Democracy in Egypt

Egypt, in terms of democracy, is limited. Superficially it contains all the basic requirements of a democracy: a parliament, a president and regular elections. However, "elections do not a democracy make." In Egypt's sordid past it has been occupied, reoccupied and moreover controlled by external forces unique in the Arab world. Strong nationalism has led Egypt through social experiments that failed. Imitation has brought about a parliamentary monarchy cut short by a coup. In the end, "Rule from abroad" was bargained away in favor of a mock form of democracy that in many ways survives today. However, most recently we have seen encouraging changes in Egypt's government that seem to come closer to what we consider a true democracy.

Any fresh discussion of democracy in Egypt should begin at its initial westernization. Eighteenth Century Egypt was chaotic and decentralized. A renewed Mamluk order was the cause of many internal battles within Egypt's own borders. Regions of the country were often controlled independently and from time to time, Mamluks were able to attract enough support that they alone were able to dominate the country. Because of increased trade with Europe one such Mamluk, Ali Bey al-Kabir, was able to gain this support. Under his rule many facets of the military would begin to gain exposure to Western advisors and weaponry. This small amount of westernization was of course precipitated by the invasion of Napoleon. In a piece, "Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East," Bernard Lewis writes, "In 1798, the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force commanded by a young general called Napoleon BonaparteÐ'...[representing] the principles of liberty and equality."" These ideas (liberty and equality), Lewis writes mockingly--which were supposedly widespread in western societies at the time--were poorly translated from French to Arabic and as a result misunderstood. The philosophy of these tenants is a great example of a cultural gap that initially had to be crossed in order to aid political progress.

"Equality," a major tenant of Islam, was widely understood and easily translated. "Liberty," however, was translated as hurriyya, literally "one who is not a slave." To Egyptians, not being a slave had nothing to do with politics.

The puzzlement continued until a very remarkable Egyptian scholar found the answer. Sheikh Rifa'a Rifi' al Tahtawi was a professor [sent to Paris in 1839]Ð'...He obviously at first shared the general perplexity about what the status of not being a slave had to do with politics. And then he understood and explained. When the French talk about freedom, he says, what they mean is what we Muslims call justice. And that was exactly right. Just as the French, and more generally Westerners, thought of good government and bad government as freedom and slavery, so Muslims conceived of them as justice and injustice.(Lewis 3)

Lewis highlights this point only to show how different the ideologies of Arab nations were from our own. He continues on writing that democracy is not such a foreign concept to Arab countries thanks to Islam. Dictatorships are discouraged by the faith and any form of governing should rely heavily on council from a broad spectrum of sources. It is a wonder then, that democracy has such a hard time breathing in the Middle East.

For much of the twentieth century, Egypt has had to struggle under some form of extra-control--if not the French, then the British. Between 1883 and 1907, Lord Cromer believed that Egyptians could not improve their status until they adopted the ways of the West; seeking to apprentice the Egyptians. Although his programs did great things for standards of living, his neglect in areas such as education brought about a certain amount of resentment from the populous.

In 1914, Britain declared Egypt a protectorate and imposed martial law. Domestic political activity came to a