It is wrong to evaluate what is happening in Egypt and also in Tunisia as a conflict to embody democracy. In both countries the people, after ridding themselves of reaction and despotism, chose democracy as the mode of circulating power and as the mode of the relationship of the people's strata with one another. The founding of the new parties in their different colors and the internal political alignments that followed, as well as the elections that took place in both countries, were the summit of what the Arab world had reached, after driving out colonialism, of democratic practice. The Arab peoples, after the great upheavals of the past two years, have tasted the honeyed flavor of democracy and freedom, and the masses will not easily give up this great achievement.
The boat of democracy, which some Arab peoples have boarded and others aspire to board, has not yet reached a safe shore. And the danger does not come from the existence of an alternative to democracy; rather, the greater danger comes from a wrong understanding and a wrong explanation of democracy on the part of some political parties. Yes, there are forces that try to fragment democracy and cut it to their own measure in a way that serves only their factional interest, disregarding the interest of the people, the homeland and the nation. What we have watched in the past weeks, especially in Egypt, is the insistence of the majority of the people that there is no turning back from democracy and the will of the people, and that the era of factional or personal despotism has irreversibly passed. And the people is the sole reference point and the sole safety valve for embodying democracy.
What we observe today of events in Egypt and Tunisia is an image of the daily internal conflict that all Arab societies live. A conflict over the way of life that these peoples want, a conflict over the future structure of the people and the homeland in a globalized world that has become interwoven like a village through the mighty capacities and possibilities of communication. Yes, it is an internal civilizational and cultural conflict that the Arab world is passing through. And what we follow in Egypt is the beginning of the end. And without doubt, this conflict will encompass the entire Arab world, even if with variations from one Arab country to another, for reasons and givens related to the social and cultural structure of each of the Arab countries. And we can extend this statement to the Islamic world as a whole. The similarities between what is happening in Turkey and in Egypt cannot be overlooked, for their source, in our view, is one and the same, namely the conflict over the way of life that the people want to practice, and its outcome will certainly be very similar.
And back to Egypt, since it is the heart of the Arab world and the indicator of its movement. Egypt was and will remain the backbone of the Arab nation, and not only in the political-social change.
The deposed president, Mohamed Morsi, and also the Egyptian parliament were elected through a fair democratic process without blemish. However, the manner in which the new constitution was deposited and the future of the country was drawn up single-handedly after the expulsion of reaction – in the absence of a broad national consensus, which is self-evident for every society that has revolted against reaction and despotism – led to clear restlessness and disgruntlement among the majorities of the strata of Egyptian society. And the presidential decrees of Mohamed Morsi, which were characterized by the Islamization of areas of life, proved to the civil society movements what they had warned of from the first day of the Brothers' arrival and the Salafi currents that followed them at the apex of the authoritarian pyramid in Egypt. The abysmal failure of the Brothers to present an economic policy that would revive the country and alleviate the crushing burden of unemployment, and the failure of Morsi's government to put forward a program of revival and social rebuilding for a new, modern Egypt increased the pent-up tension that exploded with the massive signature campaign and the peaceful demonstrations against the Brothers' regime and their plans to Islamize life to their measure. And this step is born from the womb of democratic life, and demonstrating against the ruling system and trying to win a popular majority are rights of the opposition, as every democratic order knows. The Egyptian masses rose up in defense of civil society and against a new despotism of a single political party and its monopoly on determining the future development of the country.
There is no doubt that the escalation of tension in the last week and the attempt to drag Egypt into a religious civil war are a slap in the face of every progressive. And in the end, the bigger question remains whether the political leaderships, including the Brothers, can stop the stream of innocent Egyptian blood, and whether everyone is capable of getting out of this impasse before it is too late?
What is required now is not an attempt to demonize one of the parties, and not seeking the aid of external forces by any political party. For most of the external forces trying hard to enter the Egyptian arena – if not all of them – are concerned only with their economic and political interest, and do not care what happens to Egypt and its people in the future. The only path for Egypt, before it meets the fate of Syria, is self-restraint and rising to the national responsibility that the current situation requires. And we are certain that there is no way out for Egypt in returning to banning parties, and throwing leaderships into prisons as was the case in the era of despotism. The way out does not lie in the military holding the reins of rule; the way out lies only in the agreement of all the political parties to respect political and religious plurality in Egypt and to preserve Egypt's Arabness and its sovereignty.
* Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies of the Middle East – Hanover/Germany
