Egyptian Democracy

We are all watching the leaderless mass revolt (leaderless, at least, for the moment; all revolts need a crystalized set of goals, embodied in a charismatic person or, if not, in a coalition of practical, at times ruthless, minor leaders) against the long regime of President Murabak in Egypt. No one can support sham elections or rule by coercion, and although Murabak has been, from what I've read, fairly moderate in his dealings with the rest of the region, including Israel, he has remained dictatorial in his control of the nation. Thus, sad to say, he is not the worst head of state, but still not what one would call good.

Free elections are necessary for legitimacy, so the people are justified in their revolt.

Now I'll probably get myself into trouble. Democracy is the great dream of humankind, and one which has not been realized in the world, neither in the United States nor elsewhere, despite what any nationalist politician might claim. It is still only partly achieved, hundreds of years after its modern conception. It is always in danger of destruction by the selfish, tribal, and violent aspects of our selves. Many will be appalled by this assessment of this nation and the state of democracy. My desire, natural and ordinary, not unlike any person really, is to be proud of my country and culture, and to an extent I am proud of our achievements; but this pride is hugely tempered by the difficult, shameful facts of our society — the way people are treated, measured by the dollar, shunned and left helpless, homeless, bankrupt, in chains — and as well by my suspicion of that which is too cheaply sold, as the exceptional greatness of our society is today.

Democracy, to my mind, is not equivalent to free elections. That is lower-case democracy, still unrealized in so much of the world, still a righteous goal. No, true Democracy is the realization of humanist values. It is the placement of personhood unabashedly and unreservedly at the center of our moral apparatus, with social structures that defend and enforce the concomitant values, those which we in America often call freedoms or rights. It is about values foremost, and not government, which is why it is so difficult to achieve, why there can be so much and so great confusion, and why in America we have elections (and we could have better elections) but still work toward Democracy.

The result of the current uprising in Egypt will lead, very likely, to the freest elections in that Republic's history (though it opens other opportunities for dictatorship; time will tell), and its government will then become mostly legitimate in its representation of the people. But it will not bring Democracy to Egypt, as many are claiming. It will not relieve the atrocious injustice women face in that culture, where, the World Health Organization reports, 91% of women face genital mutilation. It will probably not lead to more freedom of religion, or of speech, since so many in this revolt desire a more strictly religious state, and since religion — by placing a distant, arbitrary taskmaster god or prophet at the center of morality — almost necessarily infringes upon human value and dignity. An election does not resolve these.

Egypt is not alone, of course. Democracy does not exist in any nation yet, not completely. It may nowhere be close by, and so remains the project first and foremost at hand for all people: a society that prioritizes and protects the equal inherent value of human persons, regardless of their gender, religion, race, or views. That aims for Justice, not fairness. Elections alone do not bring it about, because that is only the process of selecting a government, although it is essential, although it might be an absolute precondition.

So, I hope that Egypt finds its way to free and open elections, to a government that is more legitimate in its representation of the people — but I also hope that the people of Egypt do not stop the project of Democracy with those elections.