Egypt's Tragicomedy: Democracy from the Barrel of a Gun

Egypt's Tragicomedy: Democracy from the Barrel of a Gun
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 5, 2013

Summary: At the behest of the military, Egypt changed overnight. Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, was ousted one year into his term. Two and a half years ago, the masses gathered in Tahrir Square and successfully demanded that dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. Once again, people power prevailed. But can the Egyptian people really achieve the democracy they desire at the point of a gun?

Full Text below:

At the behest of the military, Egypt changed overnight. Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, was ousted one year into his term. Two and a half years ago, the masses gathered in Tahrir Square and successfully demanded that dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. Once again, people power prevailed. But can the Egyptian people really achieve the democracy they desire at the point of a gun?

The military issued an ultimatum. Morsi was extremely recalcitrant. He boasted that he was the freely elected president of a democracy, whose rule was completely legimate and legal. Yet with scant resistance, the military was able to announce his removal from office. It was able to appoint Adly Mahmud Mansour interim national leader. Mansour had been appointed Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court only two days earlier. The action had apparently been planned long ago.

The Egyptian military has ousted a democratically elected president. Was this a coup d'etat? Outsiders are witholding judgment. The military says it is merely complying with the "will of the people." Their action is apparently welcomed by the public. The Egyptian military has assured the U.S. government that it "has no intention of ruling." If "public opinion" is any indicator of democracy, public opinion appears to favor the military. But does this amount to "imbibing poisoned wine in order to quench one's thirst?" That is difficult to say. Will leaders during the transitional period consult with the public, hold another election, and form a democratic government? Then and only then will Egypt have broken its pattern of military dictatorships established under Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak.

Military intervention is disturbing. But democratically elected president Morsi was even more intolerable to the Egyptian people. This was a classic case of choosing between the lesser of two evils. The problem with Morsi is that there will be no effective interim government. His administration wantonly appointed Muslim Brotherhood cronies and authored a constitution based solely on his personal whims. But he brought only economic ruin and social chaos. Egypt was originally an Islamic nation with strong secular tendencies. Morsi attempted to impose theocratic rule, and use conservative religious dogma to restrict people's private conduct. As a result, Egypt's secularists, liberals, women, youth, and even forces from the previous regime, are united in their opposition to him.

Morsi may have been a democratically elected president. But his administration failed to fulfill the hopes of the Jasmine Revolution. It could not avoid being overthrown. Such events offer a sober reminder about modern democratic politics. Put simply, an elected head of state must answer to public opinion. He cannot boast that "I won the election" and flaunt his legitimacy and legality. In today's democracy public opinion changes rapidly. Merely winning an election is no longer enough.

Consider the most obvious example. Last month waves of protests hit Turkey. In recent years, Turkey has enjoyed swift economic growth. Many sectors of the economy are thriving. Premier Dogan Erdogan's sound governance has attracted international attention. But a park demolition project in the nation's capitol provoked overwhelming public opposition. Erdogan initially assumed an arrogant posture. He trumpeted his decade long record of accomplishments. He said the public supported a third term. But amidst fierce public unrest, he was eventually forced to offer a low-keyed apology.

Erdogan's dazzling record won him public support. But his arrogance inspired the Western media to ridicule his regime as "zombie democracy." His government met all the formal requirements of democracy. But it lacked a heart. It failed to understand the feelings of the people. Think about it. Erdogan was responsible for Turkey's economic success. Yet even he was not immune to such resentment. Morsi on the other hand, merely won a single election victory. Yet he considered that a mandate to personally write a new constitution, reshuffle the cabinet, and change the social order. He failed to create prosperity for the people or offer them a vision for the future. How was his regime any different from a dictatorship? On the eve of Morsi's downfall, six ministers resigned, abandoning him. The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters were burned. How the public felt about him was obvious.

Will Egyptian military intervention lead to comedy or tragedy? That is difficult to say. Two years ago during the Jasmine Revolution, authoritarian leaders were ousted, only to be replaced by strongman dictatorship, economic decline, and political corruption. Who could have known? By the same token, soldiers have driven out an arrogant head of state. They have met with public expectations. But will the military forces become addicted to meddling in domestic affairs? Will Egyptian democracy turn into government at gunpoint? That is equally difficult to say. For a nation to move from dictatorship to democracy, requires institutional guarantees, regulations, and long term social constraints. It cannot be implemented overnight. But fewer and fewer people have the patience. The rulers remain mired in the mentality of authoritarianism. How can anyone tolerate zombie democracy?

In any event, large scale protests, from Turkey to Egypt, have deposed democratically elected heads of state. This is a lesson for all leaders. Do not think only of the power at your disposal. Instead, think of your responsibilities!

埃及悲喜劇：當民主靠槍桿子維持
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.05 03:18 am

在軍方主導下，埃及一夕變天，剛剛就職滿周年的首位民選總統穆希遭到了罷黜。和兩年半前在解放廣場成功要求獨裁者穆巴拉克下台一樣，群眾的力量再度獲勝；但這一回，埃及人民是不是真能在槍桿子協助下得到他們期待的民主？

面對軍方的最後通牒，穆希極力頑抗，自稱是經「自由選舉」產生的民主總統，具有絕對的「正當性」和「合法性」；然而，軍方似乎不費吹灰之力即控制他的行動，宣布將他解職，並指派剛上任兩天的憲政法院首席大法官曼蘇爾為國家臨時領導人。這項行動，顯然策劃已久。

埃及軍人罷黜民選總統，算不算「政變」，外界暫持保留態度。軍方自稱是遵照「人民的意志」行事，他們的行動似乎也受到民眾的歡迎，埃及軍方並向美國政府保證他們「無意執政」。若「民意」是民主的指針，此刻民意似乎是傾向軍方的；但其間「飲鴆止渴」的風險，恐難估計。除非過渡期的領導人和協商會議能有效運作，順利推動下次選舉，並組成民主政府；那麼，我們才可以說埃及不會重蹈納瑟、沙達特及穆巴拉克的軍人專政覆轍。

軍人干政令人不安，但經民主程序選出的總統穆希卻更令埃及人民難耐，這是「兩害相權取其輕」之計。穆希的問題，在於過度專斷卻無法有效治理：他的政府大肆任命其「穆斯林兄弟會」之親信，並獨斷地依個人意旨制定憲法；但經濟上他卻只帶來凋弊，而社會原有秩序鬆脫。埃及原是一個世俗傾向頗強的伊斯蘭國家，穆希卻企圖「以教領政」，用保守的教規束縛民眾。也因此，埃及的世俗派、自由派、婦女和青年，乃至前政府的舊勢力，全都站到了他的對立面。

穆希雖是經民主選舉產生的總統，但他的施政無法滿足茉莉花革命的民主期待，因而難逃被推翻的命運。這樣的演變，不啻是對現代民主政治一記當頭棒喝。簡單地說，民選元首若不能認真回應民意，卻只是以「我贏得了選舉」來誇示自己的正當性與合法性，在今天民意反覆快速的民主政治下，恐怕已經不夠了。

最明顯的例子，便是上月的土耳其抗議風潮。土耳其近年經濟成長快速，各項發展欣欣向榮，總理厄多岡則因治理有方，受到國際矚目；但僅為了首都一座公園的拆遷案，他卻引起了民眾排山倒海的反對。厄多岡起初傲慢以對，一再誇示自己的十年政績，並宣稱民意支持他「三度連任」；然而，在民眾激烈的抗爭下，他最後只能低調道歉。

厄多岡自誇擁有耀眼政績及民意支持，但他的傲慢，被西方媒體譏為「殭屍民主」。原因是，他領導的政府擁有民主的一切形式要件，少的卻是一顆真心，一顆能體貼並理解人民感受的心。試想，以厄多岡為土耳其創造的經濟成就，都仍無法免於如此巨大的民怨；穆希只憑恃一次勝選，就獨攬制憲、組閣、改變社會秩序的全部權力，最後卻無法為人民創造繁榮與願景，這和獨裁統治有何兩樣？穆希垮台前夕，有六名閣員宣布辭職棄他而去，穆斯林兄弟會總部遭到焚燒，人心向背已一目了然。

埃及這場軍人干政大戲，究竟會以喜劇或悲劇收場，目前尚難斷言。就像兩年前的茉莉花革命，走了獨裁領袖，卻換來專政強人，經濟更委靡、秩序更敗壞，其誰能料？同樣的，今天軍人趕走了傲慢元首，護持了人民的期待；但軍方勢力會不會干政成癮，使埃及民主陷於「槍桿子看守」的危境，同樣難以逆料。事實上，一個國家要從專制走向民主，需要體制、法規和不同社會力量的長期磨合，難以一蹴而就；但當人民的耐心越來越少，而統治者的心態卻還停留在威權時代，這樣的殭屍民主誰能忍受？

無論如何，從土耳其的大示威到埃及民選總統遭罷黜，對所有領導人都是一課深切的提醒：不要只仗恃手中權力，想想你的責任！