L’état c’est le soldat

Georgetown University’s conference on Egypt and the Struggle for Democracy included a final panel discussion on “Restoration of Democracy and the Rule of Law in Egypt: The Roles of Pro-Democracy Groups and the International Community” featuring Abdul Mawgoud Dardery  (former Freedom and Justice Party member of Parliament), Nathan Brown (George Washington University), Dalia Mogahed (CEO, Mogahed Consulting), and Emad Shahin (American Univesty in Cairo). Tamara Sonn (College of William & Mary) moderated.

Abdul Mawgoud Dardery: Egyptians have been suffering for decades living under a police state. In order to understand current events, it is crucial to understand the historical context. During the revolution, Egyptians were against Mubarak and also the entire system. On February 11, 2011, Mubarak fell, but the system did not.

The March 19 referendum was the first challenge to the revolution. It moved the country from a revolutionary mode to a reform agenda. The referendum put Egypt on the course of formal democracy, which is long and gradual. Some political actors thought siding with the military was an easier, faster way to move forward.

Morsi ruled with a nationally unified government, but the challenges it faced were tremendous. Forces of the old regime were still in place: the military, police, judiciary, and state bureaucracy. Some say Morsi failed. He was made to fail. In spite of this, Egyptians were pleased because they lived in a democracy where they were able to move and hold meetings freely.

On July 3, 2013, the military kidnapped and imprisoned the president against the will of the Egyptian people. The Shura Council and the constitution were suspended. Media outlets were shut down. There was no rule of law.

Where do we go from here? We need to unite and follow the rules of the game. We cannot change the rules when we do not like the person in power. The current situation can lead to a failed state. However, if Egyptians can resolve their differences and find a shared agenda, they can find means to counter this violence so we can all move forward.

Nathan Brown: In Egypt there is a democratic ethos and democratic procedures in the sense that there are elections. But democracy in the sense of an established system of governance has not existed.

The underlying problem in Egypt is not the absence of democratic processes. It is the lack of structures to resolve the differences among Egyptians within the political realm. This is part of the legacy of decades of authoritarian rule. When Mubarak fell, democratic structures were weak. This led to an inability of political groups to translate abstract visions into concrete political strategies for the country. Since last summer the political process has driven Egyptian society further into competing, self-contained camps. It has also entrenched the Egyptian security services and judiciary outside of the political process. Now they are standing above the political process and establishing their own vision, sometimes with great brutality.

The message the international community should send is that the various groups within Egyptian politics must learn to work together. For each other’s sake and for the sake of the international community.

Dalia Mogahed: There are a number of reasons why the international community should care about the violence on the streets of Egypt.

First, instability in Egypt has political and economic ramifications regionally. Economic instability builds an environment of state repression and vigilante violence. This will eventually produce extremist, violent groups. This will affect both Egypt and the international community.

Second, throughout the year of Morsi’s presidency and later, the faith of the Egyptian people in the democratic process eroded.  At the beginning of Morsi’s presidency, over 75% of Egyptians believed the presidential elections were fair and honest. This included people who did not get the candidate they voted for. This percentage eroded to 33% of Egyptians by the end of 2013. What remained consistent was people’s confidence in the military. The military is the institution in Egypt with the highest level of popular confidence. When you have this reality, democratic institutions hardly have a chance.

Gallup found that there is an empirical link between confidence in the honesty of elections and belief that oppressed people can make a significant difference through peaceful means. The international community should be concerned.

What should the international community and pro-democracy groups do? They must address the deep polarization within Egyptian society to enable the prospect of a democratic future. This means giving platforms to people who agree on rational debate and pluralism rather than a false notion of national unity.

Emad Shahin: I will try and frame this discussion about initiatives within a larger framework. This larger framework is helpful in understanding the elements that are necessary for any future initiatives.

It is necessary to understand the nature of the Egyptian state, which is old and entrenched. To what extent is Egyptian society willing or able to live independently of the state? The goal of the revolution was to dismantle the state. Even in pursuing its basic objectives, however, it did not have a political vision or framework. When the revolutionaries saw nothing was really happening, they immediately tilted towards the state. The media, nongovernmental organizations, judiciary, and even the people on the streets sided with the state.

Egypt was founded and is owned by the military. It is not only an institution; it is a class. It is the only class that has a sense of ownership because it controls 20-40% of the Egyptian economy. Any president has to accept the military as the core ruling institution in the country.

The current polarization within civil society is unprecedented. Because peaceful strategies have not been successful, Egyptians have resorted to violence. The movement for change has to remain peaceful. It is also essential to respect pluralism and the rule of law. Field Marshall Sisi’s attempt to bring Egyptians together through subjugation will fail. The country is more polarized than before and on the verge of civil war.

The only alternative to returning to a Mubarak-style relationship with the regime is to keep mobilizing peacefully. This has to consist of three components: self-criticism, formation of a broad civil coalition on common objectives, and a shared national vision and plan of action. Such focused mobilization will weaken the grip of the state.

In the past, the silence of the international community has given tacit consent for the Egyptian government to continue political repression. The role of pro-democracy movements in the international community is significant. They can help increase the morale of the people on the streets of Egypt.