Egyptians are Taking Hold of True Democracy

Egyptians never gave up on true, complete democracy, despite what Jackson Diehl suggested in the Washington Post this week. The Egyptian youth he wrote about have, since 2005, been struggling for a true democracy, not a fake one. Under the Mubarak regime, Egyptians suffered under a government that used elections to convince the international community that Egypt was functioning democratically. Under Morsi, the situation did not change.
Diehl surely does not believe that democracy is achieved with a ballot box and nothing else. He must know that true democracy is a result of a long process that ends, not begins, with the ballot box. Remember the chants of theJanuary 25 revolution: “Bread! Freedom! Social Justice! Human Dignity!” Average Egyptians are well aware that fulfillment of these four demands is necessary for a true democracy—without them, there is no democracy. These were the demands of those calling for change, and they supersede the West’s seemingly limited definition of democracy.
Awareness of the complex nature of democracy led the Egyptian youth to insist first on the creation of a new constitution following Mubarak’s February 2011 ouster. However, a poorly-managed transition led to a rushed referendum on transitional constitutional amendments and then elections, contrary to the wishes of the Egyptian people. This is why we envisioned a second wave of street-action—to correct Egypt’s course to the one envisioned by the people’s revolution. This is the same reason Egypt’s youth resisted military rule and called for a transitional period that would lead to true democracy.
After the period of military rule, Egypt’s political elites and revolutionaries failed to agree on a candidate who could represent the values of the revolution, leading some to vote for Mohammed Morsi to avoid bringing his opponent, Mubarak’s prime minister to power. Others chose to boycott the elections or nullify their votes. Many accepted Morsi as the new president and engaged in dialogue with him, hoping to amend the constitution and reform Egypt. Unfortunately, Morsi ignored the opinions of the youth and their suggestions on how to manage the transitional phase. He chose, instead, to issue a dictatorial constitutional declaration without consulting anyone, even his own advisors, leading many of them to resign in the month following this action.
Diehl suggests that our ousting Morsi made a sham of democracy, but the real sham was the Morsi presidency. He did not fulfill any of his election promises. He usurped the powers of the judiciary and constitutional court. He established an authoritarian state and ignored the calls of the Egyptian people to satisfy the four demands of theJanuary 25 revolution and for transitional justice resulting in the people’s demand for early presidential elections. The western media, however, chose for some reason to describe this unprecedented movement of millions of Egyptians as a “coup against democracy”!!!!
Those who voted for Morsi did so for his electoral platform and his promises to achieve the demands of the revolution. When he failed miserably to do so, was it not the right of the people to withdraw their confidence in him and to demand early presidential elections? Can we disregard the will of over 22 million Egyptians whosigned the rebel petitions in June 2013? How can all of this be disregarded? How can you focus solely on the army’s intervention to prevent a likely civil war and disregard the People’s will? The Egyptian army did not act alone: Al-Azhar, the Coptic Church, the youth, and other forces were on their side. The army merely adopted the road map prepared by the June 30 Front, among others, and refused to take power. To be a military coup, there must be a military rule. The Egyptian army did not rule for even an hour! Presidential authority was transferred to the head of the constitutional court in accordance with the road map set by political forces representing the millions of Egyptians who took out to the streets.
Diehl uses the example of Poland in his article, however, Peru and the government of Alberto Fujimori is a much more applicable example. Fujimori, elected in 1990, seized unconstitutional authority in 1992, limiting the power of the judiciary and otherwise subverting democracy. The United States then ceased to recognize him as the legitimate president of Peru, and most European countries followed suit. Why is Egypt’s case any different? Is it because the American government is upset for losing its ally and supporter of its interests in Egypt and the Middle East, despite this ally’s contempt for human rights and democracy, which the Americans loudly proclaim support for?
Moreover, if Morsi remained in power, the upcoming parliamentary elections would have been entirely regulated by a Shura Council dominated by his Freedom and Justice Party. The organizations monitoring the elections would certainly be only chosen and approved by the Muslim Brotherhood. The use of religious slogans would have been employed to win votes, since his government refused to criminalize such behaviorand they would have used the Brotherhood’s vast charity network to campaign and influence votes in the poor regions across the country. In such a system, how could the opposition have a chance to compete?
Diehl complains as well about the current government holding a number of political prisoners in isolation and shutting down media channels. What Diehl fails to mention is that those people are facing charges of escapingfrom prison; conspiring with foreign countries; inciting violence, murder and terror; and killing Egyptian soldiers in Sinai. Considerable evidence exists for these crimes. The media networks that were shut down were only promoting violence and killing of opposition. Those will be allowed to resume operations, but only after laws are passed to regulate a code of practice for all media and criminalizing the promotion violence and hate speech.
I believe that the civilian demonstrations against Morsi will remain in the hearts and minds of Egyptians as a true expression of the hopes and dreams of a nation that has now twice risen against dictatorship and corruption. They have not settled, and they will not settle until they are truly on the path to a better future –regardless of whether the Washington Post calls it a coup or a revolution.
May Egypt and its people ever remain free, dignified, and independent.

المصريون يتمسكون بالديمقراطية الحقيقية