Democracy versus elections

Editorial

Reports early this week suggest that Israel is lobbying behind the scenes for European and North American governments to cooperate with the military regime in Egypt.

Israel, long after most other countries had abandoned him, continued their moral support of the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. For obvious reasons, the election of the Muslim Brotherhood in the free elections that followed Mubarak’s ouster was met with legitimate concern in Israel, among other places. But other places are not on the front line of Egyptian foreign policy the way Israel is. Israel is forced, in many ways and on many occasions, to adopt foreign policy positions that are based on pragmatic realities. Israel, unlike perennially safe Canada, does not have the luxury of resting on matters of theoretical principle when its neighbors are inflamed with civil strife.

Still, it may seem self-serving and hypocritical for Israel – and its overseas advocates – to now be encouraging recognition of and cooperation with the military regime that overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Morsi. Zionist activists, who have bragged for years that Israel is the only true democracy in its region, may now find ourselves on the side of the new regime that overthrew the democratically elected Brotherhood. This position will become even more unsavory if the violence, much of it a result of the military’s crackdown on pro-Morsi protesters, continues and the death toll rises. Even without the violence, the position appears hypocritical.

As in so many instances, simple appearances deceive.

Democracy is not just about elections; it is about putting in place the civil infrastructures of responsible government and ensuring a voice for minorities even within an electoral system where the majority wins. A single election does not a democracy make. This was especially true in the case of Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood did not seek to create the infrastructures of democracy, but instead behaved as an elected dictatorship, with no indication that they intended to represent the spectrum of religious and political diversity in the country. So, while the coup overturned a democratically elected government, it did not overthrow a democratic government. There is a difference, and it’s not insignificant.

Many Western governments have demanded that the military regime hold new elections at the earliest possible date. This is a shortsighted approach. While the current regime is certainly not an ideal alternative to truly democratic and elected governance, neither would new elections guarantee such a positive alternative. What Western governments should be doing – and the manner in which our governments should be interacting with that of Egypt – is to help them build the infrastructures that will allow true democracy to flourish, including constitutional enshrinement of rights and freedoms that no government, of any stripe, could take away.

As violence continues, the Egyptian regime is pushing potential allies away. There is no legitimate – or moral – way that Western governments can condone the violence being perpetrated by Egypt’s military. So, first, a resolution to that immediate and deadly problem must be realized.

Then, Western governments, if invited, could help the Egyptian people and leaders put in place the kinds of permanent institutions that would allow for the kind of democracy that was demanded by the throngs of people who overthrew Morsi in the first place.

Neither of these objectives is necessarily likely or probable, but they are the best hope for Egypt and its region.

^TOP