Will Egypt Become a Genuine Democracy - Essay Example

Governance today is a combination of all the values of governance which brings on board the interaction of all theindividual representatives of the state, civil society as well as the private sector. This means that currently an efficiently running government is that which has based its operations on universally accepted principles which results into balance of power checks as well as balance (Arafat and Alaal pg. 234). A democratic government must therefore incorporate the principles such as participation, accountability and transparency. In addition, there has to be an adherence to rule of law, separation of power, access to justice machinery, subsidiarity, equality not forgetting the freedom of press (Roy pg. 48). Egypt has experienced a long journey of struggle and frustrations due to the closed and centralized political systems. Such systems as has been realized are never willing to create space for freedom and meaningful dialogue with the members of the public. The citizens have therefore remained oppressed socially and economically over time. Right from Nasser, Egypt has been under an oppressed form of leadership with Nasser being praised to being the founder of the military state that has seriously oppressed the Egyptian population (Acemoglu and James pg. 76). It is not quite clear what type of leader and the real form of leadership that was portrayed by Nasser but a clear element is that most of the tribulations witnessed by the Egyptians of recent began with him. This has made the military form of government being highly contested hence the recent revolution witnessed in Egypt lead by a non-military leader. Unlike what most people may believe, the impact of the leader on his people does not solely depend on the regime of style employed but on the personality of the leader (Andrzej pg. 123). Under the military regime initiated by Nasser, the man was much aware of his people’s tribulations in terms of hunger and the need of his country to be strong and a leader. Nasser therefore acted to support such worthy courses. It is the beliefs of Nasser that compelled him to lead a revolution that overthrew Egyptian first president, Mohamed Naguib (Bayat pg. 92). Though Nasser’s rule just like any form of government was unlikely to miss out on a few hiccups here and there, it can authoritatively be noted that it was a rule that most of the Egyptians benefited from. Nasser ruled and died after which a president by the name Anwar Sadat came into power after which came Hosni Mubarak. The rules under these two leaders were much different despite the fact that they were as well military leaders. They have actually perpetuated serous acts of socio-economic oppression on the Egyptian civilians (Fahmy pg. 164). It is also important to note that the popularity enjoyed by Nasser as a true Egyptian leader and a leader who thinks and acts for the people has never been enjoyed by any other Morsi as a non-military leader included. The problem that has been faced by Egypt in terms of negative democracy is purely hunched on the leaders and the characters they exhibit. This has also been attributed to the weak formation of structures and institutions (Ferris pg.216). According to Freedom House (2011), Nasser as a popular leader is found to have gotten his popularity from cheap benefits dished to the people such as donations as opposed to establishing such giveaways as citizen rights. Through his leadership, Nasser has been known as a person who greatly fears competition and hence the employment of security to identify and eliminate his political adversaries. Therefore, the beginning of the worse things that happened under Sadat and Mubarak can be traced all the way from the time of Nasser. The three types of leaders exhibited common traits such as that of uncontested leader who decided for the nation as opposed to working for the nation (Freedman pg.42). Most of the decisions that such leaders make are undemocratic and selfish. Under the military rules by the three initials Egyptian rulers several innocent people could be reported to have lost lives without any clear explanation provided (Hilal pg. 167). As opposed to taking cohesive policy issues head on, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak were all full of sporadic policy positions. As opposed to Sadat and Mubarak Nasser is reported to have lead some form of progress in terms of development of social justice, sustainable development and as well as independence which the Egyptians really opted for at the time (Gershoni and James pg. 345). I bet this is why this leaders despite having died in 1970. Democracy is a form of leadership by the people and for the people meaning that any kind of leader must always be connected to his or her people. This is what made Nasser be felt among the people despite being a military leader. A leader in an open way must be able to provide what the people want at any given point in time (Ibrahim pg.127). It is right to large extent to note that some tennetes of democracy might have originated from. The development of institutions that support gender and age across the society had begun with Nasser and this was positive given it is through such ways that the state and the citizens collectively are able to develop democracy. Democracy from definition is the combination of two diverse and different political traditions. This entails a platform where both sovereignty as the rule of the people portrayed through elections and liberty or freedom are brought together. These would come in different form and it is important to note that liberty exist in form of political, religious and economic hence an elimination of any form of oppression and dogmatism (Regulski pg. 238). For a country to become a genuine democracy it has to be willing to accommodate all these aspects plus more. Therefore, in the event of an election, liberty has to be witnessed throughout the whole of the process. This is a serious challenge by the Egyptian government as they still are against religious liberty and regards to women and this has only lead to a strong establishment of intolerant dictatorship by the Muslim brotherhoods (Kienle pg.83). During a revolution as has been witnessed in Egypt in the past including the recent past, the most organized and ruthless group normally finds its way into control of the government. Governments instituted in such manners have never been seen to have the good of the citizens at heart. This is given the fact that they come in with preformed opinions of the previous regimes and with mindsets to fix the same vices instantly. Such cases have even been witnessed in countries such as Russia after the 1917 revolution which brought the country under 75 years of Totalitarian rule and dictatorship of Lenin. The fact that Egypt does not tolerate religious liberty is a strong evidence enough to mention that the country is still quite far from a genuine democracy (Kienle pg. 189). As opposed to elections which are quite easy to manage, the attainment of liberty is a process. This is because it first of all requires that a country puts down an establishment of supportive institutions which in turn must be sustainable. The establishment of institutions in Egypt is still below par and given that such institutions are never built in a single day makes Egypt still be away from being a genuine democracy. The market economy in Egypt as opposed to that of the countries that have developed democracy which are free markets is also different. Through an interaction that exists in such forms of markets, habits of trust and cooperation are developed and these are quite important for the development and flourishment of a democracy. Egypt is at a disadvantage as its economy is the closed type and crony capitalism is the order of the day in Egypt (Marsot pg.320). The rich in Egypt are believed or is factual that in one way or the other they have political connection of whatever form. Another fact that makes Egypt be quite far from being a genuine democracy is the fact that it is an Arab country and there has never be an Arab democracy world over. This is from emulation resulting from resemblance and admiration that relates countries. For example, central Europe overthrew communism in 1989 and adopted democracy given it was the form of government adopted by most governments in Western Europe at the time and therefore given they were in a way emulators of Western Europe they found it easier to adopt such form of government. Egypt has never emulated the form of government of a democratic state hence expecting the country to become a genuine democracy any time (Najjar pg. 56). Contrarily, we will find that Egypt as opposed to other Arab countries could easily become a democracy if only for the willingness of the government. This is because as opposed to other Arab countries which exhibit extreme division along tribal, ethnic and religious lines, Egypt is more or less peaceful. Than any other Arab country, Egypt is relatively homogenous with the main minority being the Christians taking up to a maximum of only 10% of the population. This is as opposed to the cases where a country has a majority block of a very powerful group that is never willing to share power hence dictatorship. The Egyptian government does not also possess large deposit of oil that has been a nightmare to most Arab countries as different powers struggle to remain in power to control such oils wells and resources (Rutherford pg.224). Egypt therefore could easily become a democracy through willingness given this is not a hindrance. Before the onset of the violent protests, Egypt had a prospect of attaining a democracy as it allowed for peaceful demonstrations. The situation has though been worsened given the forceful nature that the Morsi’s came into power. This is because ta government that has come into existence through force is obliged to rules by force in order to retain such hence no democracy (Khaled and Robert pg. 170). Democracy requires the willingness of the people for it to work. This is because the supporting tennetes such as the institutions are only able to work among the population if they are accepted and assimilated among the people. The Egyptians have over time demonstrated that they require democracy and this is even the genesis of all the demonstrations that have been witnessed in Egypt in the past. Attainment of democracy is long, treacherous and procedural if not lengthy. Past injustices on humanitarian grounds must be investigated and proper compensation accorded and this is achievable when all the descenting voices and protesting parties’ are all brought to a round table negotiation. International support must as well be welcome and most importantly the support of the superpower (Kassem pg. 145). In lieu of all these looming obstacles, Egypt is still quite far from attaining a genuine democracy. It is as well encouraging to note that Egypt through willingness of the forces in power can easily attain democracy fruitfully. This is because all the obstacles making it impossible for them to attain such a state are all workable. Works Cited Roy, Bahl. Implementation Rules For Fiscal Decentralization, Paper. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia State University Press, 2009. Print. Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail, The Origins of. New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2012. Print. Andrzej, Kowalczyk. Local Government in Poland, In Decentralization:. Budapest: Open Society Institute, 2000. Print. Bayat, A.. "Populism, Liberalization and Popular Participation: Industrial Democracy in Egypt." Economic and Industrial Democracy 14.1 (1993): 65-87. Print. Fahmy, Ninette S. The Politics of Egypt State-Society Relationship.. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012. Print. Ferris, Jesse. Nassers Gamble How Intervention in Yemen Caused the Six-Day War and the Decline of Egyptian Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Print. Freedman, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Michaels. Scripting Middle East Leaders the Impact of Leadership Perceptions on U.S. and UK Foreign Policy.. London: Bloomsbury Pub., 2012. Print. Freedom, House. Freedom in the World: The Authoritarian challenge to. Jamaica: Kingston, 2011. Print. Gershoni, I., and James P. Jankowski. Confronting fascism in Egypt: dictatorship versus democracy in the 1930s. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2010. Print. Hilal, Alial. Democracy in Egypt: problems and prospects. Cairo: American University in Cairo, 1978. Print. Ibrahim, Saad Eddin. "Reform and Frustration in Egypt." Journal of Democracy 7.4 (1996): 125-135. Print. J, Regulski. Building Democracy in Poland: The State Reform of 1998,. Budapest: Open Society Institute, 1999. Print. Kassem, May. In the guise of democracy: governance in contemporary Egypt. Reading: Ithaca Press, 1999. Print. Khaled Z, Amin, and Robert D. Ebel. Egyptian intergovernmental relations and. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print. Kienle, Eberhard. A grand delusion democracy and economic reform in Egypt. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001. Print. Kienle, Eberhard. A grand delusion democracy and economic reform in Egypt. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001. Print. Marsot, Afaf Lutfi. A short history of modern Egypt. Cambridge shire: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Print. Najjar, Fauzi M. "The Future of Democracy in Egypt." Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 17.2 (2008): 117-133. Print. Rutherford, Bruce K. Egypt after Mubarak: liberalism, Islam, and democracy in the Arab world. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Print. Arafat, Alaal, and Alaal Arafat. Hosni Mubarak and the future of democracy in Egypt. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print. Read More