Egypt: The End of the Dream called 'Democracy'?
'The Army has just told to Morsi that he is no longer the President'. This and similar headlines dominated (and will dominate for a while) international news during these last five days. The coup given in Egypt caught the international community by surprise and most likely, it was something unexpected to some of countries who share borders and interests with Egypt. It is true that many analysts worldwide were a bit skeptic about the new regime that got into Egypt after forcing Mubarak to resign in 2011. This skepticism came as a result of some false stereotypes the West holds towards anything that gives the idea of some relation to Islam, in this case 'Muslim Brotherhood' made some analysts concerned of what the new turn in Egypt was going to be.
In 2012, when Morsi was elected, there seemed to be a new Egypt in which human rights were going to be respected and policies concerning social issues were going to be fair and the country would direct itself according to democratic principles. This was the main idea the world had after the events of Tahrir Square and all over Cairo, and also Egyptians hoped for things to be better. Unfortunately, according to some versions, instead of having fair policies and respect for human rights such as freedom of expression, Egypt turned into the place that the Revolution visionaries were not expecting.
Firstly, many cities turned into very insecure places in all senses, because security bodies were not even making an effort to guarantee safety to citizens. Secondly, Morsi's government was unable to guarantee respect to some human rights such as improving equality for women. Thirdly, there were some signs of Morsi becoming authoritarian such as some intolerance towards any kind of secular opposition and his strong will of imposing his legitimacy by not enforcing and strenghtening institutions that would benefit the public.
The role of the Army was determinant in this aspect, because it seems they feared that the country would turn to the same situation when Mubarak was forced to resign. The fact of Army seizing power again of the government, considering the grounds in which Mubarak came into power and his background, is not a good sign either. IT is understandable up to a certain point that they want to keep order inside the country, however their reasons are not entirely clear. There are versions that support the idea of a coup for civilan well-being, others say that it was because Morsi was unable to comply with what he promised to people and some others because he was becoming authoritarian and the country would just fall into what it was before.
It is too soon to determine future scenarios however, this is a decisive point for Egypt because if the Army stays for too long, history would repeat itself. Hopefully, there will not be another Nasser-Mubarak pattern in the country and most importantly, hopefully there will not be any kind of foreign intervention inside decisions. There are some opinions issued by some Western Chiefs of State in which they explain that 'Egypt should be helped to follow the path of democracy'. I believe the previous century has seen too much about interventions and this one has seen even more in less than fifteen years. Western countries are increasingly unable to be everywhere and unable to control what happens around them, they cannot intervene in the way they used to just for the sake of their interests. Egypt, like other countries elsewhere, has the right to follow their own path and transform slowly into the nation they seek to be.
In the West there is a false idea of what governments in the Middle East actually are, the false stereotype of all Muslim governments 'similar to something like the Taleban' prevails inside many nations. Naturally not all Middle East countries are the same and not all of them practice Islam in the same way, like in all religions, there are also different kinds of Muslims and, in my opinion, there is no concrete neither valid reason to label them as 'retrogade'. Stereotyping a whole region in which diversity is the common characteristic just shows the presence of the Eurocentrism syndrome. It is an irony that many westerners claim for equality and respect for diversity when most of their governments spend their time labelling nations and people.
In the case of the Muslim Brotherhood this is not the exception. Actually, I heard a very remarkable opinion about these ideas of stereotyping, this person explained to me that 'Western countries are unable to believe that most of us know the difference between government, policies and religion. Policies in the Middle East are not necessarily linked to religion. Islam should be respected because in the end, it is part of our identity and our political activity is not necessarily based on religion'. This is absolutely true, and it is seen in many places around the region.
When the West understands this, then democracy could effectively fit everywhere, because there is nothing written nor shown, about the Western version of democracy as the best one. If Egypt adapts democracy to its necessities then we can expect the Arab Spring there to be successful. There is a lot yet to be seen, but hopefully the Army will not stay on the power for long.
Lastly, I believe that revolutions are USELESS if people (and on a larger scale, countries) remain the SAME. If people does not change, then they will be stuck in the spiral of repeating the same mistakes all over again. Mindset change and historical conscience are ESSENTIAL if a revolution seeks to be successful. There is no point in talking about revolution if bases for it remain unclear and, if those who talk about it are no different from those who are bringing the country down.
In 2012, when Morsi was elected, there seemed to be a new Egypt in which human rights were going to be respected and policies concerning social issues were going to be fair and the country would direct itself according to democratic principles. This was the main idea the world had after the events of Tahrir Square and all over Cairo, and also Egyptians hoped for things to be better. Unfortunately, according to some versions, instead of having fair policies and respect for human rights such as freedom of expression, Egypt turned into the place that the Revolution visionaries were not expecting.
Firstly, many cities turned into very insecure places in all senses, because security bodies were not even making an effort to guarantee safety to citizens. Secondly, Morsi's government was unable to guarantee respect to some human rights such as improving equality for women. Thirdly, there were some signs of Morsi becoming authoritarian such as some intolerance towards any kind of secular opposition and his strong will of imposing his legitimacy by not enforcing and strenghtening institutions that would benefit the public.
The role of the Army was determinant in this aspect, because it seems they feared that the country would turn to the same situation when Mubarak was forced to resign. The fact of Army seizing power again of the government, considering the grounds in which Mubarak came into power and his background, is not a good sign either. IT is understandable up to a certain point that they want to keep order inside the country, however their reasons are not entirely clear. There are versions that support the idea of a coup for civilan well-being, others say that it was because Morsi was unable to comply with what he promised to people and some others because he was becoming authoritarian and the country would just fall into what it was before.
It is too soon to determine future scenarios however, this is a decisive point for Egypt because if the Army stays for too long, history would repeat itself. Hopefully, there will not be another Nasser-Mubarak pattern in the country and most importantly, hopefully there will not be any kind of foreign intervention inside decisions. There are some opinions issued by some Western Chiefs of State in which they explain that 'Egypt should be helped to follow the path of democracy'. I believe the previous century has seen too much about interventions and this one has seen even more in less than fifteen years. Western countries are increasingly unable to be everywhere and unable to control what happens around them, they cannot intervene in the way they used to just for the sake of their interests. Egypt, like other countries elsewhere, has the right to follow their own path and transform slowly into the nation they seek to be.
In the West there is a false idea of what governments in the Middle East actually are, the false stereotype of all Muslim governments 'similar to something like the Taleban' prevails inside many nations. Naturally not all Middle East countries are the same and not all of them practice Islam in the same way, like in all religions, there are also different kinds of Muslims and, in my opinion, there is no concrete neither valid reason to label them as 'retrogade'. Stereotyping a whole region in which diversity is the common characteristic just shows the presence of the Eurocentrism syndrome. It is an irony that many westerners claim for equality and respect for diversity when most of their governments spend their time labelling nations and people.
In the case of the Muslim Brotherhood this is not the exception. Actually, I heard a very remarkable opinion about these ideas of stereotyping, this person explained to me that 'Western countries are unable to believe that most of us know the difference between government, policies and religion. Policies in the Middle East are not necessarily linked to religion. Islam should be respected because in the end, it is part of our identity and our political activity is not necessarily based on religion'. This is absolutely true, and it is seen in many places around the region.
When the West understands this, then democracy could effectively fit everywhere, because there is nothing written nor shown, about the Western version of democracy as the best one. If Egypt adapts democracy to its necessities then we can expect the Arab Spring there to be successful. There is a lot yet to be seen, but hopefully the Army will not stay on the power for long.
Lastly, I believe that revolutions are USELESS if people (and on a larger scale, countries) remain the SAME. If people does not change, then they will be stuck in the spiral of repeating the same mistakes all over again. Mindset change and historical conscience are ESSENTIAL if a revolution seeks to be successful. There is no point in talking about revolution if bases for it remain unclear and, if those who talk about it are no different from those who are bringing the country down.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario