Democracy in Egypt
The article is concluded with the assumption regarding further floundering of democratic spirits in the Middle East areas owing to the lack of fundamental trust that the democratic concepts imply. The author formulated a trustworthy conclusion on the basis of a number of arguments and analysis of the relevant facts. He avoided specifying a specific drawback that causes numerous faults, shifting the blame on all the involved parties. One of the main problems was climate of deep mistrust caused by the continuous failures and blinders of the democratic movements in Egypt and other related countries in the area. He started with profound analysis of the ruling period of the first elected president Mohamed Morsi and concluded that it could not be beneficial and effective, since the political system of the country could not be defined as democratic in accordance with the generally accepted definition of the democratic rule from the historical and etymological points of view. The author even referred to certain Morsi’s actions and decisions as anti-democratic and directed not at his people.
The above-mentioned facts serve as indisputable evidence of non-existence of democratic rule in the country; however, the whole picture of the situation lacks an essential detail. The failure of democracy cannot be ascribed to a single person, however powerful he was. The actions of the president were only a link in the chain of other failures, in particular the inability and unwillingness of the army, governmental institutions and other parties to cooperate with the executive power for the sake of democratic developments and success. For instance, the President of the United States is not the only owner of the authority and power in the country; instead, the evolvement of democracy is implemented in the framework of the process of development and cooperation. Therefore, the non-effectiveness of Egyptian legal system caused the corresponding actions and decisions made by the president, and the analysis of the situation does not allow defining it as democratic in accordance with the etymological meaning.
Furthermore, according to the speculation of the author, the army took the power it had never relinquished before. Hence, it is not reasonable to blame merely the president of Egypt for ruining of the democratic principles in the country, as the availability of a powerful institution that influenced the rules is a factor of crucial importance as well. The army organized the coup to seize the political power and clearly demonstrate that the key player in Egypt was not the president. It should be noted that armies in other countries also take the major roles; however, analysing Egypt, it is crucial to highlight the reasons why the coup and power seizure were not prevented by the government via establishing an operating legal system of high efficiency.
The prevalent situation was favourable for a coup and coming of another ruler into power being interpreted as democratic actions. According to the conclusion of the author, this turn of actions in the country had a potential to change the rule in the country to democratic one notwithstanding the opinion of some experts who point out anti-democratic character of the coup. It could have had similar consequences with the American Revolution and Portugal case in 1971. Therefore, it is relatively correct to assume that the author’s point of view on the non-democratic character of the Egyptian event is well-grounded. The accepted definition of democracy implies having certain inconsistencies and voids; however, it can work if it is applied in the countries with powerful legal system and operating enforcement.
In addition, the failures in democratic development were caused by the peculiar characteristics of religious beliefs of Egyptians and unique cultural features. People of the country involuntarily contributed to the development of problems that did not allow the democratic system to evolve and improve. Numerous protests for democracy in Egypt were organized by people who might not accept the principles of democratic ruling in accordance with the mentioned definition. Even if this democratic type of ruling can result in the establishment of a secular state without adherence to Islamic laws, it still remains a question if the people will be for those changes. The answer can be found in the fact that the backing and representing of the elected president was done by the Islamic party and considerable number of pro-Islamic people who supported the party and the president. Their acceptance of a state of secular type is out of the question, and even if the changes in the society take place against the actions and desires of pro-Islamic population, the empowerment of this population will not happen. This consequence of the changes cannot be considered democratic either. According to the author, the pure democracy implies much more than mere voting and polls that may be judged as appropriate means of democracy, but the true intentions cannot be fulfilled.
Moreover, another point raised by the author deals with the promotion of democracy on the western ground that is further extended to the colonization policy and even potential totalitarian regime. It is explained with the characteristic feature of democracy that accepts only one set of values considered righteous from the pint of view of morality. The author emphasises the inconsistency of democratic principles which were promoted by the UN and certain countries of the west, as there is a conflict in the democratic statement regarding the freedom for beliefs. As there should be specific principles and rules provided for by the multiple beliefs maintained by the democratic principle accepted in the framework of western democracy, this implies the enforcement of democracy of people. Committing a certain act against the will of the people can be defined as an act of totalitarian regime, while if a democratic state serves other countries it can be defined as a feature of colonialism. Therefore, all the mentioned inconsistencies cause lack of trust in the people who will never exert their efforts to the full extent until the issue with mistrust is resolved and democracy stops floundering.
Further Questions Raised on the Basis of the Research
It is reasonable to assume that democratic principles can be applied easier in the area of a single religion and shared ethical culture. From a theoretical point of view, democracy faces fewer problems and protests in such countries as Egypt in contrast to the places with a complicated demographic situation. The majority of the population in Egypt are Muslims, while Christians make up a powerful minority. From the very beginning, the Muslims did not consider the democratic principles introduced by western countries as suitable and appropriate for their country. It is a well-grounded assumption that there will be a considerable protest and oppression of the Islamic parties to the democracy in Egypt; moreover, the rights of the Christians are also expected to be affected since the democratic principles are introduced to suit the interests of the majority. It is impossible to tailor the democratic ruling flawlessly to satisfy the needs of all the parties since the rules of Christianity are different from those of Islam; hence, the Egyptian type of democracy is undoubtedly going to have considerable deviation from the democracy in its traditional western definition. It is of crucial importance for the people to realize that the way of empowerment should be chosen individually, and the people are supposed to take part in the life of the country on the principles of effectiveness and fairness.
The definition of democracy presents it as a perfect situation without any drawbacks, in which all people regardless of their religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds, traditions, and approaches seek for implementation of the democratic principles and want to live in a democratic country. The origin of the word ‘democracy’ presents it as ‘empowering people’ since ‘demos’ in Greek means ‘people’ and ‘kratia’ is translated as ‘power or rule’. The implementation of democratic principles and achievement of democracy in the countries of the world is possible only if the people of the country are eager to be empowered. Furthermore, the author states that not the democracy is the reason for mistrust in the people, but other related failures and obstacles that caused numerous problems in people’s lives. Regaining of this trustful attitude from the people is doable provided that the people have corresponding education and can achieve the point in development that corresponds to achievement of democracy in the society. People require confidence that their beliefs will be taken into consideration under the conditions of a democratic state; so, they expect the system to be deprived of voids and inconsistencies if they decide to live in a democratic state.