From the New York Daily News in 2011 - http://www.nydailynews.com/...
Egyptian politics are, ultimately, not the direct concern of Americans. But the comments I've read on the DailyKos today have given me pause. The situation is more complex than many people are giving credit.
The (former) ruling party, the Freedom and Justice Party, was formed by the formerly outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in 2011. They had originally intended (some would say promise) not to run a presidential candidate in 2012. They ran Mohamed Morsi, a former member of the Egyptian parliament. During the Bush years, Morsi was probably best known as a 9/11 truther, something he vowed to give up as Egyptian president. And during his tenure, just 8 months ago, there were reports of extremist attacks against coptic Christians in Egypt by the notoriously conservative Christian publication Mother Jones. The New Yorker ran 2 pieces. In December, Peter Hessler wrote about the Egyptian political situation in "Brother's Keeper" and noted that ...
Ever since November 22nd, when President Morsi issued a declaration that granted him broad powers above the reach of any court, Egypt has become increasingly tense and politically fractured. After Morsi’s declaration, a Brotherhood-dominated constituent assembly rushed to finish a draft of a new constitution. More than a quarter of the assembly members resigned in protest, and there were clear violations of protocol, but the document was rammed through in a sixteen-hour voting session. Despite months of work, some articles were introduced only in that final session. The result is a slippery foundation for the future: a number of basic rights—including freedom of the press, due process for justice, and equality for women and minorities—aren’t adequately protected.
The primary mission of the new government was to build democratic institutions, including a new constitution. And at least in Heller's opinion, the FJP was failing in that regard.
A second piece in the New Yorker, "Letters from Cairo" in January of this year, reported on the question that many Egyptians were wondering; where was the FJP leading Egypt?
Bare in mind that the FJP wasn't elected by a majority. Nor, for that matter, was Egypt the first country to elect a party to power by plurality, then regret the outcome. The primary issue with the FJP (formed by the Muslim Brotherhood), from the perspective of the people in Tahir square, is that the only democracy the country has experienced was in the election. The Egyptian economy has gotten worse, and power has been consolidated within the FJP primarily.
To put that into a hyperbolic context, in the early 20th century, both Italy and Germany saw leaders and parties rise via national elections. If the people of Egypt thought they were headed down that road, and thought their concerns weren't being addressed, and thought that the plural government in power wasn't doing their jobs, should they have waited? Suppose that the Morsi government was able to consolidate power in a way similar to General Hosni Mubarak? Would that mean 20 more years of undemocratic rule?
I'd argue that it wasn't this line of thought that led to the protests, however. To better understand the protests, and what led to this moment, you have to understand the perspective of Mohamed ElBaradei.
ElBaradei was the former head of the UN International Atomic Energy Commission, and a 2005 Nobel Laureate. He has been a key figure in geopolitics for the last two decades, and was an instrumental figure in the ousting of General Hosni Muburak, the autocratic president of Egypt from 1981 until 2011. You can read a profile on Mohamed ElBaradei on Al Jazeera.
His take on the uprising in Egypt?
On June 29, the 71-year-old ElBaradei released a video message saying, "The current revolution has erupted so that each one of us lives as human and be treated like human".
In fact, on June 23, he put it even more succinctly.
You Can't Eat Sharia
In Egypt, the President holds the ceremonial title of Supreme Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Morsi appointed the current Commander of the Armed Forces, General Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi. Unusual for the Egyptian military, General Al-Sisi is a practicing Muslim; most of the high-command in the Egyptian military is areligious (if not apolitical).
Suppose, for a moment, that General Al-Sisi had remained a strict loyalist to President Morsi. How would you react if he had been asked to shoot at the crowds, and he followed that order?
So, a point to consider for anyone in the United States.
Imagine that via popular elections, a strongly religious party gained control of a legislative body. While in office, instead of working with the other parties to address looming economic issues (including employment), they focused instead on issues primarily central to their religious affiliation.
Now, take it a step further, and imagine that this focus on religion came with political purges, suppression of minority rights, the dismantling of the secular state and its policies, the rush to put in bills and laws that aligned with your religion, and the real fear that this would turn the clock backwards.
Now imagine that a Senator decides to fight against that suppression. Her supporters crowd around the capital, chanting and cheering. The state police are there. How would you react if those state police shot at the protestors? Or arrested them?
How would you react if those state police, instead, let the popular will of the people stand?
There's more about the Texas Fillibuster that's akin to what's happening in Egypt than we realize.
Food for thought.
