Egypt's preferable tyranny
Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy knows neither Thomas Jefferson's advice that “great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities” nor the description of Martin Van Buren as a politician who “rowed to his object with muffled oars.” Having won just 52 percent of the vote, Morsy pursued his objective — putting Egypt irrevocably on a path away from secular politics and social modernity — noisily and imprudently.
It is difficult to welcome a military overthrow of democratic results. It is, however, more difficult to regret a prophylactic coup against the exploitation of democratic success to adopt measures inimical to the development of a democratic culture.
Tyranny comes in many flavors. The tyranny portended by Morsy's Muslim Brotherhood promised no separation of politics and religion, hence the impossibility of pluralism, and hostility to modernity that guaranteed economic incompetence. Egypt's military tyranny is preferable to Morsy's because it is more mundane.
Egyptian military tyranny has been tempered by corruption because the military is thoroughly entangled with Egypt's economy. Greed might concentrate Egyptian military minds on the advantages of economic dynamism, which depends on liberalization.
What was optimistically and prematurely called the “Arab Spring” was centered in Tahrir Square in the capital of the most populous Arab nation. Western media, and hence Western publics, were mesmerized by young protesters wielding smartphones and coordinating through social media their uprising against the military dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Smartphones are luxury goods in a nation in which about 40 percent of the population lives on no more than $2 a day. In the short term, meaning for the foreseeable future, Egypt's best hope is for an authoritarianism amenable to amelioration.
An Islamist regime wielded by the Muslim Brotherhood would be revolutionary, aiming for the total subordination of society to administered doctrine. A democratic origin of such a regime will not mitigate its nature.
The U.S. Constitution bristles with the language of proscription: Congress, although the expression of popular sovereignty, “shall make no law” doing this and that. The purpose of such provisions, the Supreme Court has said, is to place certain things “beyond the reach of majorities.” Furthermore, the noblest career in the annals of democracy involved a principled recoil against democracy improperly elevated over all other values.
Abraham Lincoln rejected the argument of his rival Stephen Douglas, who favored “popular sovereignty in the territories.” Douglas thought slavery should expand wherever a majority favored it. Lincoln understood that unless majority rule is circumscribed by the superior claims of natural rights, majority rule is merely the doctrine of “might makes right” adapted to the age of mass participation in politics.
The idea that the strong have a right to unfettered rule if their strength is numerical is just the barbarism of “might makes right” prettified by initial adherence to democratic forms. Egypt's military despotism may be less dangerous than Morsy's because it lacks what Morsy's had, a democratic coloration, however superficial and evanescent.
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
- Penguins fall to 0-3 after losing to Canadiens
- Wildcat formation is pulled back out of Steelers’ bag of tricks
- Rossi: Just wait until Ben comes back
- Steelers notebook: Tomlin dismisses clock run-off near end of Chargers game
- Tomlin on Bell’s late TD: ‘We were going to go for it’
- Man killed by train in Homestead
- Pitt TE Holtz quietly taking on leadership role, setting example
- Losing jobs over Ex-Im’s expiration? Don’t believe it
- Pirates coach Sofield interviews for Padres manager
- Norwin students could learn cyber security in FBI program
- Federal authorities say they’ve solved botnet scheme that stole millions from Penneco Oil, targeted Sharon City School District