Democratization in Egypt - Coursework Example

Democratization in Egypt Although Egypt is generally recognized as a democratic nation by the majorityof people in the West who consider it at all, the truth of the matter is that Egypt has been falling backward toward a more authoritarian state ever since the current president, Hosni Mubarak, took office. The confusion in the West is understandable as Mubarak operates under the title of President and operates at the head of a government that includes legislative, executive and judicial branches. This is a familiar structure to the West and it is generally assumed that a structure such as this will automatically lead to a democratic society. However, this is not necessarily the case. By more clearly defining those elements that must be present in order to consider a nation truly democratic, and then comparing this with the situation on the ground in Egypt, it is nearly impossible to trace the democratic process as people in the West know it. This is revealed as the situation in Egypt is explored in terms of those elements of government that have blocked the democratic process. With an idea of what democracy is and an idea of those elements of Egyptian politics that have blocked this process, it is then possible to move on to an investigation of what must be accomplished in Egypt to bring it to a more complete and full democracy such as what people in the West envision in association with the word. Despite the fact that we see some democratic reforms in Egypt, this process will certainly take some time as well as strong leadership before full democracy can be acknowledged. The current state of democracy in Egypt Before one can truly analyze the state of democracy in Egypt, it is necessary to understand what is meant when the term ‘democracy’ and all its descriptive forms is used. Generally speaking, the process of democratization can be defined as a process in which governmental or other organizations move from a authoritarian or otherwise non-democratic form of management to a democratic one (Sorenson, 1993: 14). Of course, this still doesn’t provide a clear definition of what should be found when looking at a democratic state. One element of democracy that should be found include open and free elections in which citizens have a real choice between at least two candidates. This requires a multi-party system in which at least two valid parties are present and active in the politics of the region. There must be a sense of an open media, in which news organizations are free to both praise and condemn political leaders for their actions, which also suggests an active participation in the political process. To keep the powers of the ‘throne’ in check, a democratic system must also have a strong legislature that has the power to make laws and hold the ‘king’, or ‘president’ as he is more correctly called in a democratic system, in check with the overarching principles and beliefs of the people. Democratic systems should also have a strong judiciary where citizens of any level of society can challenge these laws and have their rights as individual human beings upheld. Dahl (1971) sums up the requirements of democracy nicely by providing a list of eight minimum requirements: freedom to form and join organizations; freedom of expression; the right to vote; eligibility for public office; the right of political leaders to compete for support; alternative sources of information; free and fair elections; institutions for making government policies depend on votes and other expressions of public preference (3). All of this suggests that the democratic process relies, almost entirely, upon a citizenry that is active and involved in the political process, being completely autonomous when it comes to making their choices regarding who will lead them into the future. With a clear idea of the elements of democracy that should be found in a truly democratic state, it is thus possible to assess the current situation in Egypt. The country began the democratization process under the leadership of Anwar Sadat in the mid-1970s as he switched Egypt’s allegiance with world powers from the communist Soviet Union to the democratic United States (Anwar Sadat, 2008). Seen as a traitor to his nation, Sadat was assassinated in 1981. His successor, Hosni Mubarak, was made chairman of the Democratic Party and President by majority votes held that year. He was elected by majority again in 1987, 1993, 1999 and 2005 (The President, 2005). While the presence of elections, Presidents and alliances with democratic nations seems to suggest Egypt is already under a democracy, there remain many vestiges of the old regime firmly in place, each of which serve to stop democracy in its tracks. These revolve primarily around the issues of liberalization, both in terms of democracy and in terms of economic freedom for the citizenry. In assessing the current state of democracy in Egypt, then, it is necessary to look at the freedom of the citizenry to make choices between valid and real political rivals while still having their basic rights and privileges as citizens protected. Observation of the current democratic process in Egypt reveals several of these elements of democracy are either missing or greatly retarded, indicating the country has not yet achieved a level of true democracy. This can be most understood by looking at those elements within the country’s political and social systems that tend to block the development of true democracy. Barriers to democracy in Egypt One of the first barriers to democracy in Egypt is the powers of the presidency. Executive powers given to the president allow him to easily overwhelm decisions made in the legislature and to overturn the verdicts of the judiciary. As a result, there are no true checks on the president’s authority making it difficult to bring about any sort of effective change. Unlike in a true democracy, where items can be passed even without the president’s approval, in Egypt, “Any important policy or project must normally have the ‘blessing’ of the President before it can proceed with a reasonable prospect of success” (Ayyubi, 1989: 2). To help enforce this dominant control over the country, the military arm of the nation has come under the direct control of the president as well and has increasingly been used as a means of civil control and support. While it is the major arm of enforcing compliance among the people, it is also the major form of welfare services to young men who might otherwise fill the unemployment roles. At the same time, the legislature has become almost entirely filled with members of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, meaning there is no true dissension or opposition within the nation while judicial concerns not likely to be legally decided according to the president’s preferences are typically moved to military trial, again under the direct supervision of the president (Goodson & Radwan, 1997: 8). With the overwhelming majority of legislative seats occupied by National Democratic Party members and all decisions of the state being dictated by the president himself, there is little opportunity for a valid second party candidate to actually win an election or to truly take office following election. While numerous other parties exist, none of these are organized enough or strong enough in popular appeal to win any kind of victory over the strongly dominant NDP. As a result of this situation, the population of Egypt has understandably lost interest in taking part in the election process. Without any means of voicing opposition and knowing Mubarak will continue to be elected president regardless of what they have to say about it, civil participation in democracy has waned since the 1990s. Continuous changes in election law and lack of strong oversight regarding the validity of elections has led to a situation in which less than 50 percent of the 21 million registered voters turned out during the 1995 parliamentary elections while another 30 million citizens of Egypt remained unregistered (Al-Ahram, 1995: 385). Other blockades to civic participation in the political process in Egypt include the fact that any organizations forming must, by law, be approved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and find an affiliation either with this body or another within the existing government, a government strongly dominated by the sitting president (Goodson & Radwan, 1997: 9). This situation is exacerbated by a historical tradition of authoritarianism both in the family structure as well as governmental ideals. “The family, educational system, and religious establishment do not focus on direct political socialization but rather stress ethical and nationalist-oriented values, all within the framework of submission to authority” (Goodson & Radwan, 1997: 10). Social services, including the media, are generally a part of the political regime and remain untrusted sources of information or dissension. According to the U.S. State Department (1996), media outlets in Egypt are censored to some degree by the various governmental ministries. There is also evidence that freedom of religion and freedom of association are also limited. This is accomplished through extensive police control and a seemingly permanent state of emergency law. The U.S. State Department documents reports of torture of suspects, detention without charges or trial, police brutality or incompetence and even extra-judicial killings (1996). What needs to happen to facilitate democracy There are a number of steps Egypt can take to help facilitate a move toward greater democracy in the nation. Perhaps the first and most important step in this process would be restructuring the social norms and commitments of the political opposition (Sallam, 2008). This can be accomplished by strengthening the leaders’ commitments to terms of alliances rather than encouraging these individuals to ‘jump ship’ and join the NDP. There should be clear terms regarding how parties should relate with one another, encouraging debate and discussion rather than exclusion and hostility. It also needs to be accepted that all parties should have the right and the opportunity to participate in the political process as long as this participation is conducted peacefully. In order to make informed decisions, the people need to know political alliances among their political leaders and there needs to be greater transparency regarding violations of terms of alliance agreements and the consequences they face. Only after these steps have been taken can the next step be accomplished, which would be to encourage future political leaders and teach them a new means of relating to each other. Political alliances have a greater chance of ‘sticking’ when they are instilled young and from within the relevant party platform. By garnering general support within the party, political leaders can be more assured of support from those within their party as well as provide individual members of the party with a greater sense of involvement. Fostering political interest in the younger generation would help to overcome a traditional opposition between generations and would also enable the party to move past historical failures into a new mode of communication with other parties that have been marred by old hatreds (Sallam, 2008). Rather than allowing these new relations among new political leaders to grow into similar hatreds, there needs to be a focus on the issues involved rather than the underlying ideologies. “Attempting to fuse Islamist and secular ideologies is pointless, as some points of division are irresolvable” (Sallam, 2008). By opening up debate regarding the outcome issues rather than the fundamental ideas behind specific policies, the conversation shifts from the emotionally laden belief system to the more pragmatic intellectual questions. A simple rule of debate, agreeing to disagree, needs to be applied universally to Egyptian politics in order to facilitate moving forward into real-world political progress. Finally, none of these types of reforms are likely to take place with any great deal of success until the existing regime also makes some significant changes. “The Egyptian government must be encouraged to adopt reforms that provide institutional, political and social space for new, moderate political voices – both Islamist and non-Islamist” (Sallam, 2008). The types of reforms that have been suggested by Sallam (2008) include lifting the oppressive emergency laws, easing existing restrictions on the formation of independent political parties and implementing new electoral laws that provide a free and fair elective process rather than favoring the existing party. In addition, the regime needs to encourage freedom of expression and assembly by separating the ruling party from many of the government bodies and resources that it currently controls and halting all efforts to repress peaceful opposition groups or manipulate the electoral process through force or intimidation. Conclusion Egypt’s government as it has been revealed it not a true democracy such as what is envisioned in the West when the word is invoked. As has been discovered, true democracy has several important elements that keep the people free and able to participate in an active decision-making process regarding how the country should operate. Broken down into their most basic elements, these include a number of personal and political freedoms and safeguards in place to ensure these freedoms are not violated. Although Egypt calls itself a democracy, it has several policies in place that serve to restrict or block these freedoms and safeguards. The emergency laws that have been in place for the past 15 years, for example, have served to ensure the freedom to form and join peaceful organizations is strongly restricted to only those organizations approved of by the current administration while freedom of expression and the right to vote are limited by state control over media outlets and rigid military presence. Voting rights are perceived by Egyptians as being so corrupt and unreliable that more than half of the population no longer registers to vote and less than half of those registered choose to exercise that right. Despite the shift back toward authoritarianism that has been exhibited in recent years in Egypt, there remains hope for the nation to continue building a more democratic society. A number of suggestions have been offered, but these need to first be embraced by the existing regime if they are to become successful. Only with the release of many of the restrictions put in place by the Mubarak regime will Egypt be able to begin working on building up the remaining elements required for a truly democratic nation. It is fruitless to discuss building up strong opposition parties, for instance, when the leaders of these parties are likely to be arrested on spurious charges and tried in military courts controlled by the dominant party head, Mubarak himself. The structures are in place, although weakened, and the people are increasingly encouraged through outside support brought in via television, radio and internet, it is now up to the powers in place to make the next move. References Al-Ahram. (1995). “Strategic File.” Center for Political and Strategic Studies. N. 6. “Anwar Sadat: Egyptian President.” (2008). CNN Interactive: Cold War. CNN. Available October 18, 2008 Ayyubi, Nazih. (1989). “Government and the State in Egypt Today.” Egypt Under Mubarak. Charles Tripp & Roger Owen (Eds.). London: Routledge. Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Goodson, Larry P. & Soha Radwan. (Winter 1997). “Democratization in Egypt in the 1990s: Stagnant or Merely Stalled?” Arab Studies Quarterly. “The President.” (2005). The Egyptian Presidency. Available October 18, 2008 Sallam, Hersham. (June 2008). “Opposition Alliances and Democratization in Egypt.” USI Peace Briefing. United States Institute of Peace. Sorenson, Georg. (1993). Democracy and Democratization. Boulder, CO: Westview. U.S. Department of State. (1995; 1996). Egypt Human Rights Practices. Washington D.C. Read More