Danger, anxiety, fear

Mona Makram-Ebeid, a determined human and women’s rights advocate and Egyptian politician, returned to the Middle East Institute today, just a few days more than a year since her last appearance there.  A year ago she was upbeat about the Egyptian revolution, sure that the arc of history might be long but in the end bends towards justice.  To be fair, she also noted the weakness of Egypt’s institutions, the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the need to keep the army in line with the demands of the revolution.

This year, she is much less confident about where the arc bends.  The atmosphere in Cairo is one of “danger, anxiety, fear.”  She has resigned from the parliament, along with many of the other “liberals.”  Egypt is in constitutional limbo, with the work of its constitution-drafting body frozen by a court judgment and elections still scheduled for May 23-24.  Far from being “de-mystified,” as she anticipated last year, the Muslim Brotherhood won decisively in elections against fragmented liberals and is seeking a monopoly of power.  She seemed uncertain that their current candidate would remain in the presidential race; he might withdraw still in favor of Adel Abol Fotouh, who already has gained Salafist and more moderate Islamist backing.

Hope lies in several odd directions.  It may be possible, she thought, to restore at least part of the 1971 Egyptian constitution before the election, so that the new president will have limited powers rather than those that existed under the Mubarak regime.  Al Azhar, the Egyptian mosque/university that is authoritative in much of the Islamic world, has issued good statements on human rights and is working on another on women’s rights.  Amr Moussa, the veteran Egyptian politician and former Arab League leader, offers the best hope in the elections, building on a base Makram-Ebeid described as the tourist industry, Coptic Christians, women, liberals, leftists and Sufis.

Still, counter-revolution looms and stability is threatened.  Military support is vital to keep things moving in the right direction and avoid internal strife.  The choice Egypt faces is between a civil and a theocratic state, which is what the Muslim Brotherhood really wants.

The U.S. should not let Egypt’s mistreatment of American nongovernmental organizations and their democracy-promoting staffs determine its reaction to the situation in Egypt.  It needs to take a more hands-off approach, letting things evolve in accordance with Egypt’s own internal dynamics.  American support for free trade and investment would make a big difference in a country facing a severe economic crisis.

Presentations of this sort from Egypt’s liberal democrats elicit in me two contradictory emotions:  sympathy for their unenviable plight and disdain for their all too obvious inability to set things right without resorting to military intervention.  The notion that Amr Moussa, a fossil of the Mubarak era, Al Azhar and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces are going to be the saviors of democracy strikes me as less than likely.  But in a bleak landscape, Makram-Ebeid is saying they represent the best hope for countering a sharp turn in the theocratic direction.  Egypt needs saving, from itself.