That's why before the Egyptian military moved in to remove Mohamed
Morsy from the presidency, it made sure it had strong popular support. More people signed a
petition calling for Morsy to step down than voted for him in the presidential election.
Egypt is now governed by a prime minister handpicked by military
chief Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, but el-Sisi relies on
public approval in a way Mubarak never did. The situation, to be
sure, lends itself to dangerous populist manipulation and nobody would ever
confuse the current structure with a democracy, but it includes important
elements that could eventually produce a more democratic future.
Even now, with the military in control, the notion that the people
support the army is el-Sisi's greatest argument in defense of his position.
The people have been empowered in a way they never were before.
The mindset of those who lived under decades of dictatorship has been changed.
Much else has changed. Since the intoxicating optimism of Tahrir
Square, people have learned that revolutions are hard to control. The disastrous experiment under the
Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government, the economic free fall and
the violence Egyptians have endured have offered a stark lesson to Egypt and
its neighbors.
Those who would like to see more inclusive regimes, more
democratic elements of government in other Middle Eastern countries, have
watched Egypt. They have also watched the catastrophe that is befalling Syria.
The revolutionary drive will now be tempered with cooler calculation. Reform
won't come after a few weeks on the square chanting slogans for freedom.
Perhaps reformers in Egypt would become more circumspect. True
reform will require systematic, gradual plodding. Democracy requires more than
elections. Democratic institutions and a democratic mindset must be developed
before it can succeed. A foundation of consensus is needed.
Another enormous change since the Mubarak days is the
transformation of how people in the Middle East perceive key players in the
region.
The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, has not only lost power -- it
also has seen its reputation deeply eroded. It has shown itself as incompetent
and untrustworthy in the eyes of many. The Brotherhood's Morsy, elected with
only 24% of eligible voters, behaved as if he had an overwhelming mandate. He
tried to propel the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda, pushing a constitution written
by his Brotherhood allies, appointing Brotherhood members to key positions,
allowing an atmosphere of intimidation and persecution against non-Muslims, and
trying to put himself above the
law.
As a result, his initially strong
approval ratings fell steadily until millions took to the streets demanding his resignation.
Before he was overthrown, 70% of Egyptians told pollsters they worried the
Muslim Brotherhood was trying to "Islamicize" the country against
their will.
The Muslim Brotherhood has now been tested. It failed.
That Egyptian experiment will reverberate in a time of turbulence.
It's not only the Muslim Brotherhood whose image has changed.
Syria's Bashar al-Assad was once viewed as a moderate, even a reformer.
With more than 100,000 dead in that country's civil war, he is now viewed as a
ruthless dictator, even if the popular uprising against him now includes many
Islamist fighters, whose ideology is rejected by supporters of democratic
change.
The Arab uprisings, even with Mubarak a free man again, have
weakened other organizations. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group, has
tarnished its name by joining the fight on Assad's side. Hamas, the Palestinian
version of the Muslim Brotherhood, still has control of the Gaza strip, but it
no longer enjoys the support of the bulk of the Egyptian public.
It may look as if Mubarak is re-entering the same stage he left;
as if nothing had changed. But the former Egyptian president is walking onto a
changed world. The last two years have rerouted the course of history.
No comments:
Post a Comment