Pres. Hosni Mubarak has the stink of political death about him. He’s an aging dictator trying to hold on to power long enough to pass the presidency on to his son, even as the tectonic plates of the region shift beneath him.
Advertisement
If he’s scared right now, with protesters inspired by the Tunisian revolution out in the streets, he should be — he has much to answer for. He has rendered his country a hollowed-out wreck. He has immiserated its people, stifled its growth, and flouted its democracy. He has done more than his share to make sclerotic one-man rule the dominant form of Arab government.
We don’t know where the protests of the last few days will lead. They may fizzle, or Egyptian security forces — not known for their squeamishness — may succeed in stomping them out. We also shouldn’t fool ourselves about our ability to influence events on the ground. To the extent we can, though, we should support Mubarak so long as he agrees to open Egypt’s political system; it is best that change come gradually through the democratic process rather than all at once in the streets.
By all appearances, the protesters in Egypt are secular democracy activists who, for their troubles, are getting beaten with bamboo sticks and having rocks thrown at them by the police. The Muslim Brotherhood has, so far, been sitting out the demonstrations as an entity. But if the protesters were to succeed in toppling Mubarak — sending him packing to Saudi Arabia, as some of their signs suggest — it could open the way for an even less appealing regime. In a revolutionary situation, often he who is best organized, and most willful and bloody-minded, prevails.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously said we had traded freedom for stability in the Middle East and gotten neither. True enough. The only thing worse than that unsavory bargain is chaos, or governments actively hostile to us, or both.
One reason that we have to regard the prospect of an Egyptian upheaval with trepidation is that Mubarak has systematically neutered his organized democratic opposition, leaving the Islamists as the most obvious alternative to him — the better to spook us whenever we push him to liberalize. With our efforts in Iraq faltering, the Bush administration all but abandoned its democracy initiative in the Middle East. The Obama administration never took it up, believing it could use Mubarak to push the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that has collapsed.
The administration’s initial reaction to the outbreak of protests was shamefully tepid. Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got sterner, calling the protests “an important opportunity” for the government “to implement political, economic, and social reforms.” It should be made clear to Mubarak — 82 years old and up for election in the fall — that he’s now a transitional figure, and that the days of our easy tolerance for his dictatorial rule are over. We expect him to lift the emergency decree he’s imposed since 1981, liberalize the election laws, and restore the judicial oversight of elections. If he’s not amenable, well, there’s no reason we need to keep shoveling vast amounts of aid his way.
Mubarak is supposed to be “our SOB,” but in distorting Egypt’s political landscape to make the choice him or the Islamists, he’s just been an SOB. We should want him to exit the scene — but not quite yet.
I'm happy that y'all at least recognize the threat of Islamic radicals which is waiting in the wings in Egypt.
However, after watching events unfold in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, and so on, I am no longer optimistic about the prospects of democracy in the Middle East.
Let's consider the fact that much of Europe's progress toward a sophisticated/mature civilization took place during long periods of monarchical reign. Perhaps Egypt has advanced enough now to embrace liberty without falling into peril? Maybe, but the church bombings suggest it's an uphill climb, at best.
Mubarak is essentially a dictator but at least he is a secular one. What could very well replace him would be another Islamic regime.
All this points to a much larger problem and that is that the entire Islamic world is almost certainly doomed to either secular authoritarian regimes, the severity of which will vary, or Islamic ones. No true democracy can ever arise where Islam is predominant because real democracy allows for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Islam disallows both. Any criticism of Islam or Mohammed requires severe punishment, usually death. And non-Muslims in Muslim lands live in a kind of Jim Crow world where Islam and Muslims are superior and other religions and non-Muslims must be subordinate to the master religion and its followers. Between Islam and freedom, which is an essential requirement for true democracy, there can be no reconciliation. Sadly, too many people in America and throughout the West have yet to realize this.
This article prompts me to ask the question; Are the other dictators worldwide in anyway different?
Where does a benevolent dictatorship (an oxymoron if there ever was one) exist?
In all cases, dictatorships bankrupt their country, destroy it's infrastructure and people, and in their wake leave decades of ruin and sorrow.
I have nothing but contempt for our country's pathetic excuse that passes for foreign relations.
Global bribery at its finest.
Although self-interest may be the only unifying thread in the entire matter - even in this, our government shows no consistency.
No doubt, Mr. Mubarak's end of days is long overdue, but please tell me, what dictator's isn't?
The alternative is Islamic radicals which is waiting in the wings in Egypt.
The same happened in Iran.
Warning:NRO getting more a more idiotic lately on a political issues and this editorial prove it. What's happened?
Mumbarack should go when the Egyptians say he should go. While it is a curse to say "May you live in interestng times" holding down resentment will just cause it to spill over later...worse. Better this get resolved now. Mumbarack should be negotiating a peaceful transfer of power and stop thinking his son will be his successor. His son taking over would be a bad idea.
@Wellington
You have hit the nail on the head. The problem in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Southwest Asia, and to lesser extents Europe, and North America is Islam. This is a 7th century belief system for a tribal and clan oriented barbaric culture that has refused to modernize in any way. None of these countries are in any way a modern nation-state. Turkey might be an exception but it seems to be regressing daily. So long as islam and it's tribal/clan society exist it is a problem for the civilized world. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to this, but I think that in the end we are going to need a new Charles Martel.
The clash with Islam is coming whether we like it or not...their will to war with the west is not driven by politics; it is driven by religion...we are infadels to be hated and defeated. That we treat their acts of terror as criminal matters indicates that we don't understand these simple facts!!!
If the US government doesn't have the nerve to cheerlead the protesters in public, we should at least do some of the things the American government does best; throw money at the protesters to help their cause and influence, and more importantly provide logistic support to the movement...quietly. Having said that I would have no issue if the White House were to offer more public encouragement to the protesters.
You can't by serious! You are asking an 82 year old thug who has ruled with violence and crooked elections for 32 years to bring in democracy gradually? Presumably you are working from Mrs Clinton's office.
This is false. The Islamic movement - reactionary as it is - is not the only alternative to Mubarak. As in Tunisia there is a vigorous and independent labor movement in Egypt and there are the efforts of the Egyptians to organize themselves. We should support those movements rather than recoil in fear while the military and security forces scramble to install a new regime.
If not now, when? William Osler once remarked on the relative uselessness of men over forty. What would he have made of Mubarak? The guy is 82. The world, in particular Africa, has no need of leaders over 70 or those who stay in power more than 10 years. If NRO believes in tyrants for the rest of the world to serve American interests it should quit whining about Cuba.
Unfortunately these events have edged the world closer to thermonuclear war, albeit slightly now, but clearly in the wrong direction. Mubarak has kept the peace, and the psychos and raving fanatics in his jails are there for a reason. Do we need any more evidence of the horrendous consequences of Islamic fundamentalists taking over a country? Do we think the Muslim Brotherhood will be any better, after they have sanctioned the use of violence in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict? Israelis will not march willingly into a killing field, that is a history that they have repudiated as a nation. If this ugliness gets as ugly as it could, this world can be facing a huge threat, and one where nuclear weapons may be the first option.
NR condemns the Obama adminstration's response to the events in Egypt, yet the message it thinks we should send Murbarak, namely urging him to initiate democratic reforms, is virtually the same.
Part of the problem is that NR is trying to follow two radically different philosophies regarding the prospects for democratization in the Middle East. According the the neocons, all it requires is a good shove from the United State, while the religious right claims it is absolutely impossible as long as the Middle East remains Muslim.
Yesterday I thought Mubarak would be better than any other alternative. But Mr. Joe is right. Better now than later. It may be devastating (for Egypt, as well as the larger world) but it might be our only chance.
If dictatorships like this hold out in the Middle East until the US is weaker and the extra-national muslim brotherhood is stronger, it might be too late.
It might be too late now, but I don't see anything in the USA or Middle East that would make it a better time for these events to happen at least in the near term (~ 5 years or so.)
I guess what I'm saying is that any delay now is only justified if we think there's no hope.
