Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has pledged not to seek reelection this September. On January 24, this would have been shocking, too-good-to-be-true news for most Egyptians. The fact that many Egyptians view this as too little change, happening too slowly, is proof of how dramatically the political climate in Egypt has been changed by this week of protests.
All the same, Mubarak has given the Egyptian public something to think about. I'm curious to see how many protesters continue to come out into the streets in the days ahead. These protests have essentially shut down the country. Are Egyptians prepared to risk food shortages and a continued frozen economy to try and get Mubarak out on their terms rather than his?
A government which until today had spoken of democracy only in the vaguest and most long-term sense has now agreed to a definite date for purportedly free elections only a few months away. I expect demonstrations to keep going strong for the next few days as protesters continue to demand democracy exactly the way they want it. But if another week goes by and no drastic changes occur, I can't believe that Egyptians will continue to risk their safety and their livelihoods on this scale.
As for an appropriate US response, I've been of two minds all week. On one hand, I'd like to see a democratic Egypt. The protests have shown that, for now, secular democratic sentiment in the country is much stronger than Islamism. A full and unequivocal US endorsement of immediate democratization in Egypt, even at this late date, could do a great deal for our image around the world and especially in the Middle East. The world is watching Egypt, but the US is, as always, at least in the global peripheral vision.
On the other hand, I still think that immediate democratization could end up being more trouble than it's worth. The relative peacefulness of this week's demonstrations, and the encouragingly even-handed response of the army, indicate that Egypt probably wouldn't suffer too badly itself from an immediate transfer to an interim government. But should the US really get behind the idea that a Ghandiesque coup d'etat is the right way to change your government?
Egypt is more or less ready to become a democracy overnight. But some states just aren't. They don't have the civil society, economy, or, most importantly, the security regime to simply be handed the reigns to their country after a week of protests. Yemen, for example, is a state where the challenges are too great to be met effectively by an interim government scrambling for organization.
Of course, Best Defense has a Bureau Chief with recommendations. Leading several great ideas for US action - assist with food shortage, advise on infrastructure, warn other Arab states against meddling - Mr. El-Shimy wants unconditional US support for all the protesters' demands, including an immediate exit for Mubarak.
I've got a different idea. Elections are already scheduled for September. Move them up to March. It's only a month more for the Egyptian public to wait, but it allows Egypt to go through the motions of an entirely peaceful, orderly transfer of power. A scheduled step-down says to dictators that the US will not allow any leader to resist his nation's plea for democracy. It also says to people living under oppressive regimes that while the US will support their wish to vote, governments cannot be overturned without democratic process.
This way, if the Yemeni people ever come calling, the US will have the legitimacy to ask them to wait a few months.
No comments:
Post a Comment