Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen… Today, we are all Egyptians

For nearly three weeks now, the streets of Cairo, Egypt have been flooded with thousands of protesters calling for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down after thirty years of oppressive rule.  Complicating matters for the U.S., Mubarak has been a loyal friend of the U.S. and a stabilizing force in the region against radical Islamist extremism.  Moreover, there are some indications that Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are taking advantage of this opportunity to press their own agenda, causing some in the west to fear a repeat of the Iranian revolution of 1979.   Caught in the middle are the vast majority of Egyptian nationals who simply want a better life with more freedoms, especially freedom from the oppressive tyranny they have been enduring for the last thirty years.  Yet, for the second time in two weeks, today Mubarak has declared he will not step down until September.

As Americans, it is right for us to sympathize with the Egyptian people.  One of my former students' recent Facebook posts reflects the right attitude:  "Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen.  Today, we are all Egyptians!"  But which Egyptians?  This is our real dilemma as Americans.  Certainly, many of us would welcome a secular democracy in Egypt, where individuals are free to pursue their own  dreams, while respecting the rights of other Egyptians to do the same.  This is perhaps our main objection to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.  Any group which imposes its own ideology on its fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is antithetical to genuine democracy.  This is true whether the group is religiously motivated or politically motivated by left or right wing ideologies. 

How do Egyptians find a path to genuine democracy when organized protest is the means by which they hope to achieve political victory?  While many of the protesters are crying freedom as the basis for their political action, what do these activists mean by 'freedom'?  The English language site for the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, implies that its real agenda is freedom.  However, a careful analysis of both their English and Arabic websites indicates an Islamist agenda, where Islam and Sharia are imposed upon society.  This is because to many Islamists, true freedom and peace come only from total submission to Allah (Islam) and Allah's Law (Sharia).  So, for these believers, freedom can be imposed from the outside simply by establishing a theocracy in accordance with the Qur'an and Hadith, at least a particular reading of these. 

In contrast, American Christians, particularly Protestants, have a unique perspective on the American notion of democracy.  The European religious struggles in the 16^th and 17^th centuries led to intense persecutions and wholesale disenfranchisement for those who did not belong to the dominant religious group of a region or country.  My own family heritage involved persecution and death at the hands of French Catholics, since my ancestors were French Huguenots.  Having fled to Nova Scotia to avoid persecution, arrest and death, my forebears eventually migrated to an isolated rural part of French speaking Louisiana, in what is sometimes referred to as Cajun country today.  These family members resisted the systematic pressures of Catholic practice, even marrying relatives in order to avoid becoming Catholic.  Even when Louisiana became part of the United States, it took nearly a century and a half for Protestants in the region to feel genuine freedom from religious oppression and pressure. 

As a Baptist, I also have a keen awareness of the religious persecution and struggle involved in the formation of the United States in the late 18^th century.  Baptists were influential in getting the freedom of religion clause included in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.  Baptists were a religious minority in both New England and Virginia, and knew first hand the political difficulties faced by minorities in any system of government.  They wanted to make sure their religious liberties were protected; however, they also knew that in order to secure their own liberty, they must protect the liberties of those with whom they disagree.  This is a fundamental aspect of American democracy, and all notions of democracy must include this basic principle in order to qualify as a genuine form of democracy.  This alone accounts for why Americans could not accept an Islamist involvement in a democratic Egyptian government.

    I could include American and European Jews, or other minority religious groups living in America in my discussion of the problem of achieving genuine democracy.  African-Americans, Native Americans, immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, all face similar difficulties of disenfranchisement, and sometimes persecution and outright hostility.  We are all well aware of the horrors and evil of racial slavery, and how an entire population was systematically exploited, abused and oppressed solely based on the color of one's skin.  And this evil was not remedied simply by the removal of slavery as a sanctioned social institution.  Even today, democracy is difficult in our country.  Some feel that the political and legal mechanisms and institutions in place today still have not granted true equality for many in our country.  Economic, political and social injustices still persist, in spite of our dreams of a truly democratic America. 

As you might be able to tell at this point, I do not see "majority rule" or "one person one vote" as the basis for democracy.  My notion necessarily includes both individual liberty and self-determination (self-governance) AND minority protections.  When any group, even a majority, can impose its will upon another, democracy is not present.  This is one of the main reasons the founders of American democracy tried to constitutionally limit the power of the federal government.  When a small group of people – a centralized government – can dictate its will, overriding the will of the local community or state, democracy is lost.  It is no different than the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist group dictating its religious ideology as sovereign law.  American democracy, in order to remain genuinely democratic, must remain predominantly decentralized, with a cooperative 'republic' forming the basis of national action.  This is the fundamental basis of American democracy.

If Egypt is to transition toward a genuine democracy, the people must have constitutional and political protections against the rise of Islamist rule, or even against a tyranny of the majority.  Minority rights and liberties must be protected and guaranteed.  The right of dissent is not an absolute right, meaning dissent cannot be used as a club to impose the will of the minority upon the majority.  However, without the right to dissent, democracy is equally impossible.  Egypt must find a way to navigate the treacherous waters of disagreement democratically if it is to eventually achieve some semblance of genuine democracy.  It has taken America over two hundred years and we are still struggling toward this ideal.  Certainly, it will take time in Egypt as well.  But if democracy in this sense is the goal of the Egyptian people, then truly today we are all Egyptians!

               -- David Adcock, managing editor