Democracy Is Not a Panacea, but It Is a Start — Fear of Unrest and the Unknown in Egypt

© 2011 Peter Free

 

03 February 2011

 

 

Introduction — there may be no such thing as a best form of government

 

History once led me to provisionally agree with a thoughtful friend, who once said, “Benevolent dictatorship, not democracy, is the best form of government.”

 

I would reword his sentiment to say that, “Competent, benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government for the duration that competent benevolence lasts.”

 

Obviously, the words “benevolent” and “competent” allow me to twist the meaning of that sentence any way I wish.  And further to take the statement from reality to fantasy.  Human endeavors are never completely beneficial (given conflicts of personal and public interest) or competent (given human nature).  So, at best, benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government in an idealized world.

 

Westernized democracy, messy though it is, sneaks back as a possibly superior form of government, given its provision for peaceful transitions of power.

 

But maybe not.

 

Our American democracy’s descent into plutocracy dims my People-oriented optimism for a governmental structure that lends itself to being taken over by forces of wealth that have virtually no regard for either nation or public.

 

Dictatorship and democracy may ultimately be running neck to neck in History’s long run.  And that’s why the unrest in Egypt poses significant problems for leaders considering how best to act in regard to it.

 

The choices we make in this regard reflect our deepest values.  The ones we actually act upon.

 

 

In regard to Egypt, some say, “Be careful what you wish for”

 

I’m one of those who instinctively want people to be free.  And, even with the geopolitical risks posed by a freed Egyptian public, I would quietly vote that way.

 

But there are sound objections to this thinking.  Realistically, most of us are too ignorant and too self-centered to be free and responsible toward others at the same time.  This is particularly true in regions of the world that lack the Commonwealth’s long history of citizen-acculturated democracy.

 

The lack of a democratic Egyptian heritage poses a conundrum for Americans in thinking about how to react to the unrest there.

 

Anti-Mubarak protesters wish themselves rid of the less-than-benevolent dictator.  Unfortunately, they have no leaders, no plan, and apparently no wish other than that the President depart.

 

The protesters’ magical thinking is visible.  One wonders, “Is a new, as yet un-named, guy going to be miraculously kinder and more competent to generate the institutions and the socioeconomic advancement that the protesters wish?”

 

Probably not.

 

The conundrum deepened yesterday, when events took a violent turn with the appearance of (probably planted) pro-Mubarak armed supporters.  Bloodshed prompted observers to surmise that the President sought to gain popular and foreign support, by demonstrating his ability to bring peaceful order back to the streets.

 

For the United States, the Egyptian upheaval opposes:

 

(a) Wilsonian idealism (making people free),

 

against

 

(b) American self-interest (in retaining a dictatorial ally against an Egyptian public that would probably be hostile, for historical reasons, toward the United States and Israel).

 

American leaders remember democratic votes that installed Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

 

Unspoken, too, is the American Plutocracy’s interest in retaining the status quo:

 

Power brokers in both parties are making huge money backing a brutal dictatorship -- and the government officials those power brokers influence are consequently backing away from their own purported commitment to democracy. It's cause and effect in a simple political machine -- money goes in, behavior comes out.

 

This "Stick with Mubarak or Get Terrorists" bumper sticker slogan is exactly the same thing you are hearing from so many high-profile American politicians these days as they attempt to pretend they support democracy, while cautioning against removing the despot.

 

© 2011 David Sirota, How Money Has Framed the Egypt Debate, Huffington Post (02 February 2011)

 

 

What to think — what to do?

 

Geopolitically, President Obama is on a tightrope.  According to America’s perversion of realpolitik, he has to be cautious about dramatically severing ties with a dictator whom the United States has supported for decades.  What message would that send to other autocrats, whom the United States also supports in challenging regions of the world?

 

At the same time, it is increasingly clear today that our hypocritical freedom rhetoric, but dictator-subsidizing ways are ethical evils that are catching up with us.

 

 

Being consistent to first principles would reduce the numbers of our enemies in the long haul

 

I differ with those who fear Islamic democracy.  I had no problem with Palestinians electing Hamas to power.  That’s what significant numbers of Palestinians wanted, in just the same way that Americans elected (and re-elected) President George W. Bush — who then started ill-advised wars.

 

One cannot reasonably argue on behalf of freedom as an absolute, and then limit it to some people and not others, based simply on whom they are going to decide are their enemies.

 

I say this knowing that a retreat from hypocrisy will cost us a short-term geopolitical price.  A dramatic escalation in Middle Eastern tumult will almost certainly result.  The United States may eventually have to intervene to protect Israel with military force.

 

However, in the long run, acting on our most fundamental principles — rather than on our short-term interests — should benefit us by removing the hypocrisy that is so clear to everyone in the Islamic world.

 

Hypocrisy breeds enemies.  Deadly hypocrisy makes for long memories.

 

A United States that actually walked its freedom talk would almost certainly have fewer rage-filled adversaries in the world.  Those that remained, most of us would be content to oppose.

 

In Egypt, the military is in charge and that won’t change

 

The uprising in Egypt may be less than it appears.  Calling for President Mubarak to leave, even if it happens, is not the same as effectively changing military control of the Egyptian state.  It is unlikely that events will swing so radically away from what has been the case for decades that American and Israeli interests will be greatly affected.

 

To a first approximation, it makes sense for the American President to speak on behalf of freedom, without committing the United States too obviously to an attempt to become an actively unsettling force in the region.  This is particularly so because Egypt seems not to have a solidified opposition leadership or freedom-plan in place.

 

The United States has too little power to affect what happens in Egypt, or in the region generally, to allow itself to be seen as identifying too closely with attempts to seat or unseat governments there.

 

 

 

 

The key element — which way is History flowing?

 

The key element is that the United States can no longer afford to be perceived as a nation that directly or indirectly subjugates other peoples for its own interests.

 

The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt demonstrate which way History is flowing.  It is moving toward an expanded global consciousness among even the most repressed populations.

 

Serving as a symbol of success in humanity’s aspiration to multi-ethnic freedom is what the United States should aspire to.

 

That may mean that a principled 1776 Nation will have to tolerate the birth pains of movements and governments that oppose American interests for nation-building reasons of their own.

 

This is not a prescription for long-term American disaster.  The Soviet Union’s existence made the United States stronger.  So will the challenge posed by the People’s Republic of China, provided Americans overcome their self-destructive complacence.

 

On balance, the rising in Egypt is an opportunity for Americans to continue to model their ideals, without too explicitly interfering in other peoples’ destinies.

 

An overtly or covertly imperial United States is a contradiction in terms.  “We” need to teach our plutocracy that.  Like humble Egyptians, we Americans have our own battles with repression to fight.