The Egyptian paradox

Overthrowing Morsi won’t solve the puzzle of democracy

It’s not every day that ousting a democratically elected government, suspending the constitution and appointing the head of the constitutional court as the interim head of state is dubbed a “revolution”. In what was one of the most ironic moments in the history of the Middle East on Wednesday, the Islamists were seen flying the flag of democracy while the secular liberals were cheerleading for military intervention, as Egypt’s first democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi was overthrown in a “popular military coup.”

If the aforementioned paradoxes aren’t enough, the fact that this “second revolution” is basically undoing what the uprising of 2011 achieved, proves that the raison d’être of these “revolutions” is all messed up. In simple words the Egyptians have sought the help of the same institution that they had revolted against in 2011, to undo their relative success of the past couple of years. Hence, the masses are not only making a mockery of democracy, but also showcasing their utter lack of awareness with regards to the actual dictatorial power that they need to get rid of.

It has become increasingly obvious that the form of government isn’t the most pertinent issue. It’s the theological baggage accompanying whosoever takes over the helm, which sanctions the authoritative clout that the millions taking to the streets in Egypt can’t seem to bear. A look at recent Egyptian history reveals how Islamist kings haven’t worked out, Islamist dictators haven’t worked out and now a democratically elected Islamist hasn’t worked out either. Maybe there’s a hint there somewhere.

The result of the 2011 election for the People’s Assembly of Egypt and the Egyptian Constitution should be enough to slash a question mark over the actions of the ostensible flag-bearers of freedom that attended what might just have been the funeral of Arab democracy in al Tahrir Square on Wednesday. 368 out of the total 508 seats in the People’s Assembly were won by Islamist parties spearheaded by Democratic Alliance of Egypt (led my Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party), while Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution makes, “the principles of Islamic law the main source of legislation.” The constitution also goes on to say that the rights and freedoms of the people can only be practiced “as long as they don’t contradict the principles set out in the section on state and society in this constitution.” This basically means that the people of Egypt are free as long as they don’t violate the “principles of Shariah.”

When the Egyptians gave the popular mandate to the Islamists, who then dutifully obliged to implement the Constitution by enforcing the Shariah law left, right and centre, how are the ones ousting this government rubberstamping democracy in Egypt?

If the implementation of the Shariah curtailed the freedom and equality of the Egyptian middle class, the protestors should maybe have remonstrated against the “divine” totalitarianism, instead of demonstrating against a legitimately elected government that executed the popular public ideals, as showcased by the result of the elections. If the Egyptians have a problem with Islamists implementing Islamism then they should never have voted them into power in the first place. But once the Islamists were elected, according to all principles of a democratic process – especially one that is so fragilely nascent – the masses should have waited till 2016 to give the government the boot. The “liberals” should’ve known better.

That the implementation of Shariah limits the “freedom” – an integral cog of democracy – of the people is the ideology’s fault and not the Muslim Brotherhood’s. By justifying the military coup on the grounds that the government wasn’t building a democratic state, is ridiculous considering that the involvement of religion – something the majority of Egyptians sanctioned in the elections – takes away the quintessence of democracy anyway. For “true” democracy in Egypt you would have to separate Islam from politics, which basically means negating the deity-sanctioned outline of governance and this takes us all the way back to getting rid of the “theological baggage” shrouding Egypt. And thence all you need to do is put two and two together to figure out why democracy struggles in virtually every Muslim country.

This so called revolution would not only encourage the Egyptian military to intervene on the “behalf of the people” in the future as well, more worryingly it would give more credence to the Arab Islamist groups’ claim that democracy can never work in Muslim countries. And they do have a point considering the fact that when the popular public demands contradict the commands of the deity you stare down the barrel of an ideological shotgun that quite often shoots down the national rationale of sovereign Muslim states. And this is precisely what the “Muslim liberals” fail to realise, or accept: once you cling onto your ideological and theological identities, the demand of separating religion from politics becomes paradoxical.

Demanding freedom is the universal human right of every individual, but it isn’t rocket science to realise that religion tends to curtail a chunk of these rights in one form or the other. Therefore, supporting two contradictory viewpoints can leave you in a mess that the Egyptians find themselves in right now, as they demonstrate against those that enchain them, for the second time in two years.

Is the one who enchains you to blame if you revere the chains that enslave you? Once the Egyptians – and the Muslim world in general – figures out the right answer to that question, maybe they can dream of actual democracy one day.

The writer is a financial journalist and a cultural critic. Email: [email protected], Twitter: @khuldune