On Being Revolutionary

Revolutions tend to be messy and and what is happening in Egypt is no exception – as we can see on our television screens. But we should recognize that it is not chaotic. Specific interest groups with specific political agendas are fomenting and leading this revolution. What we should be thinking about now is the part America has and should play in Egyptian and other democratic revolutions and where we go from here. Really, what should we learn from this?

First, we have to take Egypt seriously for it is an anchor point in our relationship with the world's Arabs. Egypt sits geographically, economically and ideologically at the center of the Arab world. With 80 million people, it accounts for 20 percent of the Arab population and, leaving aside Saudi Arabia's oil output, Egypt has the largest economy among the Arabs. Ideologically, Egypt has remained determinedly secular even as it has been, with Al-Azhar University, the source of Islamist philosophy and theology. Lest we forget, in 1956 the US opposed the Anglo French attack to "take back" the Suez Canal and, post-Nasser, Egypt has been a faithful ally of the United States. In 1978, it took guts to oppose the Arab world and sign the US brokered peace treaty with Israel. Egypt continues to observe that peace treaty.

Under Presidents Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has been determinedly secular even if quite dictatorial. Now, at least a half a dozen opposition groups have surfaced to share the management of this revolution. The Egyptian opposition factions – a mixture of new and old, secular and Islamist – represent the full range of political Arab-Islam. In the euphoria and acceptance of revolution, they have come together to propose Dr. Muhamed ElBaradei as their negotiator with the government. ElBaradei is expected to negotiate the departure of Pres. Mubarak and set the stage for a new constitution.

On the other hand, Egypt is also the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was officially banned but unofficially tolerated. The Muslim Brotherhood has supplied the theological base for Islamism and the anti-western Jihad movement, though it remains officially nonviolent. Sayyid Qutb, the theologian of the Muslim brotherhood, was the inspiration for the hatred of the United States by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Egyptian government executed him.

Egypt is a mixed bag, full of contradiction and this revolution can go in any political direction. This will be a real test of American foreign-policy and our Nobel Peace Prize President.

Traditionally, American foreign-policy chooses the status quo over revolution. That choice of security over freedom has meant that we continually support repressive regimes. We have supported some really nasty dictators: in Latin America (the Somozas and Pinochet), in Africa (Mobutu and Mugabe), in the Middle East (Sadat/Mubarak and the Shah) and in the Far East (Diem, Marcos and even Pol Pot). Already before Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's realpolitik, our foreign policy sought primarily a stable world in which American business can continue to operate profitably.

Then, when those regimes fall, as they all eventually do, we scramble to try to influence the choice of the next regime, talking always about freedom and democracy, as long as it doesn't cost us anything. Superpowers learn to live with a great deal of hypocrisy.

But revolutions have a logic of their own. The first part of a revolution is usually a popular uprising that undoes the status quo. With popular support, the security forces are emboldened to desert the regime and its leaders then flee. These popular uprisings are usually a "surprise" to Western analysts and pundits because the suppressed opposition has been quiet, carefully organizing and saving its strength for the post-chaotic competition for power that they clearly see coming.

In the ensuing scramble, power flows to the faction that is well-organized, highly disciplined and absolutely ruthless and not to the good guys who led the revolution or who we support. In Russia, it was the Bolsheviks; in Iran it was the ayatollahs; in El Salvador, the Sandinistas; in Cuba the Fidelistas; and in Egypt it could well be The Muslim Brotherhood. Revolutions tend to get hijacked.

Already the Brotherhood has specifically supported Dr. ElBaradei because he presents "an unthreatening face to the West." We can expect to see a continuation of this moderation, until it is time to do otherwise.

As in virtually every other area of politics, a sincere move to support democracy and freedom, especially before the revolution, is the best way to avoid ugly revolutions. It certainly is far better than supporting dictators with military arms because they are willing to protect the rights of American corporations.

Our foreign-policy should take the Declaration of Independence more seriously.