Democracy — Your mileage may vary. By George Jonas. National Post, August 24, 2013.
Jonas:
Egypt
is a sufficiently large and complex country to stymie not only friendly
foreigners who try to rule it, but its own inhabitants. What seems evident is
that ruling it requires the support of the military, and the support of the
military cannot be taken for granted by anyone.
Egypt’s
regime change this summer, though precipitated by huge popular demonstrations,
is, for all intents and purposes, a military coup. Few dispute this, but let me
go further and suggest that Egypt experienced two military coups in less than
three years, disguised as popular revolts. The first coup toppled the long
dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak; the second nipped the attempted dictatorship of
Mohammed Morsi in the bud. It appeared both Mubarak and Morsi thought (or
hoped) that Egypt’s military under General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi would side with
him against Egypt’s rebels, whether Islamic fundamentalist or liberal
secularists, but the general ended up siding simply with himself both times.
Now he seems all set to hold the reins of power in his own hands until someone
capable, and of whom he approves, agrees to hold them on his behalf.
The
Egyptian military may be every bit as as loyal to its country as other
militaries are to theirs, but it is loyal to its own concept of Egypt, not
somebody else’s. They don’t like an ex-military man like Mubarak when he shows
signs of trying to start a dynasty in his old age, and like an ex-Muslim
Brotherhood activist like Morsi, who uses his electoral victory to build a
theocracy in Gen. el-Sisi’s Egypt, even less. The Junker-class of the country
may not be democrats, but they seem equally uninterested in becoming armed
servants in King Mubarak’s court or soldiers in the pay of some bearded council
of ayatollahs, like Muslim equivalents of the Pope’s Swiss Guard. They want to
rule themselves, or even better, have someone rule on their behalf.
That’s
what everybody thought Mubarak did for many years, as he may have, until he
started working for himself. A long-time dictator can easily develop the
delusion that he doesn’t work for the generals, the generals work for him. If
so, it was a fatal error. It made Mubarak’s illusion of having the military “behind
him” actually mean that he had his enemy at his back.
Every
culture wages war its own way. In Egypt military coups are demilitarized. They
are ostensibly civilian conflicts, instigated and carried out by civilians, at
most involving the police. The soldiers don’t leave their barracks until the
civilians are at each others’ throats, then show up with the big guns, do the
real coup under the guise of restoring peace, and return to barracks with a
renewed lease on power as their trophy. In a coup, Egyptian-style, the
contestants box in the ring for the championship, and the referee gets to take
home the belt.
The
events that led to Gen. el-Sisi & Co. taking over Egypt had no single
cause, but the Obama-administration kick-started the process with the President’s
2009 speech at Cairo University. “A New Beginning,” the title chosen for Obama’s
address, was a performance worthy of the sorcerer’s apprentice and had roughly
the same result. The convolutions of the
region haven’t subsided yet. On the whole, it is a good idea not to push
buttons without knowing what they might activate, which in some parts of the
world may mean not pushing any buttons, at least for a while.
Two
years ago I wrote that toppling strongmen in the Middle East may or may not be
good news for Western democracies, and may or may not be a good idea for the
countries involved. It depends on who replaces the strongmen. Stronger men?
Weaker men? Better men? Democrats?
What I
didn’t write then, but will write now, is that if it’s democrats, it may not be
good news for democracy. Democrats coming to a region before it’s ready for
them, can have a deleterious effect on both the region and democracy.
Democracy
is a superior system when it functions, but so far it hasn’t functioned
consistently except in a handful of Western countries. Like an exotic car, it’s
sensitive, and requires expert drivers and well-paved roads. On unimproved back
roads a simpler, sturdier design performs more reliably. A stable, benevolent
autocracy may offer more mileage and a safer drive than a volatile, sensitive
democracy under some circumstances.
In
February, 2011, I wrote that the great Western democracies were never above
accepting help from tin-pot dictators, only above helping them when they got
into trouble. Strongmen were well advised to remain strong, because they couldn’t
count on the West even for refuge, let alone rescue. Now with Egypt’s new
rulers, we have the choice of sitting on our democratic high horse and say to
Gen. el-Sisi: You can’t be our friend unless you let our enemies rule your
country. You won’t see a penny, unless you honour the election results.
Or
President Obama can say, well, I won’t make any speeches in Cairo for a while.
How is that for a new beginning?
