Arab states need a sense of citizenship first.
by Elias D. Mallon
by Elias D. Mallon
NOT FORGOTTEN: A protester raises a sign in support of deposed president Mohamed Morsi on June 21, 2013.
When
Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia on Dec. 17, 2010, the
Arab Spring began. Now, three years later, the results hoped for by
people inside and outside the Middle East have clearly not been
realized. Iraq is still violently divided between Sunnis, Shiites and an
increasingly autonomous Kurdish region. Syria has sunk into a brutal
civil war with over 110,000 casualties and 6.25 million citizens
displaced to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan or within Syria itself. Most
recently, Egypt’s experiment with democracy has at best been
sidetracked. Whether the term coup is appropriate or not, the elected
government of Egypt was nonconstitutionally removed by the military.
President Mohamed Morsi—regardless of how inept and authoritarian he
was—was not removed from office in a democratic fashion. He was removed
by the military, albeit a military with considerable popular support.
The result has been the emergence of serious divisions within Egypt that
could lead to civil war in the most populous and central Arab nation.
Coptic Christians, who were present in Egypt
for 600 years before the arrival of Islam, have become the target of
choice for religious extremist factions in Egyptian society. Christians
were involved in the first demonstrations in Tahrir Square, where
shoulder to shoulder with Muslims, they brought down the government of
Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11, 2011. For a moment it seemed that Christians
and Muslims could work together for the good of the entire country. If,
however, the situation for Christians under the dictatorships of Anwar
el-Sadat and Mubarak was not good, it did not improve at all under the
democratically elected Mohamed Morsi. A former member of the Muslim
Brotherhood, Morsi did little or nothing to improve the lot of his
opponents. Although he called himself head of a government “for all
Egyptians,” Morsi in fact began to consolidate the power of his own
faction, the Muslim Brotherhood. Liberal Muslims, secular Muslims,
Christians and even some conservative Muslims felt betrayed and
increasingly excluded from the political life of the country.
After large demonstrations in Cairo and
around Egypt, Morsi was ultimately removed from office by the military
on July 3, 2013. During the television program announcing the removal of
President Morsi, the suspension of the Egyptian Constitution and the
appointment of Adly Mahmoud Mansour as the interim president, General
Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi was flanked by members of the military as well as
by Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand sheikh of Al-Azhar and
Patriarch Tawadros II, the leader of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Christians.
The image was clear, if strange and unsettling: the Sunni Muslim
community through Sheikh el-Tayeb and the Christian community through
Patriarch Tawadros, plus large popular demonstrations, supported the
removal of President Morsi by the military. Large sectors of the
Egyptian population—both Christian and Muslim—as well as some Arab
governments continue to support the actions of the military.
Not long afterward, the Muslim Brotherhood
responded. Mr. Morsi had been a member of the Brotherhood and advanced
its interests for an Islamic Egyptian state. The Brotherhood, which
continues to support him, has led large demonstrations around Cairo and
in the rest of Egypt. The military has responded to these demonstrations
with ferocity. Over 600 Egyptian citizens were killed in one night of
clashes between the military and pro-Morsi demonstrators. At the same
time, members of the military have been appointed governors in 19
Egyptian states.
Since then, the situation of Christians in
post-Morsi Egypt has grown rapidly and significantly worse. Pro-Morsi
forces accuse the Coptic Christians of having staged a military coup
against the democratically elected president. Although the number of
Egyptian Christians is so small (estimates range between 5 percent and
15 percent of the population) that it would, practically speaking, be
impossible for them to overthrow the government, nonetheless all over
the country violent attacks on Christians and Christian institutions
have reached an unprecedented level. On Aug. 17, 2013, a list was
published of 32 Christian institutions that had been attacked, looted or
destroyed since Mr. Morsi’s removal. When the looting and destruction
of Christian homes and businesses are also taken into account, the list
is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The image of Patriarch
Tawadros standing with General el-Sisi has become a rallying point for
the pro-Morsi, anti-military demonstrators to focus attacks on
Christians as the enemy.
Egypt is experiencing the worst of all
possible situations; there is no clear good side and no clear bad side.
The actions of the pro-Morsi supporters who attack Christians show quite
clearly what their agenda may have been all along. Yet the military’s
actions and the ferocity of its response to the pro-Morsi demonstrators
make it very difficult to be sympathetic. In fact, that is a major
problem: it is almost impossible to be completely sympathetic to either
side. Each side has grievances and each side has committed atrocities.
This has made it very difficult, if not impossible, for countries like
the United States and the member states of the European Union to take a
clear stand on what is happening and to support one group against the
other.
What About Democracy?
The situation in Egypt highlights a
very important fact that is crucial for the entire Middle East. Despite
all the rhetoric, democracy alone is not and cannot be the answer.
Since the advent of the Arab Spring, there has been a great deal of talk
about democracy. Most of it has been shallow and naïve. Westerners in
general and Americans in particular are fond of talking about democracy.
The United States, for example, invaded Iraq “to set up a democracy.”
In addition to being historically naïve, the democracy being spoken
about is all too often univocal and one-dimensional. For many in the
United States, democracy means “just like us.” Democracy is considered
to be identical with the American system without remainder.
Historically, even in the United States the
form of democracy changed radically when slavery was abolished in 1863.
It was not until the 14th Amendment was ratified five years later that
the United States had a definition of what a citizen was, and it was not
until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920 that women enjoyed full
citizenship. Democracy in 21st-century United States is very different
from the democracy of the “three-fifths compromise,” which counted five
slaves—who had no civil rights—as the equivalent of three citizens for
the purpose of congressional representation.
Historically naïve and one-dimensional
concepts—to say nothing of expectations—of democracy are not helpful in
the Middle East. In fact, they are not very helpful anywhere. No
successful democracy arose like Athena from the head of Zeus, fully
formed and mature. The history of democracy in Britain, France and
Italy, for example, included long periods of development. In some cases
the development took centuries. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215, but
the English Bill of Rights (for some but not all) was not signed until
more than 450 years later, in 1689. After abolishing the monarchy in
1792, France has gone through one Empire and four republics to arrive at
its present Fifth Republic. The list goes on. To expect democracy in
the Middle East to emerge, develop democratic institutions and thrive in
a decade or two is not only unrealistic; it is unfair.
Dictatorship of the Majority
The presidency of Mohamed Morsi
proves that democracy alone is not enough. In even moderately
pluralistic societies like Egypt, where one faction holds an
overwhelming majority, democracy can be the quickest way to a
dictatorship of the majority. The majority will always win at the ballot
box and can quickly move to disenfranchise minorities. Thus, while
there is no doubt that Morsi was democratically elected, there were
profound doubts about his agenda for Egyptian minorities, including
Christians, secularists and others. Nevertheless, a very dangerous
precedent is set when a government is nonconstitutionally removed,
especially by the military. The result is that it is almost impossible
in the conflict in Egypt to determine who is right and who is wrong.
Each side is both right and wrong in different ways at the same time. It
is profoundly wrong to attack Christians because they are Christians;
but it is also wrong for over 600 demonstrators to be killed. Democratic
procedures alone will not solve this.
In observing the turmoil in the Middle East,
it has become increasingly clear that if democracy is to succeed,
citizenship must be established first. If democracy means no more than
“one person one vote” and “majority rules,” it is a formula for the
tyranny of the majority. Clearly, in a democracy the majority decides,
but it cannot be a zero-sum phenomenon. Minorities do not lose their
rights; the opposition is not “excommunicated”; and the possibility
remains for the minority to be in power one day. If democracy in the
Middle East is to succeed, it must be built on the notion of a citizenry
in which, independent of ethnic, religious, political or gender
considerations, all are equal before the law in rights and
responsibilities.
It is noteworthy how often the word citizen appears in contemporary Christian literature referring to or coming out of the Middle East. The lineamenta
for the Synod of Bishops’ meeting in Rome in 2010 used the word several
times. On June 23, 2011, the Holy Synod of Antioch (Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate) called upon governments to secure “citizens’ interests.”
The notion of citizenship in these documents is not determined by
ethnicity, linguistic grouping, confessional affiliation or the like.
In the present conflict in Egypt, reference
to democracy is a dead end, since in different ways both sides are
claiming—neither with overwhelming credibility—to be on the side of
democracy. Democracy in Egypt cannot work until a notion of citizenship
is enshrined in law and practice. For democracy to succeed in Egypt, all
citizens—Muslims, Christians, secularists, moderates as well as the
Muslim Brotherhood—must be guaranteed equal rights and obligations
before the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment