It now seems that the first popular uprising associated with the now famous names of Tahrir square and the Arab Spring had little more than symbolic significance to the Egyptian populace. Not because it didn\u2019t result in the downfall of Hosni Mubarak, the country\u2019s long-reigning dictator, but because it led to the hijacking of the revolution by the Muslim Brotherhood.<\/p>\n
The ascendance to power of Mohamed Morsi backed by the Muslim Brotherhood yielded nothing, but an emergent theocratic state by subverting the legitimate ends of the popular uprising and setting Egyptians\u2019 democratic aspirations aside. Needless to say, it is unproductive to enter into a debate about whether secularism is a defining feature of democracy. For one thing, it\u2019s because scholars like Alfred Stepan has already shown decisively that a state can be religious, but still democratic and even, if you like, that the original intention of secularism in the US Constitution was just a prohibition against the federal government from establishing an official religion, and not against the states. Mona Eltahawy, the eminent Egyptian-American journalist, recently tweeted that \u201cEgypt is making western leaders and scholars redefine what \u2018democracy\u2019 and \u2018coup d\u2019etat are.\u201d\u00a0 I replied to her tweet saying, \u201cmaybe that\u2019s because they were trying to understand regime changes according to pol sci textbook definitions.\u201d\u00a0 Regime changes rarely unfold according to textbook definitions of \u201cdemocracy,\u201d \u201ccoup,\u201d or \u201crevolution.\u201d\u00a0 However, what makes coups and revolutions similar, if not identical, at the most general level is that both are unconstitutional means of changing ruling regimes, and, as such, it\u2019s hard to make an ordinal ranking between them.\u00a0 If the distinction is not that helpful, and perhaps inconsequential, then I wish to call particular attention to John Locke\u2019s idea of a right to rebellion as an important element of western conceptions of liberal democracy.\u00a0 Even if you adamantly adhere to these conceptual distinctions, it\u2019s hard to dismiss the fact that the Morsi regime was removed through a mix of military coup d\u2019etat following popular mass participation in the streets.\u00a0 What then?<\/p>\n
As you might recall, when Vice President Omar Suleiman announced on February 11, 2011, that Mubarak would be stepping down as president and handing power over to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, almost every analyst worth his salt never dared to call it a military coup d\u2019etat. Soon after the June 24 announcement of the presidential election victory of the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood declared the Shura council and constituent assembly unconstitutional, decreed presidential decisions beyond the reach of judicial review, and passed a draconian civil society law.\u00a0 In view of this, and the damning statement of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the state of democracy, freedom, and justice in Egypt, it is crystal-clear that the so-called revolution that toppled Mubarak and ushered in Egypt\u2019s first free and fair elections, was rendered meaningless.\u00a0 Of course, Egypt was obviously in need of a new constitutional dispensation, but Morsi and the Brotherhood had hijacked the process and limited broad participation for all sectors of Egyptian political and civil society.\u00a0\u00a0 Many Egyptians considered this state-of-affairs a major step backwards and popular dissent mobilized on the streets.<\/p>\n
In my opinion, it is too silly to ask whether it\u2019s a coup d\u2019etat or a revolution.\u00a0 The more serious question that should be asked is, \u201care the Egyptian people securing the change they intended to bring about\u201d?\u00a0\u00a0 Eltahawy agrees with an \u201cIndeed.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 But I think it is too early to answer this question.\u00a0 However, let me share with you why I think Mohamed El Baradei is the right choice for leadership.\u00a0 El Baradei is a smart pick as he is a secularist, democrat, veteran technocrat, and has a full grasp of international relations.\u00a0 He also has sensible ideas on how to share Nile water resources with other riparian nations based on equity and fairness, rather than to engage in sabre rattling.\u00a0 In this connection, nothing testifies to his credentials for pacifism more than his persistent advocacy for a policy of multi-lateral diplomacy instead of war during the debates about nuclear weapons control in Iraq.<\/p>\n
As Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has aptly observed in a recent Financial Times<\/a> piece, \u201c[s]o the military acted. Some will term what it did as a coup d\u2019etat.\u00a0 But this would be inaccurate. This political intervention came in response to a crisis; it was not its cause. Just as important, the events of recent days were not a power grab by Egypt\u2019s military. The country\u2019s soldiers wisely show little appetite for rule. They [are] entrusting temporary power with judicial authorities and setting up a timetable for political transition. This is as it should and must be.\u201d<\/p>\n