wall along Egypt’s border with Gaza, under the thumb of an inhumane blockade, using Israeli designs and American money. Another striking example came with the reconciliation negotiations between Fatah and Hamas held under Egypt’s mediation. In the most recent stage of the dragged-out talks, an agreement prepared by then-General Intelligence Services chief Omar Suleiman on Egypt’s behalf was signed by Fatah but deemed unacceptable by Hamas. We recently learned from Suleiman’s conversation with US Embassy officials in Cairo, as revealed by WikiLeaks, that Cairo’s main goal was actually to erode Hamas’ power and transfer Gaza’s administration to Fatah.

A half-decade ago, the success of the opposition in the 2005 general elections, including the Muslim Brotherhood, despite vote-rigging and manipulation, led Mubarak to worry about facing the ballot box in the presidential elections set for this year. So despite widespread criticism from lawyers and the opposition, constitutional amendments went into effect blocking candidates not favored by the regime and ending judicial supervision of elections. The Bush administration raised no serious challenge to these blatantly antidemocratic measures. At the time, the present author made the following comments: “As long as America’s and Israel’s policy of imposing their will by force continues, the number of countries in the region guided by America will not increase. To the contrary, pro-American administrations are currently under threat and could be overthrown. A regime change in any of these countries will have big consequences for the entire region.” (Zaman, Aug. 22, 2006).

Elections must be held as soon as possible

A great many of the 1.5 million pro-regime intelligence elements under Suleiman, as well as the supporters of the old regime, especially in the Interior Ministry, remain in office. As they could well resort to provocations and sabotage, it would be best if Egypt held fresh elections as soon as possible. Many of the political parties whose growth has been stifled up to now by the repressive Mubarak regime will probably take part in the polls as part of various alliances. There are several names that stand out for the presidential race. But the Muslim Brotherhood, which proved itself the most potent opposition force in the relatively low-fraud 2005 elections, isn’t nominating a candidate for president so as to appease circles that paint it as a monster.

In internal elections held at the beginning of 2010, Qutbis, followers of Sayyid Qutb, were elected to the brotherhood’s top administration. Qutb himself, the brotherhood’s most influential intellectual, had been executed decades before by the Nasser administration in 1965. In perhaps the first controversial elections in the group’s history, Mohammed Badie was elected to the brotherhood’s supreme guide, and moderate representatives of its young guard in top positions were swept aside. The brotherhood has many experienced politicians in their 50s, and almost all have spent time in jail, gotten experience in parliament or in groups affiliated with the organization and have strong rhetorical skills. Mubarak never dared to crack down as hard as Gamal Abdel Nasser, who once arrested 30,000 brotherhood members in a single night. Instead, every few years Mubarak would throw 1,000-2,000 members into jail on trumped-up charges, and their money would be confiscated. Despite this oppression, the brotherhood had a policy of non-confrontation with the regime and nonviolence and favored reaching democracy through a step-by-step process. The political path the brotherhood chooses in the post-Mubarak era will be significant for the future of democracy both in Egypt and the region at large.

In the face of the antigovernment protests, Washington, despite its ability to intercede in developments in Egypt through senior-level civilian and military officials, initially had trouble taking a clear stance. But in the final analysis, President Barack Obama’s administration came out with extraordinary support for the Egyptian people. It looks clear that, ultimately, Obama’s personal principles and sensible standing were key in this support. To grasp how extraordinary this was, it helps to remember the conditions Mr. Obama faced while events were still rapidly evolving: Initially there was inadequate intelligence; a secretary of state that was not the staunchest supporter of change; the neocons’ drumbeat of support for the old regime; the diffidence of the leaders of US allies in Europe; Israel’s tiring lobby; pressure from the Saudi dynasty and other Middle Eastern old allies and dictators; and perhaps most importantly, the fact that regime change in Cairo would imply drastic alterations in the US’s Middle East policy.

The US Israel-centric Mideast policy

America’s longstanding Israel-centric Mideast policy has failed to bring peace and stability to the region. This policy rests on two pillars: Close cooperation with dictatorships that ignore the people’s demands, as with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; and the formation of a US-Sunni Arab front that relies on exploiting the Shiite-Sunni divide. It is clear that if a popularly elected government comes to power in Cairo, then both of these basic pillars will have collapsed.

Israel, whose strategic calculations rest on the idiotic assumption that the region’s repressive regimes can endure indefinitely, was shocked by the course of events. Jewish circles that toe the line of Likud or even more extremist elements lobbied heavily in Washington. In tacit sync with the most degenerate dictators of the Middle East, the Netanyahu government put pressure on the Obama administration until the last second to stop the transition to democracy in Egypt. Hiding behind a pretext of supporting “stability,” they disgracefully pushed for “reforms within the regime, but not a regime change.” Israel’s supporters have long lauded it as the only democracy in a region thick with dictatorships, but now Israel has emerged as the biggest antidemocratic political force in the Middle East.

The peoples of the Middle East no longer strive for regimes given Israel’s seal of approval for their stability, but rather for the example put forth by Muslim Turkey, a country whose economy and democracy both grow stronger as time goes by, and especially over the last decade. Additionally, the brave-hearted attitude of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in recent years has echoed so powerfully among the peoples of the region that no smart decision-maker can ignore Ankara’s voice in the midst of critical popular developments such as what happened in Egypt. Nor was it ignored. If America is one of the two countries wielding the most influence on developments in Egypt, then Turkey is the other. But their influence works in sharply different ways. Backed by its military and economic power, America can present direct demands to the Egyptian administration, a tactic which yields uneven results. In contrast, the influence of Mr. Erdogan and Turkey is indirect, as they represent the emotions and longings of the masses. What this translates into in real life is that, whenever a popularly elected power appears in Cairo, Turkey will be able to take another giant strategic leap forward in the region. And everybody will end up winning.

Recent statements by political leaders in Britain, Germany and France show an unfortunate stubbornness to keep Europe on the wrong side of history. This will certainly mean the decline of Europe’s strategic relevance. Perhaps the most striking decision of the Merkel government was the announcement that they would give Mubarak permission to reside in Germany. It seems the EU’s contribution to the Middle East’s cries for democracy is confined to allowing ex-pharaohs to get medical treatment in Germany, shop in Italy and spend summers on the French Riviera. During the strategic upheaval in Egypt, EU leaders submissively deferred to President Obama’s lead, while the Turkish prime minister stood for Europe’s noblest values.

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s stance

On the Turkish home front, faced with Erdoğan’s early support for the Egyptian people’s demands for more democracy, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), charged that the prime minister had acted with excessive haste. And he voiced these strange sentiments two days after Mubarak was finally forced to leave office! Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wouldn’t dare say such a thing after Mubarak was swept aside, but Kılıçdaroğlu did. Could Kemal Bey have somehow dozed off? Across the Mediterranean, in a struggle for their dignity, a people rose up against tyranny and managed to overthrow a dictator in a dramatic display of peaceful resistance. However, because you lack any feelings of solidarity, you can’t utter a single word of support for the oppressed people, but instead accuse those who do provide support of acting hastily, and yet still call yourself a social democrat? Really, Kemal Bey? The CHP failed to understand the significance of the events in Egypt. They had no idea what was going on and didn’t offer a single meaningful comment. If Turkey had a social democratic party, it could have done a great deal, even in opposition. For example, it could have defended the Egyptian people’s demands for democracy, taken action at the level of Europe’s social democratic and green parties and even taken the lead on these platforms for solidarity. But instead what we got was senseless criticism.

Unfortunately, I was unable to go and join the people in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. But like almost all of my countrymen, my heart and mind were as one with them during the 18 days of gripping protest. I watched on Al Jazeera the resistance of a people without a leader and without organization, yet with unbelievable discipline. I listened to the songs of Umm Kulthum, the immortal voice of Egypt, from concert recordings I had bought from Cairo. They were calm and lively and sad and joyful, all at the same time. In the end, the children of Egypt for the first time became the owners of their own country. The cleaning of Tahrir Square after they made history was a sure sign of that. They not only overthrew a dictator, but in a way that befits Egyptians also shamed those who mockingly dismiss the Arab street. They do deserve democracy.