by Daniel Pipes
Who is worse, President
Mohammed Morsi, the elected Islamist seeking to apply Islamic law in
Egypt, or President Husni Mubarak, the former dictator ousted for trying
to start a dynasty? More broadly, will a liberal, democratic order more
likely emerge under Islamist ideologues who prevail through the ballot
box or from greedy dictators with no particular agenda beyond their own
survival and power?
Morsi's recent actions provide an answer, establishing that Islamists are yet worse than dictators.
This issue came up in
an interesting debate for Intelligence Squared U.S. in early October
when Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress argued "Better elected Islamists than dictators,"
while Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and I
argued the counterargument. Well, no one really argued "for" anyone. The
other team did not endorse Islamists, we certainly did not celebrate
dictators. The issue, rather, was which sort of ruler is the lesser of
two evils and can be cudgeled to democracy.
Katulis blamed
dictatorships for fostering "the sorts of ideologies" that led to 9/11
and Gerecht insisted that military juntas, not Islamists, generally are
"the real danger. … The only way you're going to get a more liberal
order in the Middle East is through people of faith" who vote Islamists
into office. Katulis argued that elected Islamists change and morph,
becoming less ideological and more practical; they evolve in response to
the rough and tumble of politics to focus on "basic needs" such as
security and jobs
In Iraq, Gerecht
professed to find "a tidal wave of people who were once hard core
Islamists who … have become pretty profound democrats, if not liberals."
As for Egypt, he noted approvingly but inaccurately that "the Muslim
Brotherhood is having serious internal debates because they haven't
figured out how to handle [their success]. That's what we want. We want
them to fight it out."
Jasser and I replied to
this catalogue of inaccuracies (military juntas led to 9/11?) and
wishful thinking (true believers will compromise on their goals? A tidal
wave of Iraqi Islamists became liberals?) by stating first that
ideologues are "dictators on steroids" who don't moderate upon reaching
power but dig themselves in, building foundations to remain indefinitely
in office. Second, ideologues neglect the very issues that our
opponents stressed — security and jobs — in favor of implementing
Islamic laws. Greedy dictators, in contrast, short on ideology and
vision, do not have a vision of society and so can be convinced to move
toward economic development, personal freedoms, an open political
process, and rule of law (for example, South Korea).
Lo and behold, Morsi
and the Muslim Brotherhood have followed exactly our script. Since
taking power in August, Morsi (1) sidelined the military, then focused
on entrenching and expanding their supremacy, most notably by issuing a series of orders on Nov. 22 that arrogated autocratic powers to him and spreading Zionist conspiracy theories about his opponents. He then (2) rammed through an Islamist-oriented constitution on Nov. 30 and called a snap referendum on it on Dec. 15. Consumed with these two tasks, he virtually ignored the myriad issues afflicting Egypt, especially the looming economic crisis and the lack of funds to pay for imported food.
Morsi's power grab
stimulated anti-Islamist Egyptians to join forces as the "National
Salvation Front" and confront Islamists in the most violent street clashes in six decades, forcing him partially to retreat from
his Nov.22 orders. Ironically, after deftly sidelining the military in
August, Morsi's overreach created circumstances that returned ultimate authority to
the generals, who can intervene for or against him. By choosing
Islamist sympathizers as top officers and offering the military enhanced
privileges in the proposed constitution, he has in all likelihood won their support. Martial law appears likely next.
In just three months,
Morsi has shown that he aspires to dictatorial powers greater than
Mubarak's and that his rule portends to be an even greater calamity for
Egypt than was Mubarak's. He has neatly vindicated Jasser's and my
point: better dictators than elected Islamists. As I noted in the
debate, Westerners should slam the door hard on ideological dictators
like Islamists while pressuring greedy dictators to allow civil society.
This offers the only exit from the false choice of two forms of
tyranny.
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3043
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment