State of the Union

RSC Caves to Member Pressure, Fires Derek Khanna

Wrong About Morsi

By Scott McConnell • December 6, 2012, 12:12 PM

Gigi Ibrahim / Flickr

I have long congratulated myself for sound political judgement, so it’s an unpleasant shock to be found very wrong, very quickly. A few months ago, I was optimistic about Egypt’s newly elected Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Morsi. I was wrong to be.

I don’t know how the current clash between the diverse opponents of Morsi’s bid for authoritarian control will end up. But one often sees what one wishes to, and I wanted to see that some sort of Islamic democracy, perhaps something like the Turkish model, was a viable path for Egypt. Morsi gave an impression of sharing that vision. But seemingly pulled by some inexorable cultural force (Islamic, Pharonic, or simply human), he has bid to give himself authoritarian powers, while trying to silence the opposition rather than compromise with it.

Democracy is hardly a common form of human governance: in Europe, some form of fascism was freely chosen by half the continent in the ’20s and ’30s. In any case, if you know Egypt at all and were thrilled by the largely peaceful 2011 revolution it’s hard to not despair as the country seemingly slides towards civil war and/or dictatorship. I have no brief for those (comprising the vast majority of American media) whose only concern seems to be whether Egypt will remain compliant towards the Israeli blockade of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank. But an Egypt which deprives itself of its most modern, educated, and liberal sectors — as Morsi seems intent on doing, can hardly advance the country or the region.

In these tense days, I’m reading the intrepid Max Blumenthal, who is now in the center of things in Cairo, and the contributors to The Arabist, a sophisticated blog produced by knowledgeable, Cairo based, liberals — liberals in the European sense. In writing that sentence I’m reminded of Fritz Stern, historian of modern Germany and a college and graduate school mentor: in Germany, liberalism was the one cause that always lost. Not just there, it would seem.

Posted in Foreign policy. Tagged Fritz Stern, Max Blumenthal, Mohammed Morsi.

17 Responses to Wrong About Morsi

German_reader says:

December 6, 2012 at 12:56 pm

“…some sort of Islamic democracy, perhaps something like the Turkish model, ”

But is the “Turkish model” actually that democratic? As far as I know, Turkey now is the country with the highest number of journalists in prison (more than in China!), often on transparently trumped-up charges. The AKP government doesn’t seem to have any intent of removing the anti-democratic elements in Turkish politics which were once created by the old Kemalist elites; they merely want to bring them under their control and use them for their own goals (which means increasing Islamization).
And from my European perspective I can’t help but feel extremely uneasy at the direction Turkey’s general culture seems to be taking, i.e. a bizarre mixture of Turkish nationalism and Islamism, with obvious anti-European connotations. When a movie celebrating the fall of Constantinople (whose first scene consists of Muhammad’s followers in 7th century Medina receiving orders from the “prophet” for Constaninople’s conquest!) becomes a blockbuster in Turkey, when Erdogan makes ominous utterances (largely unreported in Western media) that his party’s goal for relations with Europe is “2071″ (the 1000-year anniversary of the battle of Manzikert) as he did recently at the AKP’s party conference (to chants of “Alp Arslan is our hero and inspiration” from the delegates), what is one to make of this? If this is what “Islamic democracy” means, well…
Andrew says:

December 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm

perhaps something like the Turkish model,

Attaturk forbade translation of Al-Ghazali’s works into Turkish. Al-Ghazali in Islam (Sunni) is the figure counted second to prophet Mohammad. The connection is obvious, the same as the nature of Attaturk’s reforms–radically secular, in the words of Ataturk himself, “For the people, despite the people”. “Islamic Democracy” is Sharia. As Robert Reilly writes, “many wonder why democracy did not develop indigenously in the Muslim world and ask whether it can still develop today. The answer is that, so long as the Ash’arite (or Hanbalite) worldview is regnant, democratic development cannot succeed….” (c)
Cliff says:

December 6, 2012 at 1:34 pm

I think your reaction is premature. We don’t really know what’s going to happen next, which is what really matters, obviously. But consider that the Egyptian opposition, now, is not the opposition of a few months ago; it is the supporters of the Mubarak military regime. In particular, the Egyptian judiciary is full of holdovers. So Morsi may feel compelled to take strong measures, regardless of his desires, by the nature of the forces opposing him. That’s the most optimistic interpretation I can think of; the most pessimistic, of course, is your own.

I’m more inclined to pessimism than optimism, but I think we need to wait and see.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

December 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm

“I wanted to see that some sort of Islamic democracy,….”

Islamic democracy is an oxymoron. That’s not an expression of neo-con Islamophobia on my part. It is my honest assessment of Islamic tradition.

The more Islamic one is, the less likely one is to allow questions of public law and policy to be determined by the whims of the electorate. Sharia is seen as the will of God made known to man. It cannot be superseded by legislative innovation. Given this orientation, can we really expect Muslims to do anything other than seek to implement Sharia?

There is a certain egalitarian strand in Islam. But I believe that strand relates to how all men are equal in the eyes of Allah. Other than that, Islam has been comfortable in various forms of stratified or feudal political regimes for centuries.

This is not to say that there are no interpretive flexibilities within Sharia, but to expect any truly Islamic party anywhere to accept a jurisprudence based on precepts of popular will, outside of Sharia, is folly.
Andrew says:

December 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm

That’s not an expression of neo-con Islamophobia on my part.

Isn’t it truly sad that we arrived to such a situation that anytime anyone exhibits knowledge or informed opinion on Islam it has to be immediately clarified as the opinion of not neo-con and not islamophobe.
Bob Jones says:

December 6, 2012 at 3:28 pm

“…Islamic democracy”

Any time you put the name of a religious movement with the concept of “democracy” you are dealing with something that is inherently impossible. The Turkish model is nominally democratic (actually what Ataturk founded was not a democracy, but a secular Republic and is more comparable to what someone like a Madison would have viewed as a Republic).

The prioritization of a religious affiliation in society will be inherently undemocratic, as religious affiliation requires intolerance toward those of other faiths, or belief variations, to varying degrees.

Also, consider the issue of dealing with dissenters. Yes, in a country like Turkey the are several issues in society for which dissent will land you in prison, but I would remind our “German Reader” that the same holds true across many of the so-called democracies of Europe – West and East. Just ask David Irving.

However, in the specific case of Egypt, I think it might be too early to judge Morsy. You have admitted to jumping on his bandwagon a little too soon, but I wouldn’t condemn him just yet. We need to see where this goes to determine whether he will lead Egypt into a Theocracy, or some other form of Republic based on a selected religious morality.
hetzer says:

December 6, 2012 at 3:46 pm

Although no doubt flawed, isn’t Indonesia, the country with the greatest number of Muslims in the world, a democracy?

They haven’t been out from under the heel of Suharto very long, but you don’t hear a lot about them in the news…
Polichinello says:

December 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Scott, you were wrong about a detail, but you’re overall solution of separation is still right. Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world are bound and determined to ignore the lessons of the Iranian Revolution, so let them. Let them have their 20 years or so of stupid, but let them do it without us being involved, and keep them out of here.
Mike MacLeod says:

December 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm

A note: Al-Ghazali is not considered ” the figure counted second to prophet Mohammad”. If anybody is, it is his nephew and heir, Hazrat Ali, also esteemed by the Shia.

Al-Ghazali was considered a master of Islamic jurisprudence, and he also wrote a multi-volume set of the required and praiseworthy acts and practices of Islam, which is still widely considered the best guide (after the Koran and collections of hadith, the recorded sayings of the Prophet) for new or punctilious Muslims.

He was also associated with the Sufis, who were (at various times) both praised and reviled by the Sunni and the Shia. This connection may have spoilt his reputation amongst the Young Turks.
AnotherBeliever says:

December 6, 2012 at 10:15 pm

Morsi is doing himself and the Muslim brotherhood considerable political damage. The Arab street, not the least the streets of Cairo, were already rife with rumor and conspiracy theories before the Arab Spring. The people will be saying that the Muslim Brotherhood bought or forced the election and is now trying to become the new demagogues of Egypt. Unfortunately, the more religiously conservative types might start calling this a counter-conspiracy. Further division may ensue and the whole thing might fall apart. I hope not. In the old days, coups toppled a strong man to replace him with a new Strong Man. What happens when the people repeatedly topple a series of Strong Men? When does it stop? What does it look like when it does?

Over at Foreign Policy magazine, it’s starting to occur to folks that we should push for Responsible, Reasonably Responsive Governance over and above mere democracy.
Aaron Gross says:

December 6, 2012 at 11:47 pm

One doesn’t see many “I was wrong” blog posts. Credit for that. Also, a suggestion, and sorry for the preachy tone but I don’t know how to say it otherwise: If you find you were wrong about something, then maybe try reading and listening more, in general, to the people who were right about that thing. Because it’s probably deeper than just that one event. I admit that I don’t always follow that suggestion myself.

A not-so-minor correction: Egypt is not “compliant towards the Israeli blockade of Gaza.” Egypt is an agent in the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza. That mistake might also be a sign of a deeper mistake. The Middle East is not a region comprising a single political agent, Israel, with a bunch of other entities (Egypt, the Palestinians, etc.) that just react to Israel by resisting or complying. That’s how the left-Zionists – the people you read – tend to look at the region. Not good.
JJM says:

December 7, 2012 at 3:04 am

Morsi is a man that married his cousin, spent a large amount of his life in Saudi Arabia and the US, and then only won the presidency by virtue of his position inside a multi-national, radical Islamist organization (who helpfully counted the votes during the election, natch).

Morsi is a 9/11 truther, who suspects that high-speed, multi-ton places were not enough to bring down the WTC. He thinks that some other conspiracy is at work here, something involving, uh, “you know,” other people, and wants to have a “scientific” conference to find the “real culprits.” This is made even worse by the fact that, by education and trade, Morsi is a materials scientist! This is a man so enthralled in racist and religious hate that he’s willing to betray his very own trade to dabble in conspriacy theories that would make Goebbles blush.

Some other fun facts according to Morsi: Egypts Copts (one of the oldest continually existing religious groups in the world, predating Islam in Egypt by 700 years) are “outsiders” who should emmigrate, or else pay an extra religious tax; the two-state solution to Israel/Palestine (the only solution that seems at all viable anymore) will not work, and I’ll let you guess what he thinks will.

If any good comes from the revolution in Egypt, it will start by replacing Morsi with someone less vile. I am not so optimistic, though. Right now, there is no law in Egypt beyond Morsi’s. There is no constitution, the role of government is being decided right now, ad hoc. Morsi thinks it’s unreasonable for his opponents to hold the constitution of Egypt hostage to their “interests” (which is a kind way to say, “seeking respect for their religion and a freedom from government harassment”), and has now made it illegal to oppose him during the formation of the constitution. How convenient. I wonder how likely it is that the new constitution will favor Morsi and his Islamist faction?
Pingback: The Digest, Dec. 6 | The American Conservative
Carl says:

December 7, 2012 at 3:48 am

“Islamic democracy is an oxymoron. That’s not an expression of neo-con Islamophobia on my part. It is my honest assessment of Islamic tradition.”

Were there any Christian democracies before Switzerland? Wouldn’t an honest assessment of Christian history say that Christian politics tends towards a two headed empire in which the popes appoint the emperors and the emperors appoint the popes in a seesaw battle for sovereignty? It happened in Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, the Holy Roman Empire, and it nearly happened again with Napoleon…

There’s no tradition of democracy anywhere. Democracy at the national level is still pretty young.
NGPM says:

December 7, 2012 at 6:57 am

“Democracy is hardly a common form of human governance: in Europe, some form of fascism was freely chosen by half the continent in the ’20s and ’30s.”

… and if it was “freely chosen” and the people, the demos, had no objection, how is it undemocratic?

What Mr. McConnell means, most likely, is that “liberal democracy is hardly a common form of human governance,” and by “liberal democracy” we mean:

1. a country in which the state professes no religion or only pays historical-cultural lip service to a particular confession;

2. the legislative body is chosen by universal adult suffrage and with few or no restrictions (at any rate in theory) on the ideology of political parties that may present themselves for candidacy, and state-sanctioned physical intimidation of the political process is unheard of;

3. the people are free to practice or convert to the religion of their choosing and the society is relatively devoid of serious state-sanctioned intimidation that would hamper this liberty;

4. people and to a large extent moral persons (corporations) are generally secure in their private property.

No, this is not a common arrangement in human history, nor a particularly tenable one for even our own civilization, and so much the less for an Islamic country.

Again, part of the problem is the assumption that “democracy” is synonymous with “liberal.” Let us remember that the liberal (in the European sense), progressive and modernizing Ataturk and Shah were most undemocratic indeed.

I must opine that anyone who did not see this coming has been living in a cave.
EliteCommInc. says:

December 7, 2012 at 9:18 am

I once thought democracy as a social theory was the best mechanism by which to establish governannce. But somewhere along the way of my meager education, I grew up.

I am no longer a promoter of democracy as the end all and be all of human existence.And we have held it up as some form of golden calf as the model for all nations, cultures and people’s everywhere. It just is not. And how we arrived at democracy in the US is based largely on the growth of democratic participation in England. We behave as though we can distance ourselves from traditions and practices established in what was a waing Monarchy. A monrachy that built roads, provided security and civil authority, established the basis for an economy, etc.

I have serious doubts that the so called ‘arab spring” was anything more than the tipping point of human frustration born out of food shortages, economic tensions resulting from the global hits of the last ten or fifteen years. The unavailability of capital and population stressers from refugees pouring into the countries from regional conflicts can be serious hazards to national stability.

Any leader who has a vision for his country also has a problem. If others do not see his/her vision attempting shape others to buy into said vision cause difficulty. So leaders make choices: and usually that choice is to get to their vision via the shortest path possible. Because once that vision is actualized the hope is others will see it and then buy in. As a devout Muslim, I have little doubt that Morsi’s vision is in one in which Mohamehd and Allah are central actors.

Our insistance that everyone adopt some model of democracy so as to be more — peaceful, stable, etc. has not made the world that much safer. The Unted States has invaded Grenada, Panama, Afgahnistan, Iraq, the and the Phillipines.We have had slavery, participated in the dest\abilization od Greece, Iran, Egypt, and all manner ill will activities on the continent of Africa and latin America , to inclue assisination and ignored whole slaughter in the same.

Israel remains a US ally, and we are engaged in that relationship for some time to come. That region is entering a new stage of instability, with not a ltlle help from us and the Europeans. Given the national pressures and concerns, what Morsi’s goals, motivations and mechanisms to get there. The best we should hope for is that his intentions and focus are that of his countrymen in Egypt as opposed to some global or regional desire to extend a Muslim government.

We once had an irrational fear of communist. Is that now to be replaced by a fear of Islam?
JJM says:

December 8, 2012 at 4:08 am

…and right on time after my last post, Morsi has now insisted that the current disorder in Egypt was caused by a “Zionist conspiracy” and not, you know, his power grab.

What a disgusting buffoon. He needs to leave the world stage immediately.