Is it too late for civility in Egypt?

It has been over two weeks since reform-minded protestors took to the streets in Egypt. In that time, the Hosni Mubarak government has made verbal and concrete concessions aimed at restoring peace and normalization to the country. Mubarak has resigned from his post as the head of the National Democratic Party, the only legal political party in Egypt, and has vowed that he nor his son will run in this year's presidential election. However, he has stopped short of immediately resigning as president and dismantling the one-party political apparatus which has dominated Egypt for over thirty years.

This immediate action is what many of the protestors are calling for; the end of the Mubarak era, a new constitution, a democratic multi-party political system...freedom, this is what they want. However, in the West we have come to expect that transitions of governmental power contain two elements; they occur within the boundaries of law and are peaceful in nature. So far law and order have been hard to come by in Egypt, but there is little reason for the impending transition to need to continue down the path of a bloody revolution versus an inevitable evolution. Do the Egyptian people really want the founding of their new democracy to begin with brutality and anarchy?

While Mubarak's repressive tactics have been the overwhelming source of the bloodshed, the protestor's demand for an immediate overthrow of the whole regime also have to factor into the blame. Essentially, if the protestors are willing to accept that the transition will, and should, take time, they may end up with a better product once their new government is formed. Time...time to create effective political parties...time to communicate each party's message to the Egyptian electorate...time to draft a new and citizen-empowering constitution.

Given Mubarak's excessive tenure as president, it is no wonder his insistence on serving out the remainder of his term has fallen on deaf ears. While a timely, orderly transition is what's needed, Mubarak lacks the legitimacy to call for it. To Egyptians he is a dictator, he is the enemy, he is the problem, so how can he be trusted to usher-in reform? He cannot.

Mubarak's best option is to immediately cede presidential power to a successor whom will serve out the remainder of his term. Utilizing the input of international organizations and opposition leaders such as Mohamed ElBaradei, this successor should then begin work on drafting a new constitution which will go into effect prior to the fall presidential elections and will be published for all Egyptians to see. The emergency powers which have justified Mubarak's one-party rule should be nullified and political parties legalized. Additionally, certain elements of Mubarak's former regime should be excluded from running in the election, including even the successor chosen to help craft the constitutional document.

The worst thing Mubarak can do is continue testing the will of his people by staying in office. The longer he stays, the more radicalized the populace is likely to become, and there can be no doubt that should chaos and anarchy prevail, the Egyptian situation will be exploited by the hardline Islamist elements of society.

By taking the tangible, irrevocable step of resigning, Mubarak will communicate to the Egyptian people that the change is in fact real. One can only hope that Egyptians take this to heart and steer their ship toward calmer waters. Let history make note, when given the choice of violence and anarchy or law and order, Egyptians choose the latter.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Egypt in transition: Isn't it about time?

Today, Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, announced that he would not seek re-election this fall in what would amount to the end of his decades-old non-democratic presidency. The announcement comes after days of popular protests throughout Egypt calling for his resignation. However, it is unclear to me as to whether his announcement is genuine.

According to a recent New York Times article, Egyptian reactions to his announcement were not positive but quite the opposite. Protestors have called for his immediate resignation, but Mubarak's announcement seems to be an unacceptable compromise; one that could in fact result in him retaining power beyond the fall elections. Most likely, the negative reactions to his announcement signify that Egyptians are well aware of this possibility.

Egyptian presidential elections are months and months away, giving the Mubarak government plenty of time to allow popular resentment to subside. In that time, Mubarak can reassess his position, reestablish control, squash dissent, and build foreign support for the continuance of his regime. While Nobel laureate and former head of the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency , Mohamed ElBaradei, is seen widely as one of the opposition leaders who could assume power, it isn't at all clear who will actually fill the vacuum should Mubarak step down. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood, a longtime Islamist political group, has been singled out by some Western-backed leaders as an undesirable potential replacement to the current government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is one leader who's recently raised concern that a Western-friendly government may not rise from the ashes of Mubarak's downfall, suggesting that there is a market in which the appeal of sticking with the current regime can be shopped and sold. Of course, Netanyahu's comments may be more reflective of his concern that a new Egypt will be less Israeli-friendly than that it would be less Western-friendly. I don't believe most international leaders would view the West and Israel as one-in-the-same.

While, at present, Mubarak may not truly intend to give up power in eight months, his announcement should give his government, as well as others, some breathing room and additional time to analyze what this uprising is all about. Governments around the world may find that this is a grassroots, peaceful, and popular movement toward real democracy, led by an educated and cosmopolitan demographic. Egypt is not Iraq, it is not Iran, and it is definitely not the sharia-law based Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Egypt has been a leader in the Middle East for decades, and has had a Western-influenced populace for years. In the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, a peaceful domestic-led movement toward democracy in one of the Middle East's most stable countries doesn't sound so bad...actually, I thought that's what we've been waiting for?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5