Daily Times

What has happened to Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt is not new in the Islamic world. Given the nature of the so-called ‘Egyptian revolution’, it can only be compared to the events that unfolded in Pakistan in 1977 or in Iran in 1979.

Much like the events unfolding in Tahrir Square and elsewhere in Egypt, the events in Pakistan and Iran were partly the result of the arrogance of the rulers. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s first popularly elected prime minister, was confident that he could not be dislodged. Had he listened to what the street was saying, he would still be with us and most probably in power. The Shah should have realised that enlightened despotism must give way to constitutional monarchy. In both cases, however, the revolution proved to be disastrous. Bhutto was replaced by Zia who continues to destroy Pakistan from his grave. The Shah gave way to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who led his country to virtual international isolation.

Imagine now the so-called Egyptian revolution in its proper perspective: a constitution is being abrogated with the military stepping in to save the people while the American president cheers on. There are two kinds of American presidents: those who plan and execute revolutions with precision and accuracy to install their own favourites; the second kind is the Jimmy Carter variety who pave the road to hell with their good intentions. The latter always end up creating more chaos than the former. Thankfully, they last for only one term.

Egyptians of course deserve real and effective democracy as much as anyone else. The best way forward was for Mubarak to call for immediate elections with foreign monitors to ensure fairness and impartiality. This is the solution and game plan that the Americans should have backed. The Americans instead backed the abrogation of the constitution and virtual martial law in that unfortunate country. As in 1979, the Americans let down a key ally in the faint hope that they would be able to deal with the alternative. We all know how well that strategy worked for them.

One cannot miss the irony of President Obama explaining the meaning of the word ‘Tahrir’ to his audience for that is precisely what the notorious Hizb-ut-Tahrir says they are fighting for — ‘liberation’ — liberation from common sense, reason and liberty itself. The grievance of the mass of people that gathered at Tahrir Square was that their freedom of expression was limited. Mubarak became a symbol of that repression. Unfortunately, the so-called revolution has only removed the symbol. As events unfold in Egypt, one will soon see authoritarianism far worse than the people of Egypt legitimately struggled against. President Obama’s wonderful speeches praising the Egyptian revolution will come back to haunt us when the Coptic Christians in Egypt will be victimised by an increasingly intolerant state. Once the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, and make no mistake they shall, out of the window will go all reasonableness and moderation. The revolution that President Obama praises as moral and non-violent will soon transform into the hydra-headed monster of religio-fascism in the Middle East. Things will get only worse for the prospects of peace in the Middle East. After Egypt, the world stands at the threshold of a colossal tragedy now much closer.

There are clear markers on the road to democracy. A dysfunctional constitutional democracy is better than a functional constitutional dictatorship. A constitutional dictatorship is better than supra-constitutional military rule. Egypt could have gone from constitutional dictatorship to constitutional democracy but that required a clear articulation of the demands. Instead, Egypt took a step backwards. Whatever good work that the Egyptian protesters did was thus undone in one blow.

I for one cannot bring myself to congratulate my Egyptian brethren on such a Pyrrhic victory. Others may delude themselves as they please.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at pakteahouse.net and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com