If you're watching anything other than Egyptian state run television, you already know this. And if you listened to Mubarak's speech yesterday with a critical ear, you're not a bit surprised. Pro-Mubarak "demonstrators" in Cairo have lashed out violently against the pro-reform protesters. Mubarak is trying to take back the streets of Egypt, and he's turning to the darker elements in society to do it.
Or he's turning to the police. Or the police and the darker elements in society are the same thing. CNN's Ben Wedeman reported Sunday night that a source in his neighborhood in Cairo, a member of the Egyptian military, claims that several captured looters had forgotten to take their police identification cards out of their pockets before they started smashing up shops. Al Jazeera has made similar reports. No wonder Mubarak's thugs have been trying to intimidate foreign reporters; their work is making it impossible for the regime to claim that the violence started with the anti-government protesters.
Mubarak's cops might have wised up and and stopped carrying their badges, but it's too late. The transparent attempt to fool people into believing that some Egyptian citizens love their corrupt dictator enough to fight for him spontaneously won't be believed. The agents provocateurs are unmasked. While it's unlikely ever to be conclusively proven that those police officers were acting under orders, the circumstantial evidence is clear. Desperate to hold onto power, Mubarak is hoping to turn this narrative into a story about order battling to overcome chaos--and hoping that nobody will notice that the forces supposedly responsible for order are the ones creating the chaos.
It's not. It's a story about freedom crying out to be released from oppression. It's a story about justice trying to overcome corruption. It's a story about the weak finally discovering that, when they stand together, they are powerful.
Or at least it can be. There are still too many ways that this story could end for anyone to state conclusively what it's going to be about. The important thing right now is to deny Mubarak the privilege of writing the next chapter.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
What Egypt Needs Now
Is it presumptuous of an American blogger to post an entry with a title like that? Probably. But I've heard a lot of talk about how Americans--specifically, the political elite--think that the...do we call it a revolution? in Egypt ought to go, and I think that it's a lot more presumptuous to think you have a say in the outcome of another country's elections than to talk a little bit about what meaningful reform might look like.
American policymakers do not have a say in the outcome of any elections that take place in Egypt or anywhere else. Established democracies might be of help in ensuring that elections are truly free and fair. And if those elections are free and fair, we don't get to decide that the government that results isn't legitimate simply because we don't like it. America does not have a right to ensure that Egypt's next government will be pro-western. Look up sovereignty--it means that a state has a fundamental right to seek its own interests. An ally isn't a foreign state that we control; a true ally is a sovereign state whose interests coincide with ours, such that we can cooperate on pursuing those common interests. But to think that our allies' interests should be determined by or subordinate to our policy goals is an example of the kind of arrogance that has undermined goodwill toward the United States all around the world.
It's a lesson we haven't learned even after decades of propping up brutal dictators because we fear what democracy will bring. Instead, we should courageously embrace democracy every place that it takes root, trusting that if we work in genuine partnership with our democratic allies, we may not get everything we want, when we want it, but we can be secure in the knowledge that we haven't sold our freedom-loving souls for the promise of cooperation today and the risk of enmity tomorrow.
There's been a lot of talk about the need for meaningful reform in Egypt, and some discussion of the timing. Yes, faster would be better. And dictator Hosni Mubarak's declaration last night that he intends to serve out his term in office so that he can make sure to shape the reform process and determine what sort of government will follow him is clearly unacceptable. It's a transparent attempt to consolidate state power, perhaps in hopes of passing the baton to his son, but certainly in hopes of making sure that the form of government he has maintained over nearly thirty years will not fundamentally change. That's not good enough for the citizens of Egypt, and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone who values government by the people, for the people.
What should meaningful reform look like? In a country which, on paper, already has a robust democracy (Fun fact: Egypt's constitution was modeled after those of France and the United States), how can the next generation of leaders secure the hard-won gains of the movement now under weigh? I have a few suggestions.
1. Clear separation of powers. The powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of Egypt's government are too muddled up. The most vivid example of this is the fact that no candidate can stand for election to the presidency unless parliament approves. The party that controls parliament controls the presidency--and the president who controls that party controls the country. The opposition doesn't get a look in.
2. No proscribed political parties. Or, at the very least, clear and specific criteria for which parties may be banned. A political group that isn't engaging in any violent acts and wishes to participate in the democratic process must be allowed to do so. There's no such thing as democracy in a one-party system. No single leader or party is ever going to get it right all the time; when those with opposing views are able to mount a genuine electoral challenge, the people win every time.
3. Limits on police power. Americans take this for granted. If the cops want to arrest you, they have to show probable cause. They don't even get to beat a confession out of you. And you get to see the evidence against you, seek the advice of an attorney, and have a real trial. Democracy in Egypt won't survive long unless Egyptians secure the same rights, with the backing of an independent judiciary (see point 1 above).
This stuff is all so fundamental that my American readers will think I've gone off my rocker for even bringing it up. But anyone who's lived in Egypt in the last thirty years knows that these fundamentals will have to be secured for the future of the country. There's so much more I could talk about...the corruption, the poverty, the crumbling infrastructure. But if you've got to put out the fire before you rebuild the house, think of these three points as my idea of a fire hose.
And not a fire hose that's turned on the protesters.
American policymakers do not have a say in the outcome of any elections that take place in Egypt or anywhere else. Established democracies might be of help in ensuring that elections are truly free and fair. And if those elections are free and fair, we don't get to decide that the government that results isn't legitimate simply because we don't like it. America does not have a right to ensure that Egypt's next government will be pro-western. Look up sovereignty--it means that a state has a fundamental right to seek its own interests. An ally isn't a foreign state that we control; a true ally is a sovereign state whose interests coincide with ours, such that we can cooperate on pursuing those common interests. But to think that our allies' interests should be determined by or subordinate to our policy goals is an example of the kind of arrogance that has undermined goodwill toward the United States all around the world.
It's a lesson we haven't learned even after decades of propping up brutal dictators because we fear what democracy will bring. Instead, we should courageously embrace democracy every place that it takes root, trusting that if we work in genuine partnership with our democratic allies, we may not get everything we want, when we want it, but we can be secure in the knowledge that we haven't sold our freedom-loving souls for the promise of cooperation today and the risk of enmity tomorrow.
There's been a lot of talk about the need for meaningful reform in Egypt, and some discussion of the timing. Yes, faster would be better. And dictator Hosni Mubarak's declaration last night that he intends to serve out his term in office so that he can make sure to shape the reform process and determine what sort of government will follow him is clearly unacceptable. It's a transparent attempt to consolidate state power, perhaps in hopes of passing the baton to his son, but certainly in hopes of making sure that the form of government he has maintained over nearly thirty years will not fundamentally change. That's not good enough for the citizens of Egypt, and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone who values government by the people, for the people.
What should meaningful reform look like? In a country which, on paper, already has a robust democracy (Fun fact: Egypt's constitution was modeled after those of France and the United States), how can the next generation of leaders secure the hard-won gains of the movement now under weigh? I have a few suggestions.
1. Clear separation of powers. The powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of Egypt's government are too muddled up. The most vivid example of this is the fact that no candidate can stand for election to the presidency unless parliament approves. The party that controls parliament controls the presidency--and the president who controls that party controls the country. The opposition doesn't get a look in.
2. No proscribed political parties. Or, at the very least, clear and specific criteria for which parties may be banned. A political group that isn't engaging in any violent acts and wishes to participate in the democratic process must be allowed to do so. There's no such thing as democracy in a one-party system. No single leader or party is ever going to get it right all the time; when those with opposing views are able to mount a genuine electoral challenge, the people win every time.
3. Limits on police power. Americans take this for granted. If the cops want to arrest you, they have to show probable cause. They don't even get to beat a confession out of you. And you get to see the evidence against you, seek the advice of an attorney, and have a real trial. Democracy in Egypt won't survive long unless Egyptians secure the same rights, with the backing of an independent judiciary (see point 1 above).
This stuff is all so fundamental that my American readers will think I've gone off my rocker for even bringing it up. But anyone who's lived in Egypt in the last thirty years knows that these fundamentals will have to be secured for the future of the country. There's so much more I could talk about...the corruption, the poverty, the crumbling infrastructure. But if you've got to put out the fire before you rebuild the house, think of these three points as my idea of a fire hose.
And not a fire hose that's turned on the protesters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)