In an old post, I argued that democracy won't work in the Arab world for a very long time. The main argument was that in the presence of Islamists, voting will never be self correcting and people can keep voting in the same government even if it keeps making bigger and bigger mistakes. In light of June 30th, where millions of people took to the streets to topple the MB regime; and, I would argue even more critical, in light of the record yes vote for the 2014 constitution, this assertion needs revision.
Or maybe it really doesn't.
June 30th proves without a doubt that millions of people in Egypt would resort to street action against Islamists. The constitution referendum shows that equal numbers are ready to turn out at polls to vote for the polar opposite of the Islamist opinion. Does that mean the barrier to democracy has been removed?
To answer the question one has to note that there are two main political blocks in Egypt at the moment. One block is the "activists" or "revolutionaries" or any other such self styled descriptions. This is a group of people who see in themselves a representation. Of freedom, liberty, social justice, workers rights, anti-militarism, anti-chauvinism, and general goodness. However, this is also a group which is seen by the opposing group as soft on the security and integrity of Egypt, as defendants of terrorism while being very crass with security personnel who fall dead every day. The economic left-ness of this block is seen as driving away badly needed investment at a critical time. And the nationalist credentials and funding of a lot of the groups in this block are seen as suspect.
On the other side of the fence, there is a block of traditionalists, conventionalists, bootlickers, reactionaries, counter revolutionaries, regime ancien, or any other self styled or "made their own" insulting description initially invented by the "revolutionary" camp. The conservative camp sees itself as realistic, level headed, aware of Egypt's realities and priorities, and keen on the preservation of Egypt's territorial and social integrity. However, the opposing camp sees this camp as fascist, draconian, violent, militaristic, classist, oligarchic, and corrupt.
So the hundreds of parties and movements that resulted from Jan25 are coalescing under two large tents. One tent is seen as a champion of personal social freedoms, labour rights, higher taxes on the rich and not taking sharp positions on foreign policy. The other tent is keen on national security, fighting terrorism, supporting the troops, and stimulating the economy by lower taxes. Wait! That's the Democratic and Republican parties!
Isn't this awesome? The Egyptian experiment is yielding a two party system already. Perhaps the conservative camp is ascendant now and the revolutionary camp is fractured and needs more growth. But as long as watchdogs are keen and the trend is right, there will eventually be handover of power between these two camps in Egypt. Right?
Wrong!
The conservative camp might call the "liberal" camp in Egypt terrorist enabling along the same lines as in the US. The liberal camp might call the conservative camp fascist along the lines of some rhetoric in the US. However, there are fundamental differences. This kind of rhetoric in Egypt is not marginal for each camp, it is essential. There are no "centers" to the two camps that try to work out issues in a bipartisan manner while fringes duke it out in the media. Also when the conservative camp is described as fascist, it is absolutely a hysterical exaggeration, but not an extreme one. For this camp truly has been draconian. And when the conservative camp claims the liberals are foreign funded and completely unaware of Egypt's conditions, they are being dramatic but not drama queens.
Most of all when both camps accuse each other of enabling terrorism or exposing the country to the return of the MB, they are not just doing propaganda. The MB as a structured organization is probably dead, but the Islamist bulk that gave it some mass is still present. The Islamist golem is still at large, and if it finds itself a brain, it will illustrate for both camps the real meaning of fascism and compromising national integrity.
So while the local poor man's Jon Stewart May try to push against the conservatives as hard as the original does, and while the local Rush Limbaugh might try an (unbelievably more disjointed than the original) routine against the liberals, they can both rest assured that their mutual pushing against each other will only strengthen a possible Islamist comeback.
The Islamists are again blocking any real democracy in Egypt. But there might yet be a way out. Two things need to happen for democracy to function here. First the liberal camp has to become functional at an administrative and political level. Second Islamists must cluster under either of the two camps. Fundamentalist Christians in the US clustered under the Republicans. If Islamists in Egypt find an expression and an indirect way of accepting secularism through the liberal camp, without the liberal camp practicing its eternal habit of extracting joy from enabling religious fascism to rule, then there might be hope.
Or maybe it really doesn't.
June 30th proves without a doubt that millions of people in Egypt would resort to street action against Islamists. The constitution referendum shows that equal numbers are ready to turn out at polls to vote for the polar opposite of the Islamist opinion. Does that mean the barrier to democracy has been removed?
To answer the question one has to note that there are two main political blocks in Egypt at the moment. One block is the "activists" or "revolutionaries" or any other such self styled descriptions. This is a group of people who see in themselves a representation. Of freedom, liberty, social justice, workers rights, anti-militarism, anti-chauvinism, and general goodness. However, this is also a group which is seen by the opposing group as soft on the security and integrity of Egypt, as defendants of terrorism while being very crass with security personnel who fall dead every day. The economic left-ness of this block is seen as driving away badly needed investment at a critical time. And the nationalist credentials and funding of a lot of the groups in this block are seen as suspect.
On the other side of the fence, there is a block of traditionalists, conventionalists, bootlickers, reactionaries, counter revolutionaries, regime ancien, or any other self styled or "made their own" insulting description initially invented by the "revolutionary" camp. The conservative camp sees itself as realistic, level headed, aware of Egypt's realities and priorities, and keen on the preservation of Egypt's territorial and social integrity. However, the opposing camp sees this camp as fascist, draconian, violent, militaristic, classist, oligarchic, and corrupt.
So the hundreds of parties and movements that resulted from Jan25 are coalescing under two large tents. One tent is seen as a champion of personal social freedoms, labour rights, higher taxes on the rich and not taking sharp positions on foreign policy. The other tent is keen on national security, fighting terrorism, supporting the troops, and stimulating the economy by lower taxes. Wait! That's the Democratic and Republican parties!
Isn't this awesome? The Egyptian experiment is yielding a two party system already. Perhaps the conservative camp is ascendant now and the revolutionary camp is fractured and needs more growth. But as long as watchdogs are keen and the trend is right, there will eventually be handover of power between these two camps in Egypt. Right?
Wrong!
The conservative camp might call the "liberal" camp in Egypt terrorist enabling along the same lines as in the US. The liberal camp might call the conservative camp fascist along the lines of some rhetoric in the US. However, there are fundamental differences. This kind of rhetoric in Egypt is not marginal for each camp, it is essential. There are no "centers" to the two camps that try to work out issues in a bipartisan manner while fringes duke it out in the media. Also when the conservative camp is described as fascist, it is absolutely a hysterical exaggeration, but not an extreme one. For this camp truly has been draconian. And when the conservative camp claims the liberals are foreign funded and completely unaware of Egypt's conditions, they are being dramatic but not drama queens.
Most of all when both camps accuse each other of enabling terrorism or exposing the country to the return of the MB, they are not just doing propaganda. The MB as a structured organization is probably dead, but the Islamist bulk that gave it some mass is still present. The Islamist golem is still at large, and if it finds itself a brain, it will illustrate for both camps the real meaning of fascism and compromising national integrity.
So while the local poor man's Jon Stewart May try to push against the conservatives as hard as the original does, and while the local Rush Limbaugh might try an (unbelievably more disjointed than the original) routine against the liberals, they can both rest assured that their mutual pushing against each other will only strengthen a possible Islamist comeback.
The Islamists are again blocking any real democracy in Egypt. But there might yet be a way out. Two things need to happen for democracy to function here. First the liberal camp has to become functional at an administrative and political level. Second Islamists must cluster under either of the two camps. Fundamentalist Christians in the US clustered under the Republicans. If Islamists in Egypt find an expression and an indirect way of accepting secularism through the liberal camp, without the liberal camp practicing its eternal habit of extracting joy from enabling religious fascism to rule, then there might be hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment