By P.K. Noufal and Anas Nilambur
The history of American slaves during the time of Abraham Lincoln surprisingly asserts that the slaves, being liberated from their bondage by law, had appealed to their former masters to detain them as slaves again, as they had once been! The reason was quite evident that they were unable to assimilate their new found freedom, having had no prior experience of it and unused to dealing with the outside world as free men!
That incident, perhaps strangely enough, is cognitive with the on-going turmoil in Egypt. Their collective cultural pre-history of the despotic power of the Pharaohs as well as the half century long modern history of autocratic regimes had conditioned Egyptians to live a life of serfdom. Subsequently, the one year long taste of democratic freedom was seemingly at odds with their past life.
The Egyptians thus over utilized their new found freedom of speech, rights of the individual, media freedom etc. and eventually took to the streets in free protest against the government of the day that resulted in enthroning military junta in replacement of the previous democratically elected government. They are now, perhaps, happier with a ‘Pharaoh’ back in position as if they are more used to be subservient to a dictator rather than to enjoy freedom within a democracy.
Hosni Mubarak, the former despot of Egypt, was a modernist Pharaoh, who as supreme military leader subjugated democracy; tactfully holding on to power for several decades. Strangely enough, the election results always seemed to favour him with a 99% majority! Public places and government offices were forcefully adorned with portraits of this modern Pharaoh with the view of making him seem as synonymous with Egypt as the Pyramids! He had safeguarded his autocracy through a decade’s long emergency period, where individual freedom was unknown and freedom of the media extended only as far as it was flattering to the government. He was very conscious about keeping a distance between him and the public. Protestors and whistle-blowers faced either imprisonment or the death penalty. The level of corruption during his regime saw the looting of the country’s wealth bankrupting the state’s treasury. During his approximate 40-year reign Egyptians led their life as virtual slaves.
On the other hand Morsi appeared to be a better ruler and showed his difference from all the past masters of Egypt. He has profound insight in Quran; he is a pious educated man who led a modest life in a rented house. He travelled without luxury and prayed along with common people. He discouraged the hanging of his portraits in government offices or public places. He never took revenge against those who had sought to defame him. For the first time in its history, Egypt’s media sensed a breath of freedom under his rule that paved the way for the birth of many new forms of media expression. It was indeed this very freedom that ironically led them to commit a historical blunder by protesting against the very government they had just democratically elected; eventually resulting in its collapse!
What exactly back fired Morsi’s attempt of reformation? Had he dreamt that the democracy can be built up on the remnants of wrecked autocracy? Or had he failed to realize that there were still internal and external conspirators with malicious plans against his government that was standing for the people? It is still doubtful that either Morsi never tried to tame the Military, Judiciary and the police in spite of the fact that those institutions had still been controlled by the members of the former despotic system, or he had not enough power at his hands to do so. Although he had taken some measures like ousting Muhamed Husain Tantawi, the Military Superior, in view of preventing the toddler government from anything to stand against it. That attempt was also ironically proved to be in vain for Abdul Fathah Asisi the very military leader who replaced Tantawi was happened to be the string puller of the present military coup! It is noteworthy that Morsi had failed in democratizing the judiciary as well, which had been once used by Hosni Mubarak as a tool to keep him in power. More over Morsi failed in preventing the allegations that he had employed more Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood members) in power and let them drive the government.
At this juncture Turkey has something different lessons to share with the world that how did they make their easy walk towards its democracy more effectively and convincingly. The new democratically elected government in Turkey also often had to taste the bitterness of military coup. Democratically elected government of the Welfare Party under the leadership of Najmudin Abkar was capsized by slapping allegation that his regime had tried to tarnish the secular face of the state. In addition Abkar was even barred from taking part in politics by law and put an end to his dreams of bringing Turkey up as a modern Islamic democratic state.
On the other hand, Erdogan acted very different from his ancestors. He realized that uprooting the anti-Islamic elements that had been prevailing in every single system of Turkey, by an overnight was suicidal. Instead of hasting in implementing religion he tried to strengthen the financial base of the country, which had been entirely in wreckage. Success in his attempt that won the heart of people and that led him to the victory in the second public mandate. Erdogan was very keen about regulating the power of military that always posed threat against democracy.
It is evident that what Morsi lacked was the realization that is essentially required before taing over the contorl of a state where people had never been used to a democratic system. He himself once admitted that he had no magic stick to bring back the financial stability of the state since it had been looted by several decade long unquestioned autocrats. Moreover, people in Egypt did not show enough patience to wait longer than a year, which was obviously a shortest period for any ablest ruler to straighten up a country that had been totally jeopardized by decades-long autocracy.
Meanwhile, believing that, it was the protest of a few thousand people at Tahrir Square is the reason that forced the military to sabotage the government, could be away from reasoning. The number of people on streets backing Morsi was much larger than the number of protesters who demanded his ousting although the media turned a blind eye to this news. Therefore, it is not justifiable if the few thousand protesters at Tahrir Square were considered as the representatives of entire Egyptians.
It is apparent that the media was the first institution paid dearly under the interim government that replaced the democratic government as the media freedom was curtailed as soon they came in to power. The channels like Al Jazeera and several other media were forced to close down. Mohamed Morsi and several leaders of Islamic Brotherhood were incarcerated. On the other hand, it will not be a piece of cake for the new state if they neglect the thousands of protesters who pour in to the streets demanding the democracy back in Egypt.
However, the news from Egypt says that the forth coming days of the state will never be peaceful. The onus of answering the question whether Egypt will regain the breath of freedom is ultimately on each Egyptian. And the Muslim Brotherhood must realise that ruling a state up on the debris of autocracy is not a bed of roses. Failure to recognise Egypt’s military coup will prove counterproductive for both Egyptians and Western policymakers.