Scary democracy

George W. Bush sent democracy to the Arab world dangling from the nose of a Tomahawk missile back in 2003. No wonder that the man in the street was not seduced by this poisoned gift. That some kind of open system succeeded the Baathist regime in Mesopotamia is neither here nor there, because this openness was bought at the price of vicious sectarian strife, brutal terrorism and civilian carnage. Yes, there were elections and the populace was excited to participate in the ritual; but for the American occupation this was just a sideshow and a mere gesture that they could not avoid, given their mendacious rhetoric. But democracy was not the point of the exercise, neither for the invaders nor for the various tribal and religious groupings jockeying for power. For the former it was strategic and economic control, given the fact that their former protege, i.e. Saddam, outgrew the role allotted to him as a bulwark against Iran. For the latter it was settling scores and mutual annihilation. The Arab world at large was not at all inspired by developments on the banks of the Tigris, as Rumsfeld and co. claimed (and maybe believed) it would be. This is not the kind of democracy that the Arab masses had in mind, i.e. a morsel of meat tossed at caged animals from the end of the occupier's bayonet. It would, thus, be an outrageous blunder to interpret the current revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and the ones brewing in Algeria, Morocco and maybe Syrian and Jordan) as a vindication of Bush's "crusade".

In fact the masses in North Africa have been fighting for their own kind of democracy for a very long time now, and always the West was adamantly opposed to these aspirations of theirs. At first the people were seduced by Nasserite national socialism and the third worldism of the Algerian FNL. But soon those fantasies mutated into the ruthless despotism of the new "revolutionary" elites, which pocketed the immense riches of their countries leaving their societies in ever deeper misery. The Algerian and Egyptian generals then changed tack and aligned themselves with Western interests in the area, posing as allies against "extremism". But domestic and cross-border extremism was precisely the result of their failure to create free and just societies at home. Whereas the West, blindly following a "security" imperative which is self-defeating when it goes counter to popular aspirations in the areas concerned, dug itself deeper and deeper in the hole of propping up tyrants that made a mockery of social justice and human rights. It thus ensured he abiding suspicion and even hostility of local grass roots democrats who endured repression and even torture under the Western umbrella.

The miracle of the current Tunisian and the Egyptian revolutions, thus, is the astonishing ideological and political maturity of the masses that have taken possession of the streets. Their demands are clear, simple and not in the least tinged by extremist undertones. This is their great, irresistible strength. All they want is a genuinely democratic order which will heed the aspirations of the brutalized underclass. They also crave the support of western peoples and governments in their struggle, so that they may eventually establish a truly equal partnership with them -instead of the despicable sponsorship of their tormentors that has gone under the name of "alliance" so far. If they succeed, this will constitute a mighty triumph of the best ideals of western civilization in the Middle East, of the very same ideals mocked and traduced by the short-sighted policies of raw military and economic power of western governments in the area.

And what of the Islamists? Have they just melted away? Certainly not. But as of this writing, they seem to have realized that the masses have not been demonstrating for an Islamist theocracy in the place of Mubarak's pharaonic (what an apt appellation!) rule. In Tunisia Gannouchi, the leader of Ennadha who just returned to the country, has been quite explicit in his rejection of the "integrist" agenda. His sincerity can only be tested in the open democratic arena. But I suspect that his democratic conversion is indeed making a virtue of the new cultural necessity. The young generation of internet savvy students and professionals that brought down the tyrant have actually tasted the fruits of unfettered freedom in cyberspace, and hence cannot be docile playthings in some project of demagogic mysticism. The social and cultural basis of Islamism seems to have been drastically eroded in wide areas. This was not the case in Algeria in 1992, when the brief democratic interlude that would indeed have brought the Islamists to power was stopped by the murderous onslaught of the generals applauded by the west. But if the Islamists had been allowed to assume power democratically, chances are that they would not have been able to establish a totalitarian theocracy, and in any case by now their power would have been equally undermined and superseded by the cultural development of Algerian society. Democracy may indeed throw up uncomfortable and even dangerous outcomes on occasion. But all in all it is preferable that its dynamic should be allowed to play itself out, for there is a high probability that it is self-correcting. But of course Algeria has oil and this was not allowed to happen. Islamism may still be the ruling hallucination in the barbaric wastelands of Waziristan, but it cannot appeal, I believe, to educated and historically conscious societies like Egypt, where the chief grievance is that the West is not true to its own ideals which these oppressed people actually uphold. This has also been demonstrated In Iran, of all places. The same open-minded, educated, yes even in the best sense westernized, youth (the great majority of society) almost brought down the regime of the Ayatollahs in 2009. They have a good chance of founding functioning democracies in North Africa -unless frustrated (God forbid) by some blind western reflex of discovering terrorists under every bed.

The same seems to be true of the Egyptian revolution so far. The Muslim Brotherhood is of course politically present. It has always been, despite the fifty-year repression it has endured -more precisely, just because of it. But it has thrown itself behind the broad and formless opposition movement that is not enunciating anything resembling the Brotherhood's ideals. Baradei, their chosen spokesman, is very far from being an Islamist. I was struck to read Robert Fisk's account of the Egyptian tumult in the Independent of London yesterday. He tells us that there was not a hint of either anti-Americanism or Islamist feeling in all the demonstrations he witnessed from Alexandria to Cairo on Saturday last -and this from the most severe critic of American policies in the Middle East. That said, it is conceivable that the more the stalemate lasts, with Mubarak clinging on by the tips of his fingers, and the western governments mouthing pious platitudes in order not to offend their trusted servant, a more extreme inclination might begin to take hold among the demonstrating crowds. Already on Sunday one could see homemade signs held up in Tahrir square sporting the tell-tale code words of Islamism, such as western "hypocrisy", as well as caricatures of Mubarak with the star of David on his forehead. Also some more beards have been appearing. But these things are at the moment negligible, and one hopes that they will not proliferate. It is clear that for this not to happen the "pharaoh" must go, and that the "orderly transition" that the State Department claims to want must involve a clean sweep of the old regime's personnel and repressive apparatus.

As for Israel, it ought to realize that a peace with Egypt is genuine and stable only if it is to be underwritten by a democratic regime clearly expressing the aspirations of the population. A private deal with a corrupt despot cannot be such. The democratic movement in Egypt has already shown such extraordinary signs of maturity that it is highly unlikely that it will elect to go back to a state of confrontation and war. Of course a democratic Egypt will be much stronger as a negotiator and/or partner, so that the extremist wing of the Israeli establishment will be in a much more difficult position in its attempt to impose its patently unfair diktat upon the Palestinians. If this causes unease among these circles, this can only be welcomed. One just hopes that American policy will not be once again hijacked by their reactionary stubbornness.

Long live the Egyptian democratic revolution.