“Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” - President Barack Obama, Cairo University, 2009.
“Things are seldom what they seem.” - Buttercup, HMS Pinafore, 1878.
Both comments apply to the current situation in Egypt.
The anti-Mubarak protesters are clearly motivated by democratic ideals, rejecting the decades of authoritarianism that has made a mockery of self-government and stagnated the economy of the world’s largest Arab nation. Suppressed ideas just won't "go away."
But many commentators are ignoring Buttercup’s counsel and falling into facile analogies that are misleading or simply irrelevant.
There is no doubt that President Mubarak's reign is ending, though we do not know exactly when and how. But we do know that it is in the interests of Egypt, the U.S., Israel, the region and the world for the transition to be as peaceful as possible. It is not useful to raise fears of a cosmic conflagration pitting religions or civilizations against one another.
Although the demonstrators are quite diverse, it appears that the largest groups are young people, many well educated and multilingual. The median age in Egypt is 24, and Egyptian urban youth are exposed via mass communications, the Internet and social media to the ideas and lifestyles of other parts of the world. These young people are seeking jobs, expanded educational opportunities and freedom from an oppressive and corrupt political regime.
Similarly, small businessmen, shopkeepers and professional people yearn for a more vibrant economy and freer political expression. The dramatic fall of the Tunisian president no doubt encouraged Egyptians to believe in the possibility of dramatic change in their own country – a sort of revolution of rising expectations, fired by the belief that something seemingly far out of reach is suddenly within grasp.
Though some have raised the specter of Muslim extremism, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has been relatively responsible so far, saying they seek free elections. In any event, the Brotherhood does not attract widespread support and is just one of many groups engaged in the protests. The best way to neutralize the Muslim Brotherhood is to get Mubarak out of the political scene as quickly as possible, and continue to emphasize that the U.S. is on the side of peaceful democratic change. In the end, a democratic transition will certainly include the Brotherhood and other Muslim interests as one of many significant political entities. That will set the stage for longer-term interaction of multiple social interests in a relatively stable and open political system.
The U.S. has thus far been very careful about how it supports the protesters and pressures the regime for change. This is an Egyptian moment, and inappropriate American actions and words will jeopardize the legitimacy and effectiveness of Egyptians who want democratic change. President Obama has rightly left it to the Egyptian people to decide, while also pushing for a peaceful transition in government. The U.S. needs to continue to push for an inclusive interim government to prepare for free and open, multi-party democratic elections with international observers, emphasizing that this will enable Egyptians to control their own democratic future.
The role of Egypt's military is key, and so far has been steady, as military leaders have come down on the side of peaceful protest. To date they seem to be more interested in maintaining a peaceful environment for democratic transition than in maintaining the regime. Any threat to cut off America’s massive aid would be counterproductive because it will make the military nervous and antagonistic to reform.
Although some American politicians on the right have drawn parallels with the Green Movement in Iran, there is no strong similarity between Egypt today and Iran in 2009; nor with the 1979 overthrow of the shah.
This week, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme religious leader, announced that the situation in Egypt is similar to the 1979 overthrow of the shah. The ouster of the shah was led by religious opponents, whereas the movement in Egypt is secular. If the demonstrations in Egypt, as in Tunisia, lead to peaceful democratic change, the current government of Iran should be very uneasy because it may raise expectations in Iran that a mass popular movement could succeed there as well.
Most Muslims in Egypt are Sunnis with a long tradition of not participating in political upheavals - there is no Ayatollah Khomeini in Egypt. Shia Iran, in contrast, has an activist religious establishment.
A better analogy would be Egypt and Turkey. Both are populous, predominantly secular and diverse countries, with ancient roots. Both have small but socially active Christian minorities, as well as sizable and well-educated middle classes. And both have a tradition of separating religious institutions from state authorities. Turkey currently offers a major test case of the confluence of Islam and democracy.
When Obama spoke in Egypt two years ago he called for change and was resoundingly applauded by young people at the university. He also cited passages from the Koran illustrating Islamic tolerance for societal differences. Because the Egyptian liberation movement is mostly secular and peaceful, and given the current stance of the military, there is no reason to expect a dramatic change in Egyptian policy toward the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement. It is unlikely that the democracy movement will become anti-American and anti-Israeli, as peace and stability have proven to be in Egypt's interests.
There is no doubt that Egypt is vital to Middle East stability. For the 30 years since the Camp David Accords, Israel's southwestern border has been safely anchored, allowing it to focus on the West Bank, the Syrian and Lebanese borders.
Egypt now has the chance to lay the groundwork for similar developments with the military assisting in a peaceful transition and helping to foster an environment for democratic processes. Maintaining the Israeli-Egyptian peace accord will benefit the new Egyptian government and allow it to continue acting as a moderate force for stability and accommodation in the region.
And the U.S., concerned about potential decline in the region, can rather enhance its influence through support for peaceful democratic change, as it did when the Soviet Union collapsed. The regimes that emerge will not be perfect, nor will they necessarily be U.S. "allies." But there is a strong likelihood that more of them will reflect the will of their people as expressed democratically in a relatively open and free political system that will come down on the side of regional peace and stability.
Two large, Muslim-majority and basically secular democracies, Turkey and Egypt, will provide dramatic contrasts to the authoritarian theocracy in Iran. And that will clearly be a step forward.
