Alphen,
Netherlands. 5 July. In a master-class of under-stated British
diplomatic fudgery Foreign Secretary (and fellow Yorkshireman) William Hague
said of the Egyptian Army’s ‘soft coup’, “It’s happened, so we will have to recognise
the situation will move on”. Implicit in
that statement is recognition that if Egypt is to create Egyptian democracy 2.0
one would not ideally start from here to paraphrase that old Irish joke. So,
what should the West now do?
Four principles should
be adhered to: the Army return to barracks as soon as possible; a real process
of political transition begins; the EU and US closely coordinate their support
for the Egyptian people; and Egyptian democracy 2.0 is given every chance to
succeed.
What is happening in
Egypt is fundamental change. One in four
Arabs is Egyptian. What happens in the
most populous Arab state reverberates across the Middle East. However, Morsi’s removal opens a very
uncomfortable question for those in the West who believe in democracy at all
and any cost. Moreover, whatever one
thinks of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi he was elected with 52% of
the popular vote, passed a constitution with the support of 62% of the
electorate and has been forcibly removed from power by the Army after one year
in office. And, do not be misled by
television pictures of Cairo’s Tahrir Square – 70% of a conservative Egyptian population
ascribe to some form of Islamism.
Although there is clear
evidence that the now former President Morsi was resorting to ‘majoritarianism’,
i.e. ruling (not governing) in favour of those who supported him and not the
country as a whole, he remains the only legitimately elected president in
Egypt’s history. Morsi’s crucial mistake
was his November 22nd, 2012 edict granting himself almost unlimited
powers. However, even given that mistake
President Morsi should not have been removed from office after only year and
for many of the 85 million Egyptians he remains the elected president. Like it or not the Muslim Brotherhood must
play a role in any future political settlement.
The alternative is unthinkable.
However, sustainable
democracy can only flourish when a) the majority of the people across the
political spectrum share sufficient commonality of values; and b) all the
political parties that represent them are prepared to live by democratic rules. In Egypt neither of those preconditions for
stable democracy exists. There is no
apparent common ground between the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood and the
many secularists and others who occupy Tahrir Square and who now ironically see
the Egyptian Army as their political saviours.
In other words Egyptian democracy will take time.
So, where does Egypt go
next? There is a curious political
phenomenon in the Middle East. In those
Arab states experimenting with democracy almost everywhere anarchy is close to
breaking out or killing people in large numbers. Whereas those Arab states that have retained
a monarchy are for the moment relatively (and I stress relatively) stable.
How does this apply to
Egypt? The first order principle is to
put aside scruples about perfect democracy and work with those in power to
stabilise the situation. Specifically, that means helping the process of
political transition towards enduring political institutions, a free press and
an independent judiciary. Nor is Egypt
Syria even if experience of the past two years would suggest that unless the
West pulls what levers it has Egypt too could descend into violence and no
Egyptian deserves that. And the West
does have some economic and military levers.
Therefore, instead of
investing in recreating another ‘democratic’ version of a Nasser, Sadat or
Mubarak, the strong man who becomes part of the problem, political transition
should focus on making the Egyptian Parliament the centre of political gravity. Parliaments have rules for democratic engagement
and those that flout those rules can be sanctioned as in any other
parliamentary democracy. Here the EU
could play a pivotal role.
The US has a critical
role to play with the Egyptian Army leadership as Washington provides $2bn of
military aid each year and it would be fanciful to believe the generals will
not have a significant political role to play.
However, some legitimacy for its role could be derived if its call for
national reconciliation leads to the stability upon which parliamentary
democracy rests. The Army would swear
allegiance to a constitutional head of state but in whom little political power
is invested even if such a leader needs to be a statesman recognised both
nationally and internationally. Mohammed
ElBaradei comes to mind.
It is of course up to
the Egyptian people to decide their future.
Critical to any successful transition will be sufficient people of an
Islamist political bent willing to support Egyptian democracy 2.0.
What is the
alternative? There can be no democracy
without stability and instability in the Middle East can be murderous.
Julian Lindley-French
