 |
| A protester leads demonstrators in chants against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Tahrir Square [Getty] |
 |
| The fallout from the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt will shape a new geopolitical structure in the Middle East [CC -Jacob Anikulapo] |
Hosni Mubarak is still president of Egypt, but his days in power are numbered; there will be no Mubarak dynasty either. The authoritarian order in Egypt and throughout the Arab world has been profoundly shaken. The ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia, a remarkable event in itself, now appears to have been the trigger for a far broader upheaval that is shaking regimes across the region.
Since Mohamed Bou'azizi set himself alight in Tunisia on December 17, self-immolations have taken place in Egypt, Algeria, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Unprecedented demonstrations have since spread to Algeria, Jordan, and Yemen. Remember too that all this was taking place against the backdrop of a tense regional environment: the dangerous paralysis in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, a simmering crisis in Lebanon, continuing uncertainties over Iraq, and the Iranian nuclear issue.
Egypt as a catalyst?
Should we laugh, or cry, when Deputy Foreign Minister A Kohilan Pillay moaned about his inability to bathe or sleep in his Five Star hotel bed when he was in Cairo to assist stranded Malaysians?
Most people, when interviewed, would have enthused about being in Egypt where a historic and momentous occasion in its history (and also of the middle-east) is being made and where events are fast unfolding.
We do not mind so much Kohilan’s incredulity at not being able to perform his ablutions but as a minister, he displays a shocking lack of perspicacity.
Instead of being aware of his surroundings, Kohilan’s highlight during his Egyptian experience was ‘not being able to take a bath’. He displayed admirable performance with his role as a stranded tourist, rather than the over-worked foreign diplomat.
He said, “I did not have a bath for two days and slept in an airport terminal.”
Perhaps Kohilan is ill-suited to his portfolio at the Foreign Ministry. Perhaps our diplomats are spoilt after cocktail parties at the High Commission, making small talk with celebrities and CEOs of First World countries. Perhaps someone omitted to tell Kohilan that not all events at various global locations are cushy postings. Let us hope the Ministry does not send Kohilan to a war-torn country.
Last November, Kohilan appeared to be confused about his tasks in the Ministry. He had indicated in Parliament that Wisma Putra was monitoring Malaysians who travel abroad as well as those who reside overseas “to ensure that they safeguard the good name of the country and government leaders.”
He blamed “irresponsible” Malaysians for tarnishing our good name abroad and suggested that such people are “traitors.”
Kohilan was trying to tell us that Malaysian diplomats had a “licence to spy” on its own citizens.
So, was the intervention of First Lady Rosmah Mansor inevitable after she had heard of the dismal performance of both Kohilan and his boss, Anifah Aman?
That is the impression that was given by Rosmah when she said it was entirely her effort that enabled the successful repatriation of Malaysians from Egypt.
When Kohilan was interviewed about his time in Egypt, diplomats like him need to weigh their words very carefully. In this instance, he appeared to take little notice of his surroundings and seemed selfish and only concerned about his well-being.
He was present in a Muslim country which is on the cusp of achieving democracy. He should be more aware than others that Muslim states in that region have been subject to autocratic rule under repressive regimes for decades.
And if he needed further reminding, the people of Egypt are trying to gain control of their own homeland which has been wrecked by corruption, economic stagnation and political repression. They are angry with their leader who has promised them much but never delivered. They have lived in a culture of fear dominated by police brutality.
All these should have reminded him of home.
He described the time he had to abandon the car and struggle for one kilometre on foot, back to the High Commission:.
He said, "The roads leading to the Malaysian Embassy in Cairo were punctuated with roadblocks and I had had never seen such a big crowd, by far the biggest demonstration I had seen in my life. Hundreds of thousands of people filed into the streets. It was scary.”
More’s the pity that Kohilan did not relate to us if he had engaged with the Egyptians and discussed events unfolding in Cairo. History is being made but all we got was a pathetic response about his lack of a bath.
Egypt, with a population of over 80 million, is not only the largest country by far in the Arab world, it is also strategically and centrally situated astride Africa and Asia, and has exerted profound political, cultural and social influence in the modernisation of the whole region since the late eighteenth century. During the rule of the charismatic Gamal Abdel Nasser from 1952 to 1970 Egypt dominated the Arab world.
To be sure, under his successors Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, who aligned Egypt with the US, Egypt's influence in regional affairs waned; but by virtue of its size and history this country commands a privileged place in the Arab imagination. Thus, it has served as a model of authoritarianism for the region and were it to dissolve into chaos or, preferably, a liberal democratic system similar to today's Turkey the demonstration effect could be significant. That is why Arab ruling elites from the Atlantic to the Gulf must be losing sleep these days.
Political scientists who until recently were pronouncing Arab authoritarianism as too deeply rooted to fail are now discovering so many reasons why Mubarak is facing the most serious challenge of his long career. There is the economic argument: despite decent aggregate growth, unemployment and a rising cost of living are fuelling popular protest. There is the administrative argument: corruption and bureaucratic mismanagement have gotten out of hand. There is the social argument: Egypt's youth are alienated, the educational system is in decay, families and marriages are under stress. But above all there is the political argument: the president and his ruling party have become increasingly authoritarian over time.
The respected Egyptian political scientist Mustapha Kamel Al-Sayyid, in a lecture at the Middle East Institute in Singapore a month before the crisis exploded, described the blatantly un-free parliamentary elections staged by the Mubarak regime, which brought its authoritarian habits to a new low.
"Stagnation will continue if things remain as they are," he said, "but they may not remain as they are because people's reactions show that they do not accept it." If the people have taken to the streets to demonstrate that they do not accept authoritarianism in Tunisia and Egypt, why should they not do the same thing in other authoritarian Arab countries?
A model for other Arab countries?
Many of the conditions that help explain the eruptions in Tunisia and Egypt are present in other Arab countries. In the non-oil rich states like Morocco, Algeria, Jordan and Yemen we see the same volatile social cocktail: a youth bulge, vast unemployment, inadequate education, and gross economic inequality. Little wonder that their rulers are belatedly trying to ease conditions that will take years to remedy. Jordan is offering subsidies; Yemen (where tax evasion is endemic!) is cutting taxes. Too little, too late?
Will the Arab oil-rich states be immune? Perhaps so if the present upheaval is seen as being driven exclusively by economic deprivation. But there are two other powerful political factors fomenting popular anger: entrenched authoritarianism and subservience to America's strategic agenda for the Middle East - especially its tacit support for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.
Petro-rulers as different from each other as Muammar Ghaddafi in Libya and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia have condemned the popular upheavals, with Ghaddafi voicing support for the disgraced Ben Ali in Tunisia and Abdullah excoriating the protesters on the streets of Egypt as infiltrators, who "in the name of freedom of expression, have infiltrated into the brotherly people of Egypt, to destabilise its security and stability and they have been exploited to spew out their hatred in destruction, intimidation, burning, looting and inciting a malicious sedition." Might it be said, quoting Shakespeare, that "they doth protest too much?"
Is it time to reexamine the proposition often expressed by Western observers that the oil-rich authoritarian monarchies are the ideal model for the Arab world, because they are rooted in a traditional (i.e., patriarchal tribal) culture and seem to convey an image of Islamic legitimacy?
Where are the Islamists?
And speaking of Islam, where are the Islamists in the recent upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt? There is scant indication that Islamist organisations played a major role. Yet to believe the conservative US media one would understand that what we are seeing is an Islamist terrorist conspiracy. And virtually every Arab regime has fanned this alleged threat in order to win US military, financial and political support. But this is an oversimplification of the complex realities of Arab society and political culture. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has been so slow to get on board the upheaval that it risks its own credibility. As for Al Qaeda, it is nowhere to be seen.
The fact is that the protest movement is driven less by the slogan "Islam is the solution" than by a popular revulsion at authoritarianism, corruption, poor governance, and subservience to US strategic priorities (of which Israel is at the top). Certainly the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge as a main player along with others in any new Egyptian political order, but don't expect the Arabs to welcome an Iranian or Taliban-style regime.
Dilemma for the US and Israel
The Obama administration's confused and timid reaction reflects all too clearly the dilemma it faces. Egypt is a lynchpin of the American security architecture for the greater Middle East. Egypt helps guarantee Israel's interests. Omar Suleiman played a key role in helping Israel seal off Gaza in their common effort to dislodge the Hamas government there. Successive administrations have poured money into Egypt to secure its regime and reinforce its client status.
A radical Islamic takeover in Egypt would constitute the worst possible scenario for Washington and Tel Aviv. But for Israel even the evolution of a new Egypt along Turkish lines would be anathema. Once again, the US is caught between its professed ideals of promoting democracy and freedom and its perceived interest in a Middle East whose publics (and their anti-American, anti-Israeli opinions) are sidelined from political participation by friendly authoritarian rulers.
So far the protesters in Egypt are not targeting America, and Washington has a moment of opportunity to do the right thing and get behind the transition. But its response so far is weak and hypocritical. If it comes down on the side of the old status quo its real adversaries in the region - Iran and the radical movements - will benefit.
Whither Egypt? Whither the Arab world?
The revolution in Egypt has begun. Mubarak is on his way out. General Omar Suleiman, pillar of the intelligence establishment and reliable friend of Washington, looks to be the man in charge of a transitional regime. But transitional toward what? Doubtless the US government, Israel, and the pro-American authoritarian regimes in the Arab world are desperately hoping that he will keep Egypt from falling into the hands of the popular opposition, let alone the Islamist currents.
The higher ranks of the Egyptian military must share this orientation, given its historically lucrative ties with the Pentagon. But the middle and lower ranks may be another matter entirely. After all, it was middle-rank officers of Islamist sympathies who assassinated president Anwar Sadat in 1981. And it is hard to believe that the multiple strands of Egypt's new "people power" are ready to accept Omar Suleiman as an agent of genuine change, even though some of them have viewed him as definitely preferable to a Mubarak dynasty.
Egypt is at a turning point. If it turns toward a continuation of military-dominated leadership supported by the business elite we will not have seen the end of turmoil. Popular forces, including the Muslim Brotherhood, cannot continue to be excluded from meaningful participation. One must hope that the transitional government will do the right thing and open up the political arena for full participation and an early (and this time free) election.
The Muslim Brothers didn't make this revolution but they will need to be part of the new order - an order that also includes centrists, leftists, and liberals. Perhaps Mohamed ElBaradei will emerge as the revolution's representative.
A genuinely representative Egyptian government will reject the slavish pro-American, pro-Israeli clientelism of its predecessor. That need not mean that Egypt will become a spearhead for anti-Western, anti-Israeli projects. On the contrary, a genuinely legitimate Egyptian government could set a prominent example for non-authoritarian, participatory government throughout the region and play a decisive role in leading the Middle East out of its present dysfunctional condition.
From snowy Kiev, I have watched the revolutions in Cairo and Tunis with joy and admiration. Egyptians and
Tunisians are right to be proud of their desire to peacefully overthrow despotic governments. But, as someone who led a peaceful revolution, I hope that their pride is tempered by pragmatism - because a change of regime is only the first step in establishing a democracy backed by the rule of law. Indeed, as my country, Ukraine, is now demonstrating, after revolutionary euphoria fades and normality returns, democratic revolutions can be betrayed and reversed.
The first of Ukraine’s lessons for Egyptian and Tunisian democrats is that elections do not a democracy make. After all, what if the enemies of freedom use elections to entrench their anti-democratic agendas? What if elements of the old regime, or the cadres of militant minorities, only pretend to embrace democratic norms in order to hijack the new democracy?
In Ukraine today, these are not abstract questions. Six years after our Orange Revolution, not only is my country’s democracy under threat - but the rule of law is being systematically perverted and our national independence bartered away. Indeed, the hybrid presidential/parliamentary system that Ukraine established as part of the settlement which brought a peaceful end to our revolution is being hollowed out in order to concentrate all political power in the hands of a supposedly democratically elected president.
Of course, Ukraine’s plight does not mean that the people of Egypt and Tunisia should spurn the call for free elections. Determining the will of the people does require expression through the ballot box. But elections alone cannot solve the fundamental political problems confronting Egypt and Tunisia. In particular, they cannot create a liberal order and open society.
To be effective, elections must be preceded by an extensive debate, in which political arguments are made, attacked, defended - and, ultimately, embodied in ideologically coherent party organisations. Democratic consent can truly be given only when voters know what they are consenting to. Whoever refuses to make a public case for what he or she intends to do when in power, or lies about it – as Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovich, did during his campaign against me last year – is no supporter of the democracy that citizens risked their lives to establish.
Moreover, democracy must be rooted in the rule of law. There must be accepted rules that are binding on everyone in politics, so that whoever does not accept or obey them is disqualified. Yanukovich’s naked attempt to hijack the election that precipitated the Orange Revolution should have caused him to be banned from running in future elections. Yet he was not.
Now, as president, Yanukovich’s crude instinct is to treat the law and constitution as Karl Marx thought of them: as a mixture of sentimentality, superstition - and the unconscious rationalisation of private interests. Stealing elections, suppressing the vote, and behaving in contempt of the rule of law are negations of democracy. Those who engage in them must be seen as democracy’s enemies - and treated as such.
A second lesson follows from this. The fact that a government has been democratically elected does not mean that the cause of freedom has prevailed. The rest of the world must not turn a blind eye to authoritarian backsliding. Yet today, not only are many of Ukraine’s neighbours silent about Yanukovich’s strangulation of Ukraine’s democracy - but some openly celebrate the supposed “stability” that his regime has imposed. For decades, Egyptians and Tunisians paid a high a price in freedom for the stability of others. They must never be asked, or forced, to pay it again.
The need for strong civil society
One way to help prevent a democratic revolution from being betrayed from within is by building a genuine civil society. We in Ukraine learned this truth from harsh experience in the communist era. Although communism could, every now and then, coexist with private property - and sometimes with private enterprise - it could never coexist with civil society. The most fateful attack to accompany the installation of any dictatorship is an attack on civil society.
In Ukraine, freedom of speech was, on communism’s fall, restored overnight. But reviving civil society – the many mutually complementary ways in which citizens participate in public life – is a complicated task, as the peoples of Egypt and Tunisia will soon find out. The reason is self-evident: civil society is an intricate, fragile, even mysterious entity that evolves over decades, if not centuries. Its pillars – private, voluntary associations, decentralisation of the state, and delegation of political power to independent bodies – must be nurtured patiently and from below.
Where civil society remains underdeveloped, every problem filters up to the “Big Man” squatting at the top. So the more power is concentrated at the center, the more it becomes possible for anti-democratic forces to gain – or regain – control over a country.
As people around the world encourage the coming of democracy to Tunisia – and, one hopes, to Egypt – let us not be beguiled by its formal trappings. Let us celebrate the arrival in North Africa of the spirit of liberty and of solidarity, which brought Ukraine its liberty once and will do so again. And let us pledge that our solidarity does not end at the borders of our nations. Freedom – true freedom – is indivisible.
Yuliya Tymoshenko was prime minister of Ukraine and is now leader of the opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment