Democracy Inside Out: The Case of Egypt

Page 17
Q-News, Issue 361
March 2005

The US has made education reform in Muslim nations a key feature of its foreign policy and earmarked considerable sums to fund democratic education. Well meaning? Perhaps. But real change, in countries like Egypt, will come when internal reform is taken seriously. Louay Safi reports. 

The substantial funds allocated to democratic education in Muslim countries have attracted many organisations involved in democratic training in South American and East Europe. The trend signals a positive change in attitude, and the Bush administration should be applauded for undertaking this forward-looking initiative, and for increasing the pressure on the autocratic Middle Eastern regimes to undertake democratic reform.

Democratic reform will not, however, come about by mere bankrolling and making demands from the outside. Reform will ultimately emerge as a result of popular demands and reformist steps by internal political players. External pressure should compliment, rather than displace, the ongoing internal social and political struggle in place long before the menace of global terrorism hit the US.

The temptation to champion democracy in the Middle East by micro-managing the reform process is counterproductive, and is likely to play into the hands of anti-democratic forces intent on stemming out the fledgling democratic forces under the rubric of safeguarding national independence and countering foreign interference. Rather than pressuring autocratic government to change school curricula and superimpose a set of abstract criteria through state apparatus, the US should use its influence to increase the margin of freedom for political expression and action by civil society organizations. The forces of reform and modernisation are already at work in Muslim society, and have, despite severe limitations imposed by the state on their actions, made considerable strides to affect educational, cultural, and political reforms.

The struggle for democracy in Egypt provides us with a good insight into the dynamics of reform in this key Middle Eastern country, and underscores the need for a new approach by the US and Europe to facilitate the emergence of stable and sustainable democracy. The country is ruled by a political party that wears a liberal democratic garb, but protects the interests of a corrupt oligarchy, and rules with an iron fist. The party tightly controls the press, has continuously supported emergency laws, and enjoys full monopoly over the licensing of new political parties. The party has, for years, marginalised opposition, and refused to legitimise any political group that advocates Islam as the foundation of social and political reform.

For years, the ruling elites of Egypt have refused to recognise the Muslim Brotherhood group as a legitimate political actor by invoking secularism. Excluding an Islamic party that has not clearly defined how it plans to protect the constitutional rights of religious minorities is justifiable, though the state has never set clear standards and qualifications to explain its position. However, using the religious adherence of party members and leaders as grounds to exclude parties that promote a non-religious national platform is a clear violation of democratic principles.

In 1996, the committee in charge of licensing political parties, an arm of the Egyptian’s national congress, turned down the application of a new political party, the Wasat Party, co-founded by a Muslim and a Copt. Egyptian security forces arrested the founders, accused them of being a front for the banned Muslim Brotherhood. Notwithstanding that the party leaders were acquitted by a military court, the Egyptian government persists in denying the Wasat Party’s application, and continues to curtail political freedom and prevent the emergence of popular political opposition. The Wasat Party has fairly moderated views, and is open to people regardless of their religion and gender. It has a good number of Christian Copts and women, both in the Party’s leadership and the rank-and-file.

The Wasat Party, along with other popular groups, is castigated for insisting on grounding their reformist message in Islamic values and traditions. Yet it is this kind of work, in which the basic cultural and religious assumptions and traditions are challenged from within, and through reference to Islamic values and normative sources, that is essential for advancing the process of democratisation, and fostering a spirit of openness and tolerance. Islamic sources emphasise the values of equality, religious freedom, respect of diversity, and fair dealings, essential for any democratic reform. And reform movements must appeal to Islamic values that form the moral sub-terrain of contemporary Muslim cultures.

For over half a century, Western democracies have relied on the power of Middle Eastern states to effect modernisation by imposing modernity on their populations. The result has been scandalous: political systems that silence opposition, and use an iron fist to transform religiously rooted traditions and introduce modern lifestyle, have created police states that foster corruption and breed extremism and violence. Nothing can stem the tide of extremism, except a political environment that promotes dialogue, freedom of press and association. In a society in which ideas are allowed to compete, extremism will be forced to move from the centre stage to the fringe of society, and moderate voices and practices will prevail.