Egypt's Turmoil 2013: What Happened to Hope?

Not long ago, optimism and hope reigned among many around the globe. An "Arab Spring" seemed to be emerging, with tyrants and dictators overthrown along with their repressive regimes. Back then, one of IDEO's contributors shared a sense of optimism with regard to Egypt's revolution and the toppling of the Mubarak regime. At the same time, they cautioned that Egypt's aspirations for democracy would not be so easily achieved. Their caution was prophetic, for Egypt is once again in turmoil. For the elections in the wake of Mubarak's fall, produced an overwhelming victory for members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization not known for its democratic ideals. In Egypt's "first" revolution, muslims, Christians and secularists, liberal leftists and wary conservatives, all stood side by side as they called for Mubarak's ouster and for a new and free democratic Egypt. When their protests grew large enough to topple the Mubarak regime, it seemed Egypt had an opportunity to establish a new and free democratic society. Even when members of the Muslim Brotherhood won the presidency and the majority of seats in the new Egyptian parliament, people still held out hope for democracy. But President Morsi and his parliament chose to impose their own religious, political and economic ideology upon the Egyptian people. They produced a new constitution that failed to protect the liberties and rights of the Egyptian people, especially the religious minorities and secularists in the country. They moved the nation toward an islamist state, dividing the nation even more than it had been. [By islamist, I mean the belief that islam should be the basis for law and society, thereby ignoring -- even repressing -- the rights of those who do not agree with the tenets and beliefs of Islam, and in some cases preventing non-muslims from having any significant role in governing or making of laws.] While Morsi's dream for Egypt did not seem as extreme as the mullah controlled regime of a nation like Iran, it, nonetheless, oppressed and repressed the sizable minorities in the country who wanted their own rights and freedoms to be protected, not dictated, by the government. Of course, there were economic realities that contributed to the current "second" revolution, but these seem to be secondary. One need only look at the rhetoric espoused by Morsi supporters and critics alike. Morsi supporters claim that the revolution is anti-Islam and that protestors are upset that Morsi and the Egyptian parliament passed a constitution along with several laws that would bring Egypt in line with islamic law or principles. Anti-Morsi protestors cry out for freedom and complain that Morsi and his supporters were trying to make Egypt more islamist and less democratic. Both sides seemed to be in agreement; however, one views Morsi's political moves as good and morally right, while the other considers these moves anti-democratic and morally unjust. As our earlier IDEO contributor suggested, without political inclusion of minorities in the crafting of Egypt's new laws and constitution, the result would be a failure to achieve democracy. As A. Hussein suggested, democracy is difficult to achieve. But one thing is certain: whenever any group, religious or otherwise, imposes its view of "the good" upon others in a society, democracy is not present. And in the case of "democratic" political structures where majorities control via the electoral process, this is all the more evident. In 1780 John Adams put it this way: even when majorities when elections, a "tyranny of the majority" is still possible. We have seen this in America on many occasions, and we are now witnessing the consequences of this in Egypt. A. Hussein's and John Adams' caution is still relevant: majority rule is not equivalent to democracy or its relative, the republican/representative form of governance. Let us not give up on true democracy, for at its root, its goal is the freedom to govern ourselves and chart our own destiny as free individuals.