Leadership The Coupvolution By: Ayisha Osori on July 9, 2013 - 4:03am Is it a coup? Is it a revolution? Is it a coupvolution? Who cares, Morsi out by any other name would still be Morsi out. Why is he out? It is too early to say what Egypt teaches us. As things unfold though, there is a flood of commentary with viewpoints falling largely into two (a coup or a revolution). However, the issues behind both analyses are the same. This is not how democracy is practised. Democracy is not ballotocracy. Democracy ‘as we know it’ is dead. Democracy is the will of the people. Democracy is a process. There is foreign interference. Political Islam has been attacked. There will be repercussions. Islamic radicalism has been given the green light. Those who believe that the July 3 ouster of President Mohammed Morsi is a revolution or a continuation of the revolution which started in 2011 insist that Egyptians are protecting their democracy and the right to be governed in a certain way. They cite oppressing the opposition, the amassing of constitutional and executive powers and interference with the electoral process as reasons. The second group believes that the ouster of Morsi is a coup and has sounded the death knell for democracy in Egypt and other young democracies. Even worse, according to this group, the coup has smothered, in its infancy, any notion of peace between proponents of political Islam and everyone else. Fair. But what next and are there other ways to interpret what has happened and why? From Nigeria, where the government has condemned the coup, what is interesting about Egypt can be boiled down into three: ingredients of a movement, defining democracy, and political interference. Egypt was and is ripe for the upheavals that have rocked it over the last two years. High unemployment, long periods of brutal/oppressive dictatorships, increasing impoverishment, lack of goods and services, inflation, rising crime etc. Some would argue that many of these ingredients are present already in Nigeria…so what keeps the people here from organizing? Years of ethnic and religious politics? The culture of money mobilization? Whatever their differences, the Egyptians have allegedly been able to pull millions together around a common cause, something Nigerians did to limited effect in January 2012. It is impressive and encouraging. The generally accepted practice of democracy seems more important than the spirit of democracy for many. They argue that Egyptians should have allowed the political process to take its course. Egyptians should have translated the alleged 22 million signatures in a petition against Morsi into votes during the parliamentary elections. What if elections never hold? Or, as is admittedly the case in Nigeria and other countries, what if the election results are suspect? And what if, like is also the case in Nigeria, there is no succour from the courts on election petitions because they have been compromised? Uganda and Zimbabwe come to mind. Is it possible that Egyptians, having endured centuries of dictatorships from the time of Pharaoh, now truly understand ‘the making of a dictator’ or the pains of religious imposition and no longer want to take any chances? Besides, even the most feverish opponents of Morsi’s removal agree that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) are largely to blame for the events which led to July 3. Morsi did inherit serious problems. ‘The economy was in torpor, the body politic barely functioning and society deeply polarised,’ one article admits. However, Morsi seemed clueless and unprepared for the role for which he found himself and stumbled from one mistake to another particularly on issues which touched on justice, equity and governance. People want results, not excuses, and when you are the president, the buck stops with you. If President Jonathan gets castigated when he points out ‘the problems did not start today’, why can’t Egyptians say: ‘considering our issues and your reaction so far, we see a disconnect and want you out of there immediately.’ It comes down to competence and experience – democracy is supposed to deliver certain benefits to citizens and protect certain inalienable rights. Lee Kwan Yew and Singapore come to mind…their democracy worked for them because the social contract between the people and government was kept. When there is no delivery on the social contract, how long do citizens need to keep playing at ballotocracy before they decide their only option is to move to the Square? Lumumba, Pinochet, Kissinger -- it is no longer a secret that the United States and other countries with a colonial history interfere in the economy and politics of countries tagged developing or global south. The same allegations are being made now about Egypt - the people are being manipulated and misled. Considering how feverishly Africa is rising, why isn’t our ascension rigged with interference checkmating smarts especially when we already know what to expect? When are Africans in positions of leadership going to make and implement the right policy to loosen the grip of foreign interference? Complaining about interference is simply an attempt to shake of blame – just like President Jonathan and his supporters constantly complaining about how ‘certain’ politicians said they were going to make Nigerian ungovernable if he won the elections. Right now only innocent children and Nigerians are paying the price for how ungovernable things have become. As a result of what Africa has seen and experienced courtesy of democracy and governance, we should be curious: in an era of technology and information overload, how long do citizens have to prop up a government which is not delivering, when elections do not deliver the opportunity to vote out those in power? In Nigeria we have governors who have misruled for four or eight years and then end up with cozy seats in the Senate, or done little but be non-threatening to the status quo and end up as presidents…Doesn’t this prove there is something wrong? Do elections equal democracy every time? I know what I think. The only issue that worries me about Egypt and indeed fair representation and participation across the world is what to do with the tyranny of the noisiest minority. What percentage of a population has to want a thing for it to be truly ‘popular’ will? If 14, 22, 30 million Egyptians out of 82m said ‘out with Morsi’ - are they the majority or the noisiest? And if things go the way many predict with regards to political Islam in Egypt we could well ask about the tyranny of the most violent minority...just like our Jamā’a Ahl al-sunnah li-da’wa wa al-jihād. As we prepare for the 2015 elections, it would serve us well to put sentiments and identity politics aside. States are supposed to deliver on economic development, security of the rights and liberties of the people and the social contract between state and citizens. If not, then, we have no business adhering strictly to one definition of democracy– the focus should be the maximum good for the maximum number. No excuses.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 07:36:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015