Recently, President of Egypt Mohammed Morsi has expanded his presidential powers quite a bit, basically making his word a final authority immune to any countering force. However, there is evidence that Morsi may not be expanding his powers for the mere purpose of strengthening his stake and the Muslim Brotherhoods stake in government. A large problem with Egypt's new government has been the lack of any real legislating body. A council of generals served called the Supreme Council of Armed Forces stood in place while the country's new government was being established, however, this body dissolved and the judicial body of Egypt has blocked the a formation of a new parliament. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood's main obstacle has been the judicial body, a court with old members of Mubarak's regime called the the Supreme Constitutional Court. The court's rationale for blocking parliament seemed to be that the parliament would be largely Islamist, creating a government that might push a theocratic agenda. Morsi's power grab could be explained as an effort to fight back against the SCC and eventually restore some kind of order between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. However, his action seems inherently against this idea as he has refused to back down from his decree and because he hasn't reinstated parliament yet, effectively creating a government where his power goes unchecked.
The people of Egypt, well acquainted with the idea of tyranny, have staged a long protest in Tahrir Square against Morsi's decree. Clearly, the ideals of democracy are very important to the people of Egypt and the pragmatic argument for Morsi's power grab has fallen short.
If Morsi were to go ahead and use his power solely to speed up the transition to democracy, would that justify his actions? Would we necessarily frown on tyranny if it was somehow for the greater good of advancing a democracy? Is there a lesson here in how delicate the implementation of a foreign system of government is? Situations like these may influence how the U.S may consider dealing with the difficulty of facilitating or aiding the formation of democratic governments in the future given how complex the process is.
7 comments:
It's unfortunate that the revolution in Egypt that inspired so many other Middle Eastern revolutions has still not fulfilled its goal; to not have a dictator. I was very impressed with how Morsi handled the Palestine v. Israel situation, but in this case I was vaguely disappointed. The point of this revolution, I feel, was not to wrench away power from one group of people to hand it over to another, it was to have all the people participate in a government that serves everyone's interests. It has been a short period of time, so I think the nation still can truly grow into what many want it to be.
America's history has proven that the road to democracy is long, arduous, and quite delicate. Although Morsi's efforts to propel the Egyptian government towards a democratic system are commendable, you simply cannot rush the democratic process. By impatiently attempting to expand his own presidential powers as a sort of checks and balances against the Supreme Constitutional Court, Morsi appears as only a dictator and not a true president who heeds the word of the people whom he governs. Instead, he should take the time to consult the Egyptian people, listing out the specific problems the government faces regarding the Supreme Constitutional Court, before taking any action. Similarly, the United States, given its long struggle with democracy, should keep in mind how long the transition process is before attempting to facilitate the promotion of democratic governments in foreign nations.
The debate over Morsi's actions seem like the classic question "Do the ends justify the means?" And I do think that if Morsi relinquishes the unfair balance of power after a proper democracy has been established he would be justified in this power grab. If he is truly working for the improvement of his nation he will need to take drastic action.
As Samantha stated, the path toward democracy is never easy and is often afflicted with violence and tyranny. Take a look at our own revolution, the English Civil War, or the French Revolution which all tried to establish a functioning democracy. Maybe democracy in Egypt requires some kind of drastic action on Morsi's part, but we must always be wary of the possibility that Egypt may slip back into an authoritarian regime much like Mubarak's.
In this case I agree with David. The Egyptian court is a vestige of the old Mubarak regime, and frankly the court's motives for trying to block the formation of a new parliament can be questioned just as legitimately as Morsi's motives for expanding his powers can be questioned. If a new, largely Islamist parliament is formed (confirming the court's fears) and Morsi refuses to give up his powers, then protests are in order. For the time being, as autocratic as Morsi may seem, he may have a democratic Egypt's best interests at heart (possibly even more so than the court).
Hearing about Egypt made me automatically thinking of Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution. So they got rid of the Tsar and finally the empire "died." Wrong. Instead they now have to deal with a more cruel leader, Communist Lenin. We all know the story. Lenin led to Stalin, one of the most terrifying dictators of the 20th century. Eventually Russia had Gorbachev who led them out of Communism.
I believe, like with Russia, Egypt needs to wait until they have a leader that actually wants to help the people. Russia had Gorbachev, and it is only a matter of time when a new "Brotherhood Leader" decides that democracy for the people is the right way to go. Or maybe Egypt will end up like China, ruled by a slightly loosened iron fist.
Post a Comment