An Egyptian Democrat Gives Up.
The first free presidential election in Egypt begins today. No matter the winner, liberal democracy has lost.
 |
| Islam and Democracy: Mutually Exclusive |
The following article is written by Amr Bargisi, who is
the Albert Einstein Fellow at the Einstein Forum in Potsdam, Germany, and a senior partner in the Egyptian Union of Liberal Youth.
Yesterday, some 50 million of my countrymen began voting in what will likely be the first free presidential elections in the history of Egypt. I am someone who has identified as a liberal activist for my entire adult life, so this should be my proudest moment. It isn’t. In fact, I’m strongly considering putting an end to my political activism.
I haven’t come to this decision based on my prediction of the likely outcome of this particular election—though I think it will come down to a race between Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, and Ahmed Shafiq, Hosni Mubarak’s last prime minister. It was clear to me well before the January 2011 uprising that if Mubarak ever fell, we Egyptians would be faced with two basic choices: Islamist Repression or Repression of Islamism. Nothing else can come out of free and fair elections here—at least for a long time to come.
That’s not because Egyptians are by nature anti-liberal and anti-democratic, but because my country currently lacks the necessary foundations of liberal democracy.
First and foremost, Egypt needs liberal leadership that is capable of directly confronting Islamism. This requires a deep understanding of what individual liberty means—its philosophical roots and historical development—in addition to a good deal of moral courage. Unfortunately, this leadership does not exist, and no one seems interested in investing in it. You can find various editions of Mein Kampf and the fake Protocols of the Elders of Zion in any modest sidewalk bookstand, but you won’t find John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government or Plato’s Republic in Cairo’s biggest bookstores. (And if you do, it will be either in English or an unreadable Arabic translation.) Meantime, Islamist teaching is ubiquitous in schools and mosques, on bumper-stickers and YouTube videos.
First and foremost, Egypt needs liberal leadership that is capable of directly confronting Islamism. This requires a deep understanding of what individual liberty means—its philosophical roots and historical development—in addition to a good deal of moral courage. Unfortunately, this leadership does not exist, and no one seems interested in investing in it. You can find various editions of Mein Kampf and the fake Protocols of the Elders of Zion in any modest sidewalk bookstand, but you won’t find John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government or Plato’s Republic in Cairo’s biggest bookstores. (And if you do, it will be either in English or an unreadable Arabic translation.) Meantime, Islamist teaching is ubiquitous in schools and mosques, on bumper-stickers and YouTube videos.
Thus voters are left to decide between the Muslim Brotherhood and old Mubarak hands—there’s no liberal democrat in sight.
Few people in the West—including close friends and political allies—have fully acknowledged this abject dichotomy that we Egyptians face, despite much evidence to the contrary. Instead, these natural allies of Egyptian liberals are celebrating this election as a triumph of liberal democracy, at best, and at worst, as a necessary step toward that triumph. Why it so difficult for them to come to terms with Egypt's reality?
There are those on the left who look at what’s happening in Egypt through the lens of cultural relativism and post-colonial theory. Muslims are entitled, so goes their argument, to institute their own government according to their own rules, which Westerners can neither understand nor judge. For them, chopping off the hand of a person convicted of theft, then immersing the amputated limb in boiling oil to seal the wound, has absolutely nothing to do with the Eighth Amendment since it is outside their cultural jurisdiction.
.jpg) |
| The road back to Shari'a Law... |
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote this in a column reflecting on this year’s parliamentary elections, Islamists “want to be true to their Islamic roots, yet they know their supporters elected them to deliver clean government, education and jobs, not mosques.” This position reflects a deep ignorance of Islamism, and a deep faith in Homo Economicus.
Contemporary Jihadism may have emerged as a result of regime repression in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but Islamism is a far greater historical tsunami.
Islamism will not die out in the face of free voting or economic liberalism or Twitter. It is one of the most formidable ideologies in history, the success of which does not depend on electoral bribes or the ignorance of the average voter.
It comprises serious ideas and ideals that, although they might be diametrically opposed to those of the West, are no less compelling. Most important, Islamism runs on millions of dedicated adherents who are willing to endure imprisonment, exile, unspeakable torture, and even death to uphold what they deem right.
(C) Amr Bagisi
