Krytyka Polityczna - Ben Ami: Why would people support autocracy?

> PREMIERA 24 MAJA

>>Już jest: KP30!

Komentarze

CYTAT DNIA

Życzyłbym sobie, abyśmy w obecnym stuleciu potrafili w końcu połączyć wiedzę naukową i techniczną, rozwiniętą jak nigdy dotąd w historii, z umiejętnościami ludzkimi i politycznymi, które, jak na ironię, są najbardziej w historii zacofane. Dysponujemy wszystkimi środkami naukowymi, technicznymi i nawet finansowymi, aby wykorzenić biedę, głód, ciemnotę dotykającą co najmniej połowę mieszkańców naszej planety. Dlaczego tego nie robimy? Dlatego, że brakuje nam politycznej woli, połączenia pragnienia i działania, żeby to zrobić.

Carlos Fuentes (1928-2012), Contra Bush

Katalog Książek KP

Książki w sklepie KP

Warto przeczytać

Order software online

Ben Ami: Why would people support autocracy?

Szlomo Ben Ami interviewed by Jan Smoleński

02.03.2011

Jan Smoleński (Political Critique): The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, instructed diplomats to persuade western governments into toning down their critique of President Hosni Mubarak. What is so alarming about Egyptian protests?

Szlomo Ben Ami*: Not only Israel is frightened. Try to imagine what the other Arab non-democratic countries must feel; countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Algeria. They stand next in line, not Israel. However Israel’s government is afraid that the process of democratisation in Egypt may end with the establishment of an Islamic regime.

The main problem for the international community is that it sticks to the old paradigm, according to which the alternative for secular authoritarian governments in the Arab world is an Islamic republic. We could see that in Algeria in the early 90s, where the free elections in 1991 raised the Islamists to power, and as a result the Algerian army seized power with the approval of the European countries. We could see that in the case of Hamas, which won the democratic elections, but then Fatah dissolved the Parliament. We could see that in Iraq where the Shia republic came into existence after the Americans brought the secular dictator down. And if the situation in the Middle East doesn’t change radically, Iraq will become a satellite of Iran.

Yet I’m convinced that what is just happening in Egypt is something different and new. In Egypt, there may be established a secular democracy with an Islamic component of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood had around 20% support under Mubarak’s rule and it could get even more under democracy, nevertheless from the balance of political power there may emerge a modern Egyptian democracy. And I hope it will happen.

Following media news we may have the impression that people are protesting under the anti-government banners rather than Islamic.

You have to be aware that Mubarak’s dictatorship was based on the real or imaginary threat of fundamentalism. He used this pretext to justify and excuse his authoritarian rule in the eyes of the West, and to gain its support. He was convincing them that, on the one hand, he kept peace with Israel and played the role of intermediary between the Israelis and the Palestinians from both Hamas and the Authority; and that on the other hand he limited Islamic fundamentalism in Egypt. In that case, the absence of the Brotherhood on the streets is not surprising. If the protesters raised Islamic banners, they would only support Mubarak’s stories, and it could save him.

Szlomo Avineri wrote in Haarec that Lieberman’s reaction gave the Arabs to understand that this peace had been concluded between Israel and Mubarak rather than between Israel and Egypt. He called on Prime Minister Benjamina Netanyahu to give a speech to the Egyptian nation and convince them that this is peace between two nations. Do you think that Israel can keep peaceful relations with democratic Egypt? The current government seems to doubt it. But Israel should, and in my opinion can, keep peace with non-autocratic Egypt.

However Israel’s right wing found themselves in a paradox. When we, on the left wing, were negotiating with the Arabs, they said that peace with the Arabs would be impossible without democracy in the Arab countries. Yet when the Arab societies desire democracy, their reaction is hysterical.

The next Egyptian government will probably keep the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. What would be the reason for the secular democracy, even with the participation of Islamists, to start war with Israel? Egypt has serious internal problems. The new government will be busy consolidating democracy and economic growth. The Facebook generation that went on the streets, won’t back up any government going to war with Israel instead of solving society’s frustration. Israel is not the problem of Egypt’s foreign policy. A much bigger problem is Sudan. Egypt’s southern neighbour broke apart and the secession of the South is just a syndrome of a larger problem. Among other things it may mean problems with the Nile’s water distribution. For example Israel always believed that as soon as Iran got an atomic weapon, it would launch it at once. It’s complete nonsense. Being radical doesn’t necessary mean being irrational.

One more thing. The Egyptian army will play a very important role in the new regime, regardless of what happens. The army is one of many groups, which are reluctant to make war with Israel; mostly because the army is pro-Western, high-ranking officers were educated and trained at Western academies.

Can the events in Egypt – as they caused some anxiety among the Israelis – strengthen right-wing politicians, like Lieberman?

I think that on the contrary, the situation in Egypt causes moments of anxiety for everybody: Egypt’s neighbours, the Egyptians and the whole international community, as nobody can predict how it will end. I believe that these events will cause a radical change for the better. Israel will have to accept the fact that it is not the only democracy in the Middle East any more. And this is wonderful news for the whole region.

How can these events change the relations between Israel and Egypt?

Democratic Egypt will be able to press and influence Israel even stronger than Mubarak’s regime. It will be a country of completely different weight in international relations.

But could it increase tensions in the region?

The current impasse is not good either for the Israelis or the Palestinians. If Egypt becomes a democratic country, it will be a better thing for peace talks. We need a strong third participant in negotiations between Israel and Palestine to achieve some results.

Both Hamas and Palestinian Authority, why didn’t they support the uprising in Egypt?

Because they are also autocracies and they are afraid of protests on their own ground. Europe has a very romantic vision of Palestinian nationalism and this vision blinded them to the fact that the Palestinian authorities, both Hamas in Gaza and also Fatah in the West Bank, are typical Arab autocracies. Mahmus Abbas is a good man, but has no democratic legitimisation – the parliament doesn’t work and elections should have been called a year ago. Abbas and Salam Fajjad, the Prime Minister of the Authority, rule by issuing decrees; the authorities can make arrests without any charges. On the one hand international help gives the Palestinians hope, but on the other hand the autocracy and corruption give rise to frustration. Try to imagine what the Palestinians feel, in particular those who came from Tunisia when the peace process started. Then the authorities were promising a country. Now there is no country, but only autocracy and corruption. Why would people want to support it?

*Szlomo Ben Ami – born in Morocco, the former minister of Israel for foreign affairs and internal security; currently the vice president of International Centre for Peace in Toledo; the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. He has studied at the universities in Tel Aviv and Oxford. In elections to Knesset in 2009, he supported the left-wing party, Meretz..

Translated by Magdalena Szulim

Komentarze

Dodaj nowy