View Mobile Site

Egypt's revolution is ambiguous

  • Bookmark and Share

Prime Time Specialty Mini Grid WIDGET

Tonight in Prime Time

Enter your ZIP code below to see local listings.

BC News Friends to follow

POSTED: February 9, 2011 10:10 a.m.

Every revolution against autocracy is initially stirring. Who wouldn’t have cheered when Louis XVI was forced to convene the Estates General, or when a liberal provisional government took over from Czar Nicholas, or when the rank and file of the Shah’s army refused to fire on protesters in the streets?
All these inspiring events were mere prelude to catastrophe, making the years 1789, 1917 and 1979 synonymous with the onset of tyranny and bloodshed.
This is why our applause at the imminent political demise of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak should be decidedly provisional. For all his ruinous failings and disgusting crimes, we may miss him when he’s gone.
In Cairo in 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously said that we had “pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East — and we achieved neither.” Her statement is now hailed as prescient, but it was wrong by any reasonable standard.
During the first three decades of Israel’s existence, Egypt fought wars with the Jewish state in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. Since the beginning of Hosni Mubarak’s presidency in 1981, there have been none. Most of the credit goes to Anwar Sadat, who signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 that cost him his life. Yet, a 30-year peace between the largest, most important Arab state and Israel is no small feat of stability.
As for democracy, we didn’t actively trade it for order, but took Egyptian political culture as we found it. After decades of British occupation, the revolution of 1952 eventually gave rise to Gamal Abdel Nasser. Historian David Pryce-Jones calls him “the first Arab to have created a police state,” complete with the “whole grim and bloody apparatus of control through bureaucratic terror.”
Nasser died in 1970, but his system lived on. Egypt has been ruled by emergency decree almost continuously since 1967. The Egyptian police state didn’t exist because of American support (initially it was pro-Soviet); we supported it because it existed, and over time became pro-American.
What now? It is heartening to see Egyptians revolt against the indignities and misery visited upon them by Mubarak. But marches and riots — and even elections — are one thing. Creating a functioning, liberal democracy is quite another.
Egypt has no experience with true constitutional democracy, and its strongest institution is the relatively Westernized military. We should urge Mubarak to leave without attempting a crackdown that will further radicalize the streets and risk splintering the army (the meltdown of the Iranian army in 1979 was a boon to the ayatollahs). Then, with luck, the military can manage a gradual transition to a more open political system.
The Bush administration undertook a push for democratization that created a tentative democracy at a great cost in Iraq, but otherwise petered out. Weirdly, it may be that the slimy anti-American info-activist Julian Assange, by leaking documents detailing the extravagant corruption of Tunisia’s since-deposed dictator, has inadvertently done more to stoke an Arab Spring.
We know how hopeful it is now in its early days; we don’t know how it’s going to turn out.

Lowry is editor of the National Review.

 

Comments

  • Bookmark and Share

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

Most Popular


Please wait ...