One problem with modern political reform processes in various countries is that elections are given far too much import, to the point that the execution of successful elections stands in for the complex drudgery of creating a solid, modern democratic government with its many facets and details. Without the rule of law and a constitution that is respected, for instance, elections are almost completely meaningless. This has been the problem in Egypt , among other countries. There is no point in voting for law makers if their legislation is not respected, and there is no point to electing an executive if his powers, and his potential for brutality, are not checked by strong constitutionalism and other counterbalances. Elections are photogenic and glamorous, but the real brick and mortar of a successful democratic state?an independent judiciary, a non-corrupt police force, and fair business and property laws?is more mundane and difficult. The Egyptian populace has caught on to this and is demanding more than just elections.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has tried to inflate the significance of elections as being on the path to political modernization. To counter his opposition’s claim that he is suppressing dissent and political opposition with brutality, he reminds Egyptians that he is Egypt?s first elected president. Such a comment implies that he believes that his election was a mandate for him to do whatever it takes to stay in power.
The regime looks at US complaints about their tactics to quell domestic opposition as being contradictory to US requests to help in the battle against terrorism. The regime has to first retain power and domestic security if it is to help the US militarily. Further, another strident American request?that Egypt maintain cordial relations with Israel ?is also at risk if the regime does not fight its largely anti-Israel opposition. Because the regime views the elections as more meaningful than they were and also thinks that it has done the US a favor in struggling against terrorism and maintaining ties with Israel, further US requests and demands around the regime?s conduct of domestic politicking are likely to be viewed with great annoyance, as the meeting at Sharm al-Sheikh discussed in this article demonstrated.
The US is in a difficult position, caught between the pro-reform movement in Egypt and the incumbent regime. Although it is the regime that initiated Egypt?s recent, limited political reforms, the pro-reform population has turned against the government as progress has stalled and the regime has been backsliding. Mubarak has created his own crisis. He created very high expectations with the spectacle of elections and the revisions of a few significant laws. He dashed those expectations, and this has produced a backlash. The US must decide whether to support the pro-reform ?movement,? a loosely-allied front of Islamists, liberals, Nasserites, and others or to come down on the side of long-time ally Mubarak. Ideologically speaking, the US, with its rhetoric of democratic expansion, should support calls to reform. However, the incumbent regime views this as betrayal. And, as noble as the pro-reform opposition may seem, there is an anti-American undertone to the movement, making the group dangerous for the US to endorse. This is the source of tension at the Sharm al-Sheikh meeting.
The US has tried, wisely, to come down on the side of actions, not people. It praises certain events?such as the elections?while condemns violations of its expressed political values. This is the wisest course to take, although it could be difficult to emerge from the fray with any friends. There has been pressure on the US to backup its words with adjustments in aid, depending on the regime?s behavior. This could be a dangerous move, however. In order to preserve successful relations with the government while maintaining the right to criticize its actions, the US must keep aid stable. As for taking sides, the best thing for Egypt and the US relationship is for the latter to continue pressuring the former to pursue important avenues of political and economic modernization and to respond to flashpoint events, like recent arrests and violent responses to protests, with a consistent, calculated, and highly-publicized message that seeks to undermine the anti-US tone of the pro-reform opposition.
