Which revolution will Egypt choose?
.By Gideon Rachman
.
Published: February 7 2011 21:38
.
.
Events in Egypt are so dramatic that it is tempting to regard each day as a potentially decisive turning point. But revolutions can unfold over months and even years. As the situation in Cairo calms down a little, it is worth remembering that an apparent stabilisation in events can be just a lull, before the drama resumes.
Yet, there are other examples that are more reassuring. The central European revolutions of 1989 were largely peaceful and did not lead to war.Oppressive regimes were overthrown in the Philippines in 1986 and Indonesia in 1998, without threatening international peace.
So what is it that distinguishes the kind of revolution that can be safely welcomed by outsiders from the kind that spells trouble and war? It helps if the countries involved are small and if the revolutionary forces embrace rather than reject the outside world. Revolutions in countries the size of Russia and China were bound to shake the world; and their Communist ideology made it inevitable that they would look with hostility at the capitalist west.
The smaller, central European revolutions of 1989, by contrast, looked west for inspiration, which was both flattering and comforting for the US and western Europe. The revolutions were aimed at the Soviet Union – and so profoundly welcome to its cold war adversaries.
The situation in Egypt appears to be at the more threatening end of the spectrum. First, Egypt is a big and important country that has often set the political tone for the whole of the Middle East. What happens there matters enormously. Second, it is not hard to see the radicals lurking in the wings.
The Muslim Brotherhood has just been invited into talks with the government, giving it a formal foothold in the unfolding events. The Brotherhood has gained much credit in Egyptian society over the years by providing social services in the slums of cities such as Cairo. But its ideology looks well beyond Egypt and is hostile to the west and to Israel, which has a long-standing peace treaty with Egypt.
The west knows that it is strongly implicated in the status quo that Egyptians are now rebelling against. President Hosni Mubarak has been a trusted ally of western leaders for many years. A revolution against the status quo embodied by Mr Mubarak could easily morph into a rejection of the west as a whole – particularly if it is shaped by the Brotherhood.
Political leaders in the US and Europe know that, for the moment, there is relatively little they can do to determine the course of fast-moving events in Egypt. But the actions they take now could still influence whether an Egyptian revolution is ultimately one that rejects or embraces the west.
That is because there are two rival narratives at work in Egypt. In one, the west exemplifies the freedom and openness to which Egyptians are now aspiring. In the other, the west represents the reaction and repression that Egypt is now struggling to overthrow.
Awkwardly, both stories have elements of truth to them. In one sense, the revolts are aimed at the “Arab exception” – the dismal record of oppression and dictatorship that has so far prevented the Arab world from taking part in the democratic and free-market wave that has swept Latin America, Europe and much of east Asia since the 1970s. If this is the narrative that prevails, then a postrevolutionary Egypt might actually look to the west as the exemplar of the liberal political and economic values it is now seeking to embrace.
But it is also true that Arab dictators were supported by the west in return for supporting the goals of western foreign policy: peace with Israel, clamping down on radical Islam, keeping the oil flowing. If this is the story on which a postrevolutionary Egypt converges, then it could become another Iran – bent on confrontation with the west.
The current actions and words of western leaders may strongly influence which of these narratives succeeds.
Even if Mr Mubarak and his cohorts cling on for a while longer, the forces they represent are surely on their way out. That is why America’s initial suggestion that it was trying to prop up Mr Mubarak was a practical, as well as a moral mistake. The increased pressure on Mr Mubarak from Washington and Brussels is now belatedly aligning the western world with the forces of change in the Arab world.
Of course, some will dismiss this as hypocrisy. But the fact is that when Egyptian demonstrators demand free elections and a free press they are embracing ideas exemplified by the west – not by Iran or any other Islamist theocracy. For the outside world everything will depend on whether a post-Mubarak Egypt looks backwards to religious fundamentalism or forwards to the interconnected globalised world.
Events in Egypt are so dramatic that it is tempting to regard each day as a potentially decisive turning point. But revolutions can unfold over months and even years. As the situation in Cairo calms down a little, it is worth remembering that an apparent stabilisation in events can be just a lull, before the drama resumes.
.
The memory of how previous revolutions have evolved means that western sympathy with the revolt in Egypt is tinged with foreboding. Revolutions often become more radical, the longer they go on: the Mensheviks are pushed aside by the Bolsheviks; the secular liberals are pushed aside by the Ayatollahs. As that happens, the chances of conflict with the outside world rise. Revolutionary powers, from France in 1789 to the Soviet Union to Maoist China to modern-day Iran, have often ended up in armed conflict or bitter confrontation with their neighbours.
The memory of how previous revolutions have evolved means that western sympathy with the revolt in Egypt is tinged with foreboding. Revolutions often become more radical, the longer they go on: the Mensheviks are pushed aside by the Bolsheviks; the secular liberals are pushed aside by the Ayatollahs. As that happens, the chances of conflict with the outside world rise. Revolutionary powers, from France in 1789 to the Soviet Union to Maoist China to modern-day Iran, have often ended up in armed conflict or bitter confrontation with their neighbours.
Yet, there are other examples that are more reassuring. The central European revolutions of 1989 were largely peaceful and did not lead to war.Oppressive regimes were overthrown in the Philippines in 1986 and Indonesia in 1998, without threatening international peace.
So what is it that distinguishes the kind of revolution that can be safely welcomed by outsiders from the kind that spells trouble and war? It helps if the countries involved are small and if the revolutionary forces embrace rather than reject the outside world. Revolutions in countries the size of Russia and China were bound to shake the world; and their Communist ideology made it inevitable that they would look with hostility at the capitalist west.
The smaller, central European revolutions of 1989, by contrast, looked west for inspiration, which was both flattering and comforting for the US and western Europe. The revolutions were aimed at the Soviet Union – and so profoundly welcome to its cold war adversaries.
The situation in Egypt appears to be at the more threatening end of the spectrum. First, Egypt is a big and important country that has often set the political tone for the whole of the Middle East. What happens there matters enormously. Second, it is not hard to see the radicals lurking in the wings.
The Muslim Brotherhood has just been invited into talks with the government, giving it a formal foothold in the unfolding events. The Brotherhood has gained much credit in Egyptian society over the years by providing social services in the slums of cities such as Cairo. But its ideology looks well beyond Egypt and is hostile to the west and to Israel, which has a long-standing peace treaty with Egypt.
The west knows that it is strongly implicated in the status quo that Egyptians are now rebelling against. President Hosni Mubarak has been a trusted ally of western leaders for many years. A revolution against the status quo embodied by Mr Mubarak could easily morph into a rejection of the west as a whole – particularly if it is shaped by the Brotherhood.
Political leaders in the US and Europe know that, for the moment, there is relatively little they can do to determine the course of fast-moving events in Egypt. But the actions they take now could still influence whether an Egyptian revolution is ultimately one that rejects or embraces the west.
That is because there are two rival narratives at work in Egypt. In one, the west exemplifies the freedom and openness to which Egyptians are now aspiring. In the other, the west represents the reaction and repression that Egypt is now struggling to overthrow.
Awkwardly, both stories have elements of truth to them. In one sense, the revolts are aimed at the “Arab exception” – the dismal record of oppression and dictatorship that has so far prevented the Arab world from taking part in the democratic and free-market wave that has swept Latin America, Europe and much of east Asia since the 1970s. If this is the narrative that prevails, then a postrevolutionary Egypt might actually look to the west as the exemplar of the liberal political and economic values it is now seeking to embrace.
But it is also true that Arab dictators were supported by the west in return for supporting the goals of western foreign policy: peace with Israel, clamping down on radical Islam, keeping the oil flowing. If this is the story on which a postrevolutionary Egypt converges, then it could become another Iran – bent on confrontation with the west.
The current actions and words of western leaders may strongly influence which of these narratives succeeds.
Even if Mr Mubarak and his cohorts cling on for a while longer, the forces they represent are surely on their way out. That is why America’s initial suggestion that it was trying to prop up Mr Mubarak was a practical, as well as a moral mistake. The increased pressure on Mr Mubarak from Washington and Brussels is now belatedly aligning the western world with the forces of change in the Arab world.
Of course, some will dismiss this as hypocrisy. But the fact is that when Egyptian demonstrators demand free elections and a free press they are embracing ideas exemplified by the west – not by Iran or any other Islamist theocracy. For the outside world everything will depend on whether a post-Mubarak Egypt looks backwards to religious fundamentalism or forwards to the interconnected globalised world.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario