A while back I wrote a piece on dictators' exits. Yesterday I wrote about the messiness of Egypt's current mess. If those posts were a pale ale and a stout, this one's a black and tan.
Egyptian opposition leader Monir Abdel Nour was on the CBC Radio's As It Happens (starts at 9:45 in the clip) yesterday arguing that Hosni Mubarak needs to remain in power for a least two months in order for necessary constitutional changes to be made. It's quite a compelling argument. Without the necessary constitutional changes and administrative transitions, and without a timely fair election (which just can't be done immediately), whoever takes over from Mubarak may face chaos and hold power, as Mubarak currently does, without legitimacy. Or, perhaps even worse, the military could impose one of their own, as they did in 1956.
In the National Post, Conrad Black makes a similar argument about order and legitimacy post-Mubarak, and like Nour, says Mubarak has to be allowed to transition out of power over the coming months. Black posits that leaders faced with mass protests can, a) flee, b) order the protesters to be fired upon (although those ordered to do so don't always obey - see Ceaucescu), or c) wait until the situation makes the majority uncomforable enough to side with a legal resolution rather than passionate chaos. Black uses De Gaulle's response to France's 1968 uprising as an example of the masterful use of option c. He suggests Mubarak, while not himself legitimate, is trying to do the same, and will use the time it'll buy to transition out peacefully. The fact that Mubarak may have sponsored the chaos-inducers doesn't seem to me to undermine Black's argument that, legitimacy and stability wise, option c may be better for everyone than the option a the protesters and many westerners want to see.
Legitimacy is about procedures and legality and all that, but more than anything, it's about people buying in. The appearance of mob-rule, however real the greivances, could lead to a lot of horrible years for Egypt.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteTwo questions. Would this same argument hold for Tunisia? In terms of a (theoretical) stable transition, what does Mubarak gain by sponsoring violence now?
Also, what do you think of this roundup: http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/day-of-departure/
ReplyDeleteI think the wisdom of quick versus gradual stability differs from place to place. It really depends on the loyalties of the military, the degree of societal control by the party/leader, and more than anything, the political culture. I really don't know much about Tunisia (or Egypt for that matter), but it seems that Black's option A served the country well.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but I'm finding arguments like this pretty compelling:
ReplyDelete"Although both Mubarak and Obama have framed the issue as chaos versus order, the protesters in Egypt have shown the falseness of this dichotomy by being peaceful, nonviolent, and orderly, even to the point of organizing spontaneous neighborhood watches to secure their homes and national treasures like the Egyptian museum. They have acted in line with the basic political commitments purportedly favored by the West: freedom, human rights, and democracy.
By contrast, the regime that Western leaders have lauded for decades as a beacon of moderation has unleashed its salaried, plainclothes security personnel to loot its own cities, set fire to its streets, and attack unarmed protesters with Molotov cocktails, knives, U.S.-supplied tear gas canisters, and live ammunition. The new Vice President Suleiman now promises to employ the same security services to arrest those the regime chooses to blame for the disorder and violence it has wrought.
Providing Mubarak, or his regime, with an additional eight months to crush domestic opponents, hand- select a successor that will hew to existing policies – in line with Western preferences – and orchestrate another round of Egypt’s notorious elections is no formula for peace or stability."
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/supporting-democracy-in-the-middle-east-requires-abandoning-a-vision-of-pax-americana.html
I must agree with Michael and reject Robert's proffered black and tan. While it's true that bad things might happen, I generally favor chaotic bad things over authoritarian bad things, simply because chaos has more potential. Of course I'm a pragmatist and would prefer that as few bad things happen as possible, which might require that Mubarak stay in office - except for the fact that the chaos that is supposed to justify such a "transition period" has been caused almost entirely by Mubarak's own hired thugs, while the protesters from whom chaos is feared have been surprisingly and consistently civil.
ReplyDeleteOne might argue, as Robert does, that the chaotic bad things we are trying to avoid is not what's happening now, but what might happen later, once the power vacuum occurs. This is true, but it's just as true that closing that power vacuum by securing an orderly transition might (and would likely) swing the pendulum in the other way, toward the authoritarian bad things. At that point I come back to my general principle of preferring chaos to dictatorship.
HOWEVER - it is also true that even if Mubarak leave's immediately, and democratic elections are held, and the positive potential of chaos is fulfilled, authoritarian factions might regain control simply by playing the new and improved system to their advantage (this is what everyone fears when they cite the Muslim Brotherhood and refer it to the example of Hamas in Palestine).
I'd just say that this is a risk that's worth taking.
Who turns down a black and tan?
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I wonder if we can all agree on this: Mubarak seems to be pursuing Black's option c, which, while far better than option b, is not as good as option a. Option a has risks, however. Firstly, a problematic government could take power, whether that's the Muslim Brotherhood or the military or a faction thereof. Secondly, a good, fair and democratic-minded government could immediately take power, but could face a range of problems relating to its legitimacy and inexperience.
FSP and Michael say option a all the way. I lean towards thinking that, especially with the world leaning on Mubarak, option c could be the one for me.
A big concern for me, irrespective of whether the transition is drawn out or not, is whether, after thirty years of autocracy, the political culture is sufficiently democratic.