The dominoes are falling. First a full-out revolution in Tunisia, and now the streets of Egypt are racked by protests that have engulfed its major urban centers, including Cairo, Alexandria, and Suez. What started in Cairo as the concentrated human reaction to decades of lawlessness, corruption, economic decline, and abuse among young middle and working class men and women, inspired by the courage of a small North African nation just west, has erupted into an almost-revolution that threatens to topple the region's most iron-fisted strongman, and reverberate throughout the Middle East.
While I have made my opinions clear regarding the stance America's ideals should have her take in Egypt elsewhere, I'd like to turn my attention here to the perplexing fixation among pundits and politicians about a "delicate balance" the Obama administration should apparently heed when considering its allegiances in this situation. Why are they so worried? Supporting the protestors too early might weaken the American bargaining position with Mubarak if, in fact, this revolution fails; the Mubarak regime is a key ally in maintaining the peace with Israel; supporting democracy in Egypt might allow the country to fall to the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood a la the Islamic republic in Iran and Hamas in the Gaza strip; and empowering protesters in Egypt might contribute to further instability of the region.
None of these issues substantiates American backing of the Mubarak regime, and ultimately, American interests lay with the protestors fighting for their freedoms in Cairo's "Liberation" square.
First, let's discuss America's position with Mubarak. Inheriting the Egyptian presidency from Anwar Sadat following his assassination in 1981, Mubarak also inherited one of the richest international aid packages of its time -- what is currently $2 billion in annual aid to Egypt, 65% of which finances the Egyptian military. Mubarak, famously a military man, is dependent on the strength of this American-funded military for power. Therefore, given that his power derives from the strength of his military, which is funded by American tax dollars (support which could easily be discontinued), the US's position with Mubarak will inevitably remain strong if he does, in fact, survive this attempt at his power, regardless of the US position on the uprisings. Moreover, with a weakened state security apparatus following this uprising, if he does survive, he will undoubtedly be more reliant on the army for power than he was before, increasing US leverage. Finally, because the army will likely broker any transition of power if Mubarak is to fall, the US would likely maintain a degree of leverage with a future government, as well. Therefore, supporting Egyptians demonstrating for freedom and justice is not likely to weaken US leverage in Egypt in any way.
And what of Israel? Stated US foreign policy contends that support for Israel derives from its status as the lone democracy in the region. Presumably, by its very presence in the Middle East, Israel should diffuse democratic ideals to its autocratic neighbors, ultimately spreading democracy throughout the region. Hence, the reasoning goes, Israel is an important ally and should be supported. Taking this lone justification naively, present circumstance should lead us to question this premise -- on Friday Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process" in support of Mubarak and his regime. It appears then, that America's propped democratic ally in the region stands against democracy among its neighbors when they actually attempt to democratize. What's worse, US support for Israel (supported, ostensibly, for the very purposes of promoting democracy in the region) has become an excuse to stand against another regional country's efforts to democratize. Perversely, support for Israel has become an obstacle to support for democracy in the Middle East, rather than a source of democracy in the region.
Another fear on the part of pundits and politicians alike is that supporting democracy in Egypt might throw it to the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic opposition group to the ruling National Democratic Party. First, as Middle East historian Juan Cole says, "Muslim movements have served to protest the withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities, and to provide services. But they are a symptom..." Second, even if the Muslim Brotherhood were to take power, there are several reasons why the ensuing state would look nothing like Iran. First, the Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni organization -- Sunni Islam is, by its nature, less hierarchical than the Shiite brand of the religion. Hence, the concept of a "supreme leader" or theocratic figurehead is improbable under the Muslim Brotherhood. Second, as it stands, the Muslim Brotherhood lacks a popular leader akin to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Thus, the movement will not be able to consolidate power as readily in these turbulent times as their counterparts did in Iran, and will therefore have limited input in shaping legislative procedure (it is this vital input on procedure which ultimately created the Iranian "Islamic Republic" as we know it today, rather than a liberal democracy run by an Islamic party, a la Turkey). Third, the military is, and will remain for the time being Egypt's principal powerbroker--it is safe to say that the military wouldn't back a Muslim Brotherhood government without strong liberal democratic structures in place. Fourth, the Muslim Brotherhood has recently agreed to support a transition government under Nobel Laureate Mohammed ElBaradei, who is not affiliated with the movement in any way, signaling the party's willingness to compromise. Others argue that Muslim Brotherhood control in Egypt would echo Hamas's leadership in Gaza. This is foolish--attempting to draw inference about one Islamic party's behavior in Egypt, the Middle East's largest country with considerable economic potential, from another party's behavior in Gaza, a territory harrowed by over 60 years of occupation, ignores the influence of the vastly differing contexts within which each group operates, and is therefore, unproductive.
Lastly, supporting the right for self-determination in Egypt might promote uprisings in other volatile countries in the region, some argue. I concede; this is true. But whether or not Mubarak's regime survives these uprisings, Tunisia's revolution and Egypt's audacity to challenge Mubarak have changed the Middle Eastern landscape forever. And while Mubarak and others like him may be able to temporarily halt internet and mobile phone signals, or fire live ammunitions at civilians, the use of social media and the penetration of mobile phones into Arab society will continue to grow, and pent-up Arab longing for freedom will escape. Democracy in the Arab world is a foregone conclusion; it's just a matter of when. And as Henry A. Kissinger, a former US Secretary of State, said, "whatever must happen ultimately should happen immediately."
Ultimately, it is in America's interests to support Egyptian protestors' efforts to achieve "the ability to speak [their] mind and have a say in how [they] are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as [they] choose" (as President Obama said in Cairo only months ago). Ideals are ideals--they're like the truth--you can't defend them some of the time, and then forsake them when it's inconvenient. If the US truly wants to be the beacon of justice and liberty that it claims it does, it would behoove the Obama administration to fall decisively behind the protestors in Egypt. America has little to lose by supporting this movement; and what to gain? The trust and allegiance of a generation of young Arabs who will, ultimately, be free.
Follow Abdulrahman El-Sayed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/elabdul
That was the problem in the first place
We should recognize whoever they recognize and trade with them like we would anyone else. But we should stop giving them, or anyone else weapons
Part 2: Shariah really can be part of a Muslim State's constitutional law?
And Islamization of the law can fit in with democracy if the say Algerians, Egyptians, Tunisians define democracy in their own way, however bearing in mind that it is still based on one man/woman one vote,
not necessarily a political party based democracy, it can be an individual moral based democracy
In fact Shariah understood as modern constitutional law is in Not in conflict with individual human rights if it is rightly interpreted.
Malaysia a Muslim country shows a good example of this. We need not refer to Saudi Arabia that constitutes about 2% of the world Muslim population.
The source of power can be Almighty God, accepting man as God's vicegerent and recognising accountabilty of Govt., independence of judiciary, equality before law and the State taking the responsibilty for the welfare of all its citizens Muslims and non-Muslims.
All citizens should enjoy freedom of belief, thought, conecience and speech. Every citizen shall be free to develop his potential, improve his capacity, earn and possess. A citizen shall enjoy the right to support or oppose any Govt., policy which he thinks right or wrong
Does the west forget that it was Islam who brought back Greek and Roman Ideologies to the Europeans? If Islam was truly intolerant, then those volumes upon volumes of classical Greek and Latin texts would've been lost forever! It was our libraries in Egypt and Baghdad that translated them to Arabic, copied and distributed them to Spain, and from Spain re-entered the European mind as revolutionary thought that dug them out of their Dark Ages!
Allow the Muslim scholars to think freely, and you won't have to worry about Shria law becoming oppressive or intolerant!
Muslims agree that Shariah need not be the single source of lawmaking. But it is a significant part and includes several secular laws also. Americans and the West should understand that there are divergent understandings of democracy and the rule of law.
Democracy does not mean that every nation should adopt the American or European definition.
Democracy is form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Let us assume that in Tunisia, Egypt or Algeria for that matter, a new Government holds a referendum asking people the same question as above, that is Do you agree or disagree that our national constitution should provide for Islam as a fundamental source of legislation and that no law can be legislated that contradicts the ruling of Islam?
And assuming that not just 50.1% but 90.1% vote affirmatively on the referendum in say Egypt, Tunisia or Algeria. If that is the case why not the West give them an opportunity to work out their own constitution based on the Islamic culture and religion until the people grow themselves to give new-interpretations to their religious laws?
In Israel for example there is exactly the same conflict between secular rule and religious rule so what we have is a kind of compromise , we have no constitution , but we do have declaration of independence .
religions rule is not national but rather municipal - in those places were there is a majority of secular people like tel aviv you have very little religious rule (except for marriage and death which is still ruled by rabbinical rule but even that can be avoided ) but in religious enclaves like bnei barak a women who dress not sufficently coverd up or some very openly gay person(in terms of clothing) is likely to be chased away ( not stoned or something like that ...)
I think this is a worthy solution also to the Arab world having sharia a municipal matter while the state institutions are secular.
Some opportunities only come once in a lifetime, hopefully all concerned will make the best of this one.
'yalla yalla, habib'!
people should really use their head and think instead of degrading themselves into blind abandon "off with his head" style if they realy have the benefit of the Egyptian people on their mind and hart .
I think president Obama policy is also in those lines .
Now, the question is, where will Egypt be, in 20 years?
as the saying goes there is nothing new under the sun ...
nothing new under the sun ....
democracy require educated public , without this , people will embrace ideology's without thinking ...
the Muslim brotherhood ideology being the most prominent as they also have the apparatus(mosqueד) to educate people to their liking ...
you may say the same thing about Judaism and Israel but the difference is that Judaism contain a plurality of opinions on many subjects and debate is welcomed and even encouraged .
so my main point is that Democracy requires educated public of course even that is not enough, there is also a need for a strong and independent Supreme court to uphold the laws and a police force to enforce its decisions ( not a police force that enforce executive branch decisions )
This is not an emotional filled revolution, this is an intellectual uprising, and the proof is in the fact that the people NOT the police are protecting the neighborhoods. They refuse to cause damage to infrastructure, they know what the future holds if they go down road.
And if the Muslim Brotherhood takes control of the government democratically, then that will be the best thing for the Muslim world because we will finally have a government that will protect the rights of our religious leaders to speak what they want, instead of state controlled religious leaders who's sole purpose is to control the people into thinking what they want.
So once more, with all due respect, we are the ones who decide what's best for us, not Israel, and not the US. We are not children, we do not need babysitters.
transition into autocracy is very smooth and requires only the lower nature of man.
transition into democracy requires the higher nature of man and from my point of view Islam or rather Islamic rule depends on the lower nature of man - on fear .
and this is by no way implying that Muslims are "lower man" or any other racial thing like that - everybody has a lower and a higher part .
can democracy and Islam truly live side by side ? democracy can as it contain the ideals of plurality but what about Islam ?
Furthermore, it's not like the military isn't close to Mubarak - he wouldn't be where his is if he didn't have them in his pocket. And we fund his military, as stated. So if Mubarak goes, the military will still be there, yes? How assured are we that the military will be so open to a democratic government? Isn't that the real question here, that no one's asking? If the Egyptian people do "win" in this protest, how do they interface with the still-existing Egyptian military? Doesn't some measure of orderly transition make a lot more sense for the Administration to - well, admittedly, 'wish for' - than simply blindly supporting the protesters (and by implication, not necessarily the military)?
Just some questions that, of course, don't have any solid answers now. Fascinating to watch, and it's like having a movie-theater seat to history-in-the-making.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3923
I suppose there are many more other influential "American" businessmen that support the Brotherhood as well?
But, the main thing that'll help em is to have the freedom to go and do what's needed, of their own free will, when they see fit to do it, and how they see fit to do it.