Egypt’s Unborn Revolution

[Valin]

City Journal:

While a political transformation continues, an economic one has yet to begin
Guy Sorman
2/18/11

Many Westerners, watching the revolution in Egypt, are wondering whether the outcome will be true democracy. Less often asked but equally important is whether Egypt can reform its economy in ways that are necessary for democracy to thrive. As history has demonstrated in such places as Russia under Putin, Chile under Allende, and Iran under the mullahs, nations can be democracies at least in a technical sense—that is, they have elected leaders—but a democracy without a free economy has no future.

Begin with the political question: what kind of government will emerge in Egypt? A system of legitimate political representation could be reached if the military, which is currently in charge, understands the requirements of democracy and the rule of law. It is too early to guess if these officers are ready to talk with the opposition representatives and to understand the meaning of pluralist democracy. The odds are uncertain: the military seems to be seeking another strongman, more or less elected by the people, rather than a truly open society; the revolution’s leaders demand a pluralistic constitution similar to what Egypt had before the 1952 revolution.

It’s important to remember that before nationalism and socialism took over the Arab world, most of its nations had constitutions, political parties, a free press, and independent universities. Until the 1950s, the Arab world was a fairly free society, with a decent rule of law and a promising economy. This was disrupted by conflicts with Israel and various wars of decolonization, as Arab militaries took over in the name of socialism and nationalism in all former British and French colonies in the Arab world. New Arab leaders emerged—Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser was the most charismatic—who denounced the local (and often non-Arab) bourgeoisie as traitors, rejected Western values, and turned to the Soviet Union for support. So Egypt’s impoverishment, authoritarian regime, nationalized economy, and expulsion of non-Arab minorities were rooted, not in the ancient past or in Islamic tradition, but in the contemporary ideologies of nationalism and socialism, which Nasser helped import in the 1950s. This history being quite recent, many Egyptians remember a time when their society was freer. If a pluralistic constitution were revived in Egypt, the old political organizations—like the center-right Wafd—would probably reemerge, just as old political parties were reborn in Central Europe after the 1989 post-Soviet revolution.

Among these traditional parties, the Muslim Brotherhood would revive as well. It has always been a minority party and most probably would remain one, as Egypt is a rather secular nation. The Brotherhood played no significant role in the current revolution, which was led by educated and Westernized young leaders (many of them students at the American University in Cairo). The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood will depend on the moderate secular parties’ capacity to get organized and build a coalition.
(Snip)