Reuters
This is not to say a democratic Egypt would support American policies in the Middle East, especially toward Israel, in the same way that Mubarak did. Democracies, even allies, clash. Turkey, for example, refused to allow the United States to invade Iraq from its territory in 2003. But that partnership persists, as does Turkey’s strained alliance with Israel.
Building a democracy in Egypt, however, remains an enormous challenge. “Practising democracy is a whole different ball game than just toppling their regime,” says Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of the Doha Center at the Brookings Institution, a think tank. “A democratic system does not necessarily mean that it’s going to resolve the unemployment problem, at least in the foreseeable future. So the Tunisians and the Egyptians will have to learn that they’re going to be living with high unemployment [both have an unofficial uneployment rate of more than 25 per cent] and a high percentage of poverty. This is going to be with us for a long time. The hard work has just started.”
And yet dismissing Egypt’s chances to build a genuine democracy reeks of snobbery. New democracies are almost always deemed “not ready” by those invested in the old regime, or those who fear change. The same argument was made in the last 50 years about Spain, Greece, and Poland. And what may have been most remarkable about the movement that overthrew Mubarak is its diversity.
“The outpouring and protests and chants for democracy and for universal values show that they actually are universal values,” says Ulrichsen. “That’s been the inspiring thing. People have been demanding development and democracy and political opening, rather than, for example, more overtly religious or politically Islamist slogans. It’s been an affirmation that democracy isn’t an alien concept in the Middle East, and people there would like it just as much as in other areas.”
IT IS THIS massive support for pluralism and for other liberal values that may yet result in the most significant change to the landscape of the Middle East. The region’s yearning for democracy is also a rejection of al-Qaeda, and if successful may sideline the extremist group.
Jihadists in al-Qaeda and similar radical Islamist groups have always scorned democracy. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who led al-Qaeda in Iraq for a time before his 2006 death in a shootout with U.S. forces, described it as “the big American lie.” In a 2005 Internet posting, he said, “We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it. Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion [and that is] against the rule of God.”
Equally scorned by Islamist extremists have been Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali of Tunisia, and other pro-American, largely secular dictators in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda urged their overthrow and promised an Islamic alternative. Indeed, radical Islamists presented their brand of religious extremism as the only other option. They found a receptive audience among some Egyptians. Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, was Egyptian, as is al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
But now Egyptians calling for democracy and pledging unity between Muslims and Christians have forced out Mubarak, accomplishing in a few weeks what religious extremists failed to do in decades of terror and bloodshed. It’s a stunning blow.
“These are regimes that al-Qaeda has been campaigning against for years,” says Ulrichsen, referring to the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt. “The fact that they were swept from power due to political and social and economic reasons, for greater development and participation and openness, rather than any jihadist or violent ideology, that is transformative. It’s basically the ideological defeat of al-Qaeda. It shows that people want change for the same reasons that they want change anywhere else in the world.”
This is why, despite the loss of a close ally that Mubarak’s fall entails, U.S. President Barack Obama was likely right to embrace change in Egypt, while keeping his distance from the uprising lest more overt support taint the demonstrations with the whiff of American influence. An unstable but free Egypt will be a better long-term friend to the United States than one ruled by a compliant dictator. “I’ve been arguing for decades that democratic reform is the antidote for al-Qaeda’s militancy,” says Carpenter of the Washington Institute. “People always ask what’s our alternative narrative to al-Qaeda, as Americans. We only have one narrative. We can’t make something up and tailor it to fit. We either believe these things or we don’t. And we believe that societies that are democratic have the necessary shock absorbers in the system to maximize good for the most number of people.”
According to blogger Mostafa Hussein, a transition to democracy in Egypt will make al-Qaeda “irrelevant.” Empowered citizens won’t look to extremist groups “because there is no reason to join them when you can speak, speak loudly, and tell people your ideas.”
Politicians, whether democratic or not, come and go. But these new emotions unleashed among Tunisians, Egyptians, and other residents of the Middle East—this courage, hope, and belief that change is possible—will persist. They could change everything.
