Democracy and Political Expediency Are Mutually Exclusive
It may happen that the Egyptians elect the Muslim Brotherhood or other extremists and set the nation on the same path as Syria or even Iran. The West will have to take a few chances and make up its mind.
This is really something: Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is complaining that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is dropping Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak like a hot potato, and whining that Germany and other Western allies are at least paying lip service to the idea of the Egyptian people actually determining their own future by election. The contrast between what a government preaches and what it actually does could scarcely be greater.
Of course, the Israelis couldn’t care less about Egypt’s internal constitution as long as Israeli interests aren’t affected. And Mubarak, as long as he held power, guaranteed Israel’s continued existence — at least insofar as Israel’s southern border was concerned.
Democracy means uncertainty — that’s its very nature — and uncertainty is the last thing Israel needs. But an Egyptian democracy limited by America’s and Israel’s best interests isn’t a democracy at all.
It may well come about that the Egyptians elect the Muslim Brotherhood or some other extremist group and take their country in the same direction as Syria or even Iran. The Iranian revolution began with protests against a hated pro-Western dictator before it was eventually co-opted by a politicized Islam. The West will have to take a few chances and make up its mind about Egypt, too. Either they stay with Israeli political expediency that holds that any predictable dictator is preferable to a leader elected by an unpredictable democracy, or it will have to take its own Western credo of human rights, plurality and democracy seriously, and accept the popular decision, no matter how much it may run counter to the interests of Israel and the West.
The constant to and fro — covering covert military assistance to the open financial support of dictators acceptable to the West, alongside the ceaseless lip service paid to reform and democracy — alienated the old Middle Eastern power elites as it now alienates the young middle class. While the former have little choice, the latter can put the Islamists — those that the West fears as much as Satan fears holy water — in power with their ballots.
One can decide in favor of the old elites or the young Arab masses, or one can choose between democracy and political expediency. The thing one may not do is have both at the same time. As the old German saying goes, “In danger and dire distress the middle of the road leads to death.”
This is really something: Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is complaining that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is dropping Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak like a hot potato, and whining that Germany and other Western allies are at least paying lip service to the idea of the Egyptian people actually determining their own future by election. The contrast between what a government preaches and what it actually does could scarcely be greater.
Of course, the Israelis couldn’t care less about Egypt’s internal constitution as long as Israeli interests aren’t affected. And Mubarak, as long as he held power, guaranteed Israel’s continued existence — at least insofar as Israel’s southern border was concerned.
Democracy means uncertainty — that’s its very nature — and uncertainty is the last thing Israel needs. But an Egyptian democracy limited by America’s and Israel’s best interests isn’t a democracy at all.
It may well come about that the Egyptians elect the Muslim Brotherhood or some other extremist group and take their country in the same direction as Syria or even Iran. The Iranian revolution began with protests against a hated pro-Western dictator before it was eventually co-opted by a politicized Islam. The West will have to take a few chances and make up its mind about Egypt, too. Either they stay with Israeli political expediency that holds that any predictable dictator is preferable to a leader elected by an unpredictable democracy, or it will have to take its own Western credo of human rights, plurality and democracy seriously, and accept the popular decision, no matter how much it may run counter to the interests of Israel and the West.
The constant to and fro — covering covert military assistance to the open financial support of dictators acceptable to the West, alongside the ceaseless lip service paid to reform and democracy — alienated the old Middle Eastern power elites as it now alienates the young middle class. While the former have little choice, the latter can put the Islamists — those that the West fears as much as Satan fears holy water — in power with their ballots.
One can decide in favor of the old elites or the young Arab masses, or one can choose between democracy and political expediency. The thing one may not do is have both at the same time. As the old German saying goes, “In danger and dire distress the middle of the road leads to death.”
Next article![]( "Jeb in 2012?")
