A newspaper I was reading had four articles dedicated to the recent Egyptian uprising and riots. There was a fifth that was loosely-veiled as a non-Egypt article, but a closer look revealed the discussion of transplanting rulers for non-political candidates in Russia and Venezuela in the 90s.
The fascination with this story is in part with the large numbers of protestors. Millions have flooded the streets both in support and protest of the change in power. But the real fascination comes from my choice of words there: "change in power." In deciding how to view this moment in Egyptian history, people all over the world, but especially in Europe and the United States, are torn.
A military-lead change in power is typically a "coup" in public discourse. Merriam Webster defines a coup as "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group."
Semantically, this might not apply completely. The "violent" adjective is debatable, but also not vital to the definition. As it seems, the transition itself had no casualties, though the aftermath has certainly seen riot violence, so the definition should apply (for the record, many revolts previously labeled coups similarly had little bloodshed in the transition phase). Update: reports of army-backed violence today show that, now, violence is a part of the change.
The other issue, and the one being debated by supporters of the second revolution, is the last part "by a small group." A small military force effected the change, but was this part of a wider movement? The question here is particularly relevant because it speaks for the entire democratic process. In a new democracy with no repeal process, this may have been attempt at populist, democratic change, which, as far as a social revolution would go, is justifiable in democractic thinking.
Or, it may also be an attempt to subvert the majority vote from the most recent election, which would be unjustifiable.
But if either these illegal Acts have extended to the Majority of the People; or if the Mischief and Oppression has light only on some few, but in such Cases, as the Precedent, and Consequences seem to threaten all, and they are perswaded in their Consciences, that their Laws, and with them their Estates, Liberties, and Lives are in danger, and perhaps their Religion too, how they will be hindered from resisting illegal force, used against them, I cannot tell.
- Locke
What Locke describes relates to last year's revolution: widespread disapproval and fear, erection of completely different governmental system in the form of democracy, etc. But now, does this still apply?
With the latter scenario, this puts Western watchers in a weird place. Many wish to support the revolution because we've been rooting for rebels and protesters in the Middle East and North Africa since the Arab spring began. We see these fighters as signs of budding democratic spirit. What makes this weird from the American point of view, however, is that in many of these revolutions, the rebel forces are Islamist. We want to support populist spirit but our public policy is anti-Islamist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and wherever else we find signs of such groups.
Yet with Syria, many Americans root for these Islamist rebels. In Egypt's scenario, Westerners get a lucky break, with the second revolution coming from non-Muslim Brotherhood members, which allows many to immediately support this idea. But the struggle here is reconciling the divide between popular surge and anti-democratic actions.
Even if this is a popular surge (which, with widespread counter protests from Muslim Brotherhood supporters and more secular groups who oppose the change, it is unclear if it was) it still begs the question of whether or not this action was appropriate and legal. Our support then appears to be nothing other than an insult to the democratic process OR a clear, anti-Islamist government stance that we've suddenly adopted publicly (which is unstated because it would be deeply intrusive and insulting in the region) despite our support of Syrian rebel forces (an example of recent laws in rebel-held Syria can be seen here).
The safest thing for Western governments to do is not support this movement, but not condemn it either. Many Western nations are avoiding the word "coup" (despite, in my opinion, clear signs of it being one) because they wish to support the non-Muslim Brotherhood ralliers, and are completely aware that the most undemocratic move (and perfect anti-Western propaganda tool) would be supporting this change (be it a coup or not) in a newly democratic society. Particularly because Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups seem to be gaining widespread support across the Arab world, America really cannot afford to anger these groups within Egypt and abroad by validating the new government.
The current interim government may be more US friendly, but we should not be eager to jump into that since, after all, if this is a coup and not a popularist movement, we would anger a majority of the country. Even if it was popularist, the image of democratic system is at stake, with extralegal rebellion required to cause change -- something democracies should fix only with ballots and laws.
With Syrian rebels in the region criticizing the current government and, tragically, the feasibility of democracy in the region, the United States must be careful to not involve itself in the new government. This is a particularly fragile point for democracy in the region. Just a year ago, Egypt was praised by the White House as a symbol of democracy in the region. Now, regardless of the reasoning behind the change --whether it was a popularist, majority-demanded palpable pressure for change that only the military had the power to realize or merely a minority concern -- the image of democracy in the region was almost entirely destroyed as the military took power.
"Apparently armies in ‘democracies’ can topple presidents elected by the majority? This is a bad sign for revolutions."
If the United States really wants to be the face of democracy, it should side with the deposed leader. Regardless of either side's politics, the United States, which has long championed democracy, can restore both its own pro-democratic image abroad and support the struggling idea of democracy in a region that greatly needs it right now simply by explaining the point-of-view of the ousted leader.
The United States should listen to the concerns of the current interim government because they are expressing opinions that dissented from the former government. If the United States can tread the fine line between accepting their complains and realizing that citizens had no way to express their concern between elections, then it should help the interim government to fix these structural government issues (adding concepts like impeachment, additional judicial checks, etc. to the consititution) and, more importantly, return the majority of the power to the elected government until the new elections are held.
Without action, future democracy will be at stake, with more citizens believing that only violence and military might controls power, a future we as world citizens cannot allow.
