EGYPT: MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS?

1/29/13

Egypt is rapidly, and eminently predictably, descending into a dystopia of either utter chaos or the reimposition of tyrannical rule, this time with Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood replacing Hosni Mubarak as the bad guy du jour.   Either would be bad for Western strategic and humanitarian interests.  The latter, though, seems preferable to a failed state sitting astride the Suez Canal and the oil fields of North Africa, abutting Israel, and in reasonably close proximity to the what looks to the latest theater of the “worldwide war on terrorism,” the fragile states of the southern Sahara and the Horn of Africa.  But we are talking about picking our poisons when confronting possible outcomes in Egypt.   None of this is a surprise to my readers; see my 1/15/12 piece in the Insightful Pontificator DON’T BOTHER TO WAKE ME WHEN THE REVOLUTION’S OVER and the posts to which it will refer you.

In this latest manifestation of the inevitable chaos into which Egypt is falling, riots broke out over the weekend as a general response to the increasingly authoritarian rule of President Morsi.  When Mr. Morsi imposed a state of emergency in the cities of Port Said, Suez, and Ismailia, the rioting intensified.  The protesters’ main point of contention is that Mr. Morsi is simply a redux of Hosni Mubarak in Islamic guise.  They may be right.   If they are, though, one might argue that authoritarian, even dictatorial, rule is inevitable when starry-eyed academics and media dreamers push over-educated, underemployed “youths” to push for “democracy” in countries that are completely unprepared for self-rule.

Further, if the protesters are indeed right and the whole struggle for “democracy” has been an exercise in replacing one dictator for another, the response of those of us reasonably conversant with history should be something akin to “So what else is new?”  Since the dawn of civilization, and especially in modern times, the story of genuine revolution, in which governments are overthrown and replaced (The American Revolution was not such a revolution; the government of George III was not overthrown; a group of colonies shook off British rule but had no quarrel with the way the folks back in England chose to govern themselves.  Hmm…once again, we could learn a lot from our Founding Fathers, but I digress.) has been one in which one tyranny is replaced by another, often more brutal and evil than its predecessor.  And the new boss is often worse than the old one.   Some examples:

--In Iran, the Shah was replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs.

--In Afghanistan, the Soviets were thrown out and eventually replaced by the Taliban.  (The sound of throat clearing here would probably be appropriate.)

--In Rhodesia, which became Zimbabwe, white minority rule was replaced by the maniacal Robert Mugabe.

--In Cuba, Fulgencio Batista was replaced by Fidel Castro.

--In Spain, the monarchy was replaced first by a fledgling Republic but ultimately by Franco after becoming a practice field for World War II.

--In Russia, Tsar Nicholas II was replaced first by the Mensheviks and then by the Bolsheviks.

--In France, the monarchy was replaced ultimately by Napoleon.

--In Rome, dictator Julius Caesar was assassinated.  The result was not a return to the Republic, but, rather, the Empire.   The Empire had its positive attributes, but also brought us, rather soon after Julius’s death, the likes of Caligula and Nero.

Those more conversant with medieval and ancient history could doubtless come up with more examples.   But the point is that, despite the fervent hopes of Western academics, media, and politicians, self-rule is not for everyone.   And not everyone wants self-rule.  Think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  Until a society stabilizes to the point at which people can eat, support their families, and achieve a modicum of prosperity, the average person cares far more about where his or her next meal will come from than s/he cares about voting and, unlike the starry-eyed spawn of the ‘60s and ‘70s at CNN and its ilk, cannot simply leave the country when the latest western crusade for “democracy” has its near inevitable consequences.

Egypt is a mess; though there is always hope that President Morsi will usher in a moderate Islamic rule akin to that of Turkey, the greater likelihood is that Egypt will either descend into chaos or be ruled by an Islamic dictatorship.   The West bears a measure of responsibility for whatever outcome transpires; Western self-styled intelligentsia, after all, were naively cheering on the “youth” demonstrating for “democracy” in Tahrir Square and letting perhaps good intentions trump strategic and humanitarian interests and good sense.   We should keep this in mind the next time John McCain, or Barack Obama, urges us to intervene in the interests of “democracy” or “self-rule.”  In Syria, for instance.  Or in any of the other places where the offspring of the elite decide they know what is best for the average working stiff who is just trying to make it to work alive so that s/he can feed his or her family.