Experiment in Egypt

Let’s say you have two roughly similar Islamic countries run by undemocratic despots. Undemocratic despots are bad. So let’s test two ways to get rid of them and make life better for the people in those countries. In one country, the leading proponent and exporter of democracy will intervene directly. It will invade, topple the despot, disband and force a transition to democracy at the point of a hundred thousand Western guns and a strong and direct infusion of Western ideas. In the other country, that same leading proponent and exporter of democracy will only intervene very indirectly. It will not invade, or topple the despot directly. It will say strong things, play to the hopes and aspirations of the young, and encourage the despot to leave on his own.

Which of the two countries would you expect to turn out better?

The results are not in. The experiment has only begun in the second country. But in September, we’ll find out whether these experimental results are more encouraging in Egypt or Iraq. Signs in the former are, at this point, not encouraging.

Foremost is the desire to protect, if not strengthen, the second amendment of Egypt’s Constitution, which enshrines Shariah, or Islamic law, as the main source of Egyptian law. The parliament to be elected in September will guide the drafting of a new constitution.

“If the constitution is a liberal one this will be catastrophic,” said Sheik Abdel Moneim el-Shahat, scoffing at new demands for minority rights during a night class he teaches at a recently reopened Salafi mosque in Alexandria. “I think next they will tell us that Christians must lead Muslims in the prayers!”