Sunday, November 23, 2014

The Myth of Khaki Democracy

NEW YORK – Egypt and Thailand have little in common, except for one thing. In both countries, at different times, educated people who pride themselves on being democrats have ended up applauding military coups against elected governments. They had resisted oppressive military regimes for many years. But, in Thailand in 2006, as in Egypt last month, they were happy to see their political leaders ousted by force.

This perversity is not without reason. The elected leaders in both countries, Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand and Mohamed Morsi in Egypt, were good examples of illiberal democrats: they tended to view their electoral success as a mandate to manipulate constitutional norms and behave like autocrats.

They are not alone in this respect. In fact, they are probably typical of leaders in countries with little or no history of democratic government. Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is in the same camp. And if the leaders of Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) had been allowed to take power in 1991, after their early success in a democratic election, they would almost certainly have been illiberal rulers. (Instead, they were crushed by a military coup, before a second round of elections could take place, triggering a brutal eight-year civil war in which an estimated 200,000 people died.)

The aftermath of the 2006 coup in Thailand was not nearly so bloody. But the bitterness lingers among Shinawatra’s supporters – even now, when his sister, Yingluck, is Prime Minister. Street violence is a constant threat. Only the frail and ailing 85-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej still functions as a symbol of national cohesion. Without him, fighting between the rural poor and the urban elites could quickly erupt again. This does not bode well for Thai democracy. Another military intervention is the last thing the country needs.

In Egypt, things look far worse at the moment. The leader of the military coup, General Abdul-Fattah al-Sisi, has promised to confront Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood with maximum force. In two separate incidents in July, security forces opened fire on supporters of the Brotherhood as they peacefully protested against Morsi’s ouster and arrest, killing almost 200 people. Secret-police units that were active under former President Hosni Mubarak (and known for their frequent use of torture) are being reconstituted for the first time since the 2011 revolution.

None of this is either democratic or liberal. And yet many Egyptians, including some human-rights activists, have endorsed it.

One man, who was savagely stomped by a member of the armed forces in Tahrir Square in 2011, now claims that the Egyptian people should “stand together” with the military, and that all Muslim Brotherhood leaders should be arrested. A prominent democracy activist, Esraa Abdel Fattah, has denounced Morsi’s party as a gang of foreign-backed terrorists.

The army leadership is saying the same thing: Special measures, maximum force, and revived security units are all necessary to “fight terrorism.”

Some foreign commentators have been as deluded as Egyptians who back the coup. A well-known Dutch novelist voiced a rather typical response, saying that he didn’t care much what happened to Morsi’s supporters, for they were all “Islamo-fascists” anyway. And foreign governments, including that of the United States, are averting their eyes. President Barack Obama’s administration refuses to describe what happened as a “coup.” US Secretary of State John Kerry even claimed that the military was “restoring democracy.”

There is no doubt that Morsi’s government was inexperienced, often incompetent, and showed little interest in listening to views other than those of its supporters, which were often far from liberal. But Morsi’s people are not foreign-backed terrorists. Nor was Morsi an Egyptian version of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The election that brought Morsi to power gave a political voice for the first time to millions of people, many of them poor, uneducated, and religious. They may not have been very good democrats, or even particularly tolerant of different views. Many of them had opinions – for example, on the role of women, on sex, and on the place of Islam in public life – that secular liberals find abhorrent. But silencing these people by force, and calling them foreign-backed terrorists, can have only one result: more violence.

If the outcomes of democratic elections are not respected, people will seek other means to make themselves heard. Morsi’s autocratic inclinations may have damaged democracy; taking him out in a coup deals it a mortal blow.

How to bridge the gap in developing countries between secular, more or less Westernized urban elites and the rural poor is an old question. One solution is to enforce secular modernization by oppressing the poor and their religious organizations. Egypt has already endured the harsh rule of secular police states, of both the right and the left. The other solution is to give democracy a chance.

This is not possible without allowing some form of religious expression in public life. No democracy in the Middle East that fails to take account of Islam will work. But, without the freedom to express other views and beliefs, democracy will remain illiberal.

This is hard for Islamist parties to accept. Many Islamists may in fact prefer an illiberal to a liberal democracy. But liberals who truly favor democracy must accept that Islamists are entitled to play a political role, too. The alternative is to revert to illiberal autocracy. Applauding the military coup against Morsi makes this the more likely outcome.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (7)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedGeorge T. Sipos

      Why is that? Why is it that we assume that that is the only problem with Islamist leaders: that they would rather have an authoritarian regime than a democracy? Although that may turn into a longer discussion, I think that is where we have to look right now. Is there something intrinsically anti-democratic about Islam? About religion and religious societies? Is it safe to add religion to the causes that may have triggered military responses both in Thailand and Egypt? Although Buddhist, so not as militant as Islam, Thailand is also a country where religion plays a major role in people's life.

      I don't think that Islam is to blame for the military coup in Egypt, and I don't agree with the author's claim that: "Many Islamists may in fact prefer an illiberal to a liberal democracy." In most cases, religion is only a scapegoat for other interests. Those are culpable for the Islamists' desire for a restrictive regime. When we learn what those interests are, I am positive that Islam won't have anything to do with them.

    2. CommentedTalal Serhan

      They are not after democracy, liberty and freedom for their people. They are after their own personal benefits. Constitutional norms are different between countris and religions.

    3. CommentedV S

      The West seems to have forgotten its own history. For example, if the founding fathers of the US were around, they would be bemused by all this talk about democracy. At least in the US, the framers of the constitution were interested in the republic, safeguarding individual liberty and especially from the governments and democratic efforts to undermine freedom. James Madison wrote:

      "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths""

      Hence, the need for a republic with features such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech and minority rights, etc which protect individual liberty and property.

      Now, when people says Islamists are incompatible with democracy, that's not true. The problem is Islamists are incompatible with republican ideals and that is just a fact.

      Unless the West starts talking about republican ideals, something that strangely the Egyptian army general is talking about, the policy of the West is going to flounder. Its kind of strange to see Sisi talking about the importance of a constitution that is secular, when the West isn't talking about it. but merely talking about the democratic processes, which aren't the main problem. Its the constitution. If the constitution keep the elected govt accountable to every citizen of Egypt, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, then it won't matter if MB is elected or whether its some other party. That is the point of a secular, liberal republic.

    4. CommentedLeo Arouet

      Lo que pasa en Egipto es una polarización de puntos de vista, sin bien el ejército ha tomado el poder, éste lo ha debido a la falsa democracia y autocracia que detentaba Morsi. Morsi prometió un gobierno democrático liberal, pero hizo todo lo contrario. Y los Hermanos Musulmanes han sido los protagonistas de esta contracción y opresión de los deseos del pueblo.

    5. CommentedFrank O'Callaghan

      Democracy is threatened everywhere. It loses legitimacy when the voters lose clarity. Civil society underpins democracy and civil society is under attack from the modern economic model of huge inequality. Obscurantist and religious regimes may threaten liberal humanist values but military answers are rarely the long term solution.

    6. CommentedAnton Van Boxtel

      Somehow this struggle, especially the clashes in Turkey and Egypt, seems reminiscent of what one reads about 18th/19th century Western Europe, with its constant struggle between royalist/legitimist/religious factions with a traditional rural backing and more secular/liberal factions backed by urban elites.

      I would love to hear your view about the comparability between these episodes of history. More importantly, how did "we" solve it (not "we" the Dutch, but "we" the West) Is there any chance the Middle East will come to a "better" solution.