This is a very controversial topic and, having not visited Egypt myself and given that I don't personally know any Egyptians, you would be entitled to question my opinion on this matter in particular. What I say is based purely on my perception of events there from the news.
The status quo in Egypt seems to be changing on a regular basis, but at present there is great conflict between supporters of the army on the one side, and the deposed president on the other. In brief, this is how events have progressed so far: for 30 years, Egypt lived under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, who inherited an authoritarian, military regime from Anwar Sadat and Gamal Nasser, who toppled the monarchy preceding them approximately 60 years ago. However, Mubarak's long-established rule was overthrown in 2011 during the Arab Spring, when similarly authoritarian leaders were toppled (or at least challenged) in the Middle East and North Africa. Following Mubarak's deposition, the army took over, forming what they promised to be a provisional government until democratic elections could be held. A year later, Egypt's first democratic elections were held and won by the Muslim Brotherhood party, with Mohamed Morsi elected as president. President Morsi's term of office was not without controversy, with the Egyptian economy struggling, while many were wary of indications of authoritarian tendencies from the new president, who occasionally resorted to ruling by decree. Due to a culmination of factors, there was public unrest in the summer of 2013, a year after Morsi's election, motivating the army to threaten to depose Morsi unless he gave in to protesters' demands. Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Morsi had indeed been deposed by the military, and that the army would once again form a government for an indefinite period. This is how it remains today, with matters escalating due to conflict between supporters of the deposed President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood party on one side; and those supporting the military's intervention on the other. There have been deaths on both sides.
As an outsider with a vague understanding of the situation, it is my view that President Morsi should have been allowed to remain in office, at least for the time-being. Egypt was incredibly new to democracy, so the new president and government would have had a vast amount of work to do to consolidate democracy, whilst also overcoming Egypt's problems. These would not be easy to resolve, and would not be overcome quickly. Moreover, a government with such a vast task to take on was also bound to make occasional errors in its judgement, and was unlikely to be perfect. I therefore wonder whether it would have been better, and at least legitimate, for Morsi to remain in office and do the best he could at his job. By the time of the next election, Morsi would have had time to put many plans in place as well as the opportunity to make progress in some areas. At the election, the public would have been able to judge Morsi on his record, and decide whether to continue supporting him or choose an alternative government.
Developed countries around the world today have not always had political stability, high living standards and a strong economy (something quite clear in these relatively difficult times in the developed, as well as developing, world). A combination of wise reforms and stability are needed to succeed in government. To expect Morsi to make a perfect nation within the space of a year seemed unrealistic; so in my opinion, political unrest and military intervention came too quickly to give him a reasonable chance of success. In the authoritarian Arab monarchies, such as Jordan, they have had the stability offered by their monarch; but there have also been gradual concessions to democracy which have managed to achieve both stability and progress.
In Egypt's case, I hope that an opportunity to make progress and cultivate democracy has not been lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment