Originally published on the CGS blog on July 10, 2013.
As the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins, the Arab world’s most populous country is teetering precipitously on the heels of a new revolution. Beginning in April, the grassroots Tamarod movement began to take Egypt’s citizenry by storm, collecting millions of signatures and calling for early elections and demonstrations on June 30, exactly one year after Morsi’s swearing in. Angered by Morsi’s “factional gain, zero-sum politics, and populist demagoguery,” the Egyptian people rose up into an angry collectivity, rivaling the size of Tahrir Square’s initial Arab Spring protests. Seeing the will of the people reflected in the sea surging into the streets, the Egyptian military took the initiative and removed President Morsi from power. As Egypt’s new interim government (headed by Interim President Adly Mansour and Interim Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi) begins to take shape, the country’s trajectory and its effect on the region has been thrown into question.
Even as the crowds began to converge and the world turned back to watch Egypt make history once again, the battle lines were already drawn in the sand between pro- and anti-Morsi forces. Competing protests took place in Cairo and Giza, with the pro-Morsi constituency, made up largely of Islamist Freedom and Justice Party supporters, squaring off against the anti-Morsi bloc, representing the liberal, centrist, and secular Egyptians, as well as those simply unhappy with Morsi’s tenure. But even while these divisions remain strong after the deposing of Morsi, unity is still the ultimate goal. Mohamed ElBaradei, Interim Vice President of Foreign Affairs and figurehead of the June 30 Front, declared that “[w]e cannot afford Egypt to fail,” and expressed that “qualified people from the Brotherhood, from the Salafists should be a part of this government. We need everybody to be part of the political process. We need a cohesive society that is tolerant, that respects each others’ differences.” ElBaradei is a proponent of a national concesus coalition government that would represent all social and political strata in Egypt, stretching the spectrum from secular to Islamist.
Many, though, have been quick to criticize this flexing of democratic muscles, hurling doomsday prophecies like an enraged Cassandra. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have made fast work of calling Morsi’s ousting a military coup d’état, a definition that would require financial aid to Egypt to cease. Senator Paul, in uniquely caterwauling Rand Paul fashion, labeled the new government a “military junta” whose empowerment must signal an end to American foreign aid to Egypt. The genuineness of Paul’s position, though, is conspicuously tenuous, as he’s in favor of significantly cutting our foreign aid budget, which he claims makes the US “less secure, not more,” in its entirety. To give credence to Senator Paul’s Monroe Doctrine-esque neo-isolationist guffawing is to give credence to a position that is no longer relevant or realistic in today’s globalized world. Already, effects of the uprising have been felt in the region; embattled Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan decried Morsi’s fall from power as “unacceptable,” while Saudi Arabia and the UAE have taken advantage of the leadership change by offering to loan a combined $8 billion to help prop up Egypt’s floundering economy. The United States cannot simply cut its losses and pretend it doesn’t have a duty to be a responsible actor in the international community.
Others outside the US government have also taken up the doomsayer mantle. There is a reasonable degree of confusion as to how Egypt’s new interim government will proceed, but this uncertainty has given way to unreasonable forecasting. A BBC News article, subtly titled “Is Egypt heading for holy war?”, foresees the worst-case scenario where the ousting of Morsi propels Egypt into a Muslim Brotherhood-supported jihadi bloodbath. Seeing Egypt’s tumultuous 1990s as a possible recurrence for the future, the author casually overlooks the fact that while that period was overseen by Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian, iron-fisted regime, Egypt is currently in the midst of democratic growth. To assume that the Muslim Brotherhood would jump to violence at the first sign of trouble rather than stay ensconced within the democratic process is unfair.
Admittedly, there is reason to at least be cautious. A bloody clash earlier this week between the military and pro-Morsi protestors outside the Republican Guard Headquarters left 51 dead and 435 injured. In addition, a number of arrests of Muslim Brotherhood officials, including its leader, have left many feeling anxious over the military’s continued involvement. Thomas Friedman, in a Tuesday New York Times op-ed, made the point that the Egyptian military must make it clear that “it ousted the Muslim Brotherhood for the purpose of a ‘reset,’ not for the purposes of ‘revenge.'” Further, he makes the point that a military-dominated state “can’t provide the kind of fresh thinking and educational, entrepreneurial, social and legal reforms needed to empower and unleash Egypt’s considerable human talent and brainpower.” This is a point that should not be overlooked. The true sign that the democratic process is making significant steps in Egypt will be when the military cedes its authority to the government. But we can’t drown ourselves in a deluge of depressed melancholy over the state of Egypt before we give them a chance to act.
Democracy is messy. Whether you look at the current state of American politics, the Arab Spring and its aftereffects, or to attempts at democratic self-determination around the world, it’s undeniable that democratization is an ordeal. The United States’ Constitution, it should be remembered, was our “take two” at self-governance after the Articles of Confederation didn’t work. Further, our history has been mired by instances of corruption, fraudulence, and incompetence, all speed bumps along the road to a more perfect union. Nascent democracies take steps every day, and it is our duty as their forebear to not stand in the way of their progress or failure. As Egypt continues down its own path toward achieving its own democratic future, we should not rush to early judgment or unjust pessimism. Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and now we must let the Egyptian people fight for the same without deriding their attempts to do so.
