Democracy is cool. All of a sudden democracy is now supposed to be well and good according to Islamists. That's a far cry from the position their fathers took against democracy in royal Egypt. Back in the forties democracy was supposed to be an invention of infidels, an abomination beyond the pale. So what changed? Is it true that the Muslim Brotherhood now fully believes in democracy? The answer is that they do believe in elections, and they accept a lot of the mechanics of democracy, but this is where it ends.
What the west defines as democracy is necessarily liberal, secular democracy. Liberalism is a solid ideal that guarantees basic rights for everyone and full equality for all citizens. These basic principles are accepted by the absolute majority of the political spectrum in most countries. What Americans define as "Liberals" are no more committed to these basic rights than what Americans term "Conservatives." Secularism ensures that religious rights are preserved by separating structures of organized religion from the state. Again no significant political force in the US, for example, has any issues with secularism.
Liberalism ensures that democracy does not turn into mob rule. So amassing a majority does not allow said majority to control the basic rights and freedoms of the minority. Majorities and minorities are ideally political, reducing polarization and the survival mode the minority finds itself in when their rights are at the whim of the majority. Secularism ensures that arbitrary rules of one religion are not imposed upon followers of other religions or upon the state.
In the presence of liberalism and secularism democracy's only advantage is allowed to function: Self correction. If a government fails; whether the failure is economic, political, or social; the voters change it. If the government that follows is still bad, they can change it again. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the US refer essentially to economic left of center and right of center respectively (despite period eruptions of strawman arguments over abortion and gay marriage). Americans periodically switch between the two parties representing the two poles depending on the economic climate, public mood, or as punishment for poor performance.
Islamists in Egypt and the Arab world accept democracy as a mechanism of elections and majority rule. However liberalism as the granting of universal and equal rights to everyone is categorically refused. Secularism is not even open for question as far as all Islamists are concerned. The stated position is that liberal democracy is a western construct, and that Muslims should be allowed to fashion their own form of democracy which takes their cultural specificity into consideration.
However, in practice what this means is that democracy becomes a cyclical phenomenon of sectarianism, religious arguments, minority bashing, elections, then some more sectarianism and so on. Thus if the MB fails (as it is failing) to achieve any form of economic or political development of Egypt they will simply start a new episode of blaming Copts and Liberals for their failings and calling for more million man marches to "defend Islam." If the MB needs a law repealed or a law instituted or modified they can simply claim that it is in accordance/against Shariia and then claim that it isn't the MB that wants this law, but God. This happens to some degree or another in all countries. But what isn't common is that in Egypt a solid, ignorant, and impoverished majority will always bite the religious bait. The fascism and baseless supremacism combined with fatalism that the MB sells in time of need is something that a lot of Egyptians (and Arabs) are ready to buy. What is also unique to this brand of democracy is that in the absence of a constitution that guarantees full and equal rights to citizens, the ignorant majority always sees a very real chance to crush the minority scapegoats that keeps the MB bait fresh and alluring.
So the scary thing is, the MB can continue to be an utter failure, and continue to win elections and get majority support until Egypt is devastated beyond recognition.
This is all unfolding exactly as Egyptian Liberals expected, the real shock that's starting to set in is with intellectual moderate Islamists who dreamed of an idealistic brand of Islamic democracy only to be faced with the greasy failed fascism of the MB.
What the west defines as democracy is necessarily liberal, secular democracy. Liberalism is a solid ideal that guarantees basic rights for everyone and full equality for all citizens. These basic principles are accepted by the absolute majority of the political spectrum in most countries. What Americans define as "Liberals" are no more committed to these basic rights than what Americans term "Conservatives." Secularism ensures that religious rights are preserved by separating structures of organized religion from the state. Again no significant political force in the US, for example, has any issues with secularism.
Liberalism ensures that democracy does not turn into mob rule. So amassing a majority does not allow said majority to control the basic rights and freedoms of the minority. Majorities and minorities are ideally political, reducing polarization and the survival mode the minority finds itself in when their rights are at the whim of the majority. Secularism ensures that arbitrary rules of one religion are not imposed upon followers of other religions or upon the state.
In the presence of liberalism and secularism democracy's only advantage is allowed to function: Self correction. If a government fails; whether the failure is economic, political, or social; the voters change it. If the government that follows is still bad, they can change it again. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the US refer essentially to economic left of center and right of center respectively (despite period eruptions of strawman arguments over abortion and gay marriage). Americans periodically switch between the two parties representing the two poles depending on the economic climate, public mood, or as punishment for poor performance.
Islamists in Egypt and the Arab world accept democracy as a mechanism of elections and majority rule. However liberalism as the granting of universal and equal rights to everyone is categorically refused. Secularism is not even open for question as far as all Islamists are concerned. The stated position is that liberal democracy is a western construct, and that Muslims should be allowed to fashion their own form of democracy which takes their cultural specificity into consideration.
However, in practice what this means is that democracy becomes a cyclical phenomenon of sectarianism, religious arguments, minority bashing, elections, then some more sectarianism and so on. Thus if the MB fails (as it is failing) to achieve any form of economic or political development of Egypt they will simply start a new episode of blaming Copts and Liberals for their failings and calling for more million man marches to "defend Islam." If the MB needs a law repealed or a law instituted or modified they can simply claim that it is in accordance/against Shariia and then claim that it isn't the MB that wants this law, but God. This happens to some degree or another in all countries. But what isn't common is that in Egypt a solid, ignorant, and impoverished majority will always bite the religious bait. The fascism and baseless supremacism combined with fatalism that the MB sells in time of need is something that a lot of Egyptians (and Arabs) are ready to buy. What is also unique to this brand of democracy is that in the absence of a constitution that guarantees full and equal rights to citizens, the ignorant majority always sees a very real chance to crush the minority scapegoats that keeps the MB bait fresh and alluring.
So the scary thing is, the MB can continue to be an utter failure, and continue to win elections and get majority support until Egypt is devastated beyond recognition.
This is all unfolding exactly as Egyptian Liberals expected, the real shock that's starting to set in is with intellectual moderate Islamists who dreamed of an idealistic brand of Islamic democracy only to be faced with the greasy failed fascism of the MB.
No comments:
Post a Comment