Fears over a democratic Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood miss the point about a real democracy. For a more promising example of progress, eyes should be turned east.
There’s a common refrain we’ve heard throughout the Arab Spring: be careful what you wish for. Skeptics claim the establishment of democracies in the Middle East might be worse for the United States and others than the status quo. They often point to Hamas’ takeover of Gaza, or fears that the Muslim Brotherhood will establish a theocratic state in Egypt. But these criticisms overlook an important point: one democratic vote doesn’t make a country a democracy.
While new democracies in the Middle East shouldn’t be mirror images of the United States, they must possess the basic requirements of a truly democratic state. Stanford University scholar Larry Diamond has formulated an essential list of these, including: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, respect and protection for minorities, ongoing free and open elections, rule of law, and an independent judiciary.
Hamas’ Gaza Strip is therefore not a democracy. And if the Muslim Brotherhood establishes an authoritarian government in Egypt, it won’t be a democracy either. In a truly democratic Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would be one political party that competes fairly in elections and respects freedom of speech, religion, and belief.
This is why many of the fears about a democratic Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood are misguided. Pundits constantly warn about an Egypt that would be governed by fundamentalist Islamic law, would trample on the rights of minorities, women, and Christians, and would stifle any dissenting views. But these are not fears of a democratic state governed by the Muslim Brotherhood. They are fears of a theocratic autocracy masquerading as a democracy.
Unfortunately, recent developments make a truly democratic Egypt seem at best far-off and at worst a pipe dream. But there’s a more hopeful democratic transition playing out in Burma.
Burma’s military junta has relinquished some power, and the country has held elections, opened its economy, and rescinded some restrictions on free speech and expression. Aung San Suu Kyi, who was recently allowed to travel to Europe and claim her 1991 Nobel Prize, has praised the democratic transition, while calling for vigilance to ensure that it continues.
But recent events in Burma show that establishing a democracy is no easy feat; in fact, instilling some of the elements of a democracy can endanger others. Over the past year, for example, the Burmese government has loosened its control of the Internet and other media outlets; a commendable step towards democracy. But this newfound freedom of speech has led to violence against a Muslim minority group known as the Rohingya.
Photo Credit: Essam Sharaf
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Truthburma
Suu Kyi is now the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), a party that was established by former senior army officers who dragged ordinary Burmese through hell for 26 years during the Marxist socialist dictatorship (1962-1988).
The current NLD leadership lack democratic credentials: the officers from the dark past included Brigadier Aung Gyi, Brig Aung Shwe, Gen Tin Oo, Colonel Kyi Maung and Col Lwin.
Aung Gyi quit the NLD soon after following a power struggle. Secretary-general Suu Kyi refused to expel former Communist hardliners from the party.
*Gradualist* Aung Gyi and Col Kyi Maung were members of the Revolutionary Council that overthrew the civilian government of U Nu in March 1962. Both were later purged and jailed.
The pillar of the dictatorship was Gen Tin Oo, who was commander-in-chief when troops killed scores of unarmed civilians protesting economic and financial hardships under the stifling Soviet-style economic system.
Under his command, the army became the *backbone of the Burmese Way to Tyranny, er Socialism.*
It’s a shame the media – both exile and iworld – cannot or won’t — identify the vile personalities in Burmese politics.
Viewing Burma through the prism of one person has blinded the best in journalism and politics.
Suu Kyi's still critical of the Young Turks/reformers but gives a free pass to the despicable gunmen in her party who committed untold crimes against democracy — and the nation.
*The darling of the West* may have fooled the fawning Westerners, but the Burmese are not easily duped.
George W. Bush and Tony Blair were also great fans of The Lady, but conveniently failed to mention her in their latest books. But then, Burma has its fair share of sycophants.
Like the old Burmese saying: a few sesame seeds don’t make oil. A handful of people cannot bring about changes. Plus, democracy is about politics of principles, not personalities.
Democracy is also about jobs, security in healthcare and education.
There’s no denying that the left-wing NLD’s call, and support, for Western trade sanctions have led to massive job losses, poor health – malnutrition. Burma has its fair share of sycophants.
Let’s not forget that Burma was once a vibrant democracy: Since independence in 1948, Burma was arguably one of the most democratic states in Asia, if not the world.
Salving the conscience by speaking out against Burma today is hypocrisy at its finest.
Facing up to the past is sometimes an unpalatable experience. But the maturity of a nation depends on its ability to face up to the good and bad. Suu Kyi needs to deal with it – and soon.
And when did the call for democracy come with a halo? Create a myth and you get believers.
Will the real Aung San Suu Kyi please stand up? There isn't one.
As George Orwell said: If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Rich Mookerdum
Burmese-born journalist
richm009@gmail.com
50 cents brigade
Funny isn't it how the Queen of Burma is suppose to be the model for what is to be Burma future in some of the comment here. Are her subject is so blind and dumb to see the real face of her? Don't they know Burma is burning, burmese killing burmese and children being starve is happening now, and yet our Queen is dining with the upper Europe class. She dance and sing with Bono while here people is dying. She bath in the limelight in UK, and get all the press to shower her with praise. The Queen children live in luxury in UK, while ordinary Burmese children goes hungry at night. She is live under house arrest with the comfort of a home, while ordinary Burmese live in a poverty and misery made by her and her cronies by calling for sanction against its people. Like all typical democratic subjects, they live in a world devoid of reality. Hail! Aung San Suu Kyi, our beloved queen.
PRB
Anyone in America see a red herring? Of course, restricting "hate speech" is unconstitutional. The greatest thing about America is that even stupid people are free to say what they want. To parody John C. Calhoon and others, "better to have to listen to the ideas of 1000 idiots than to suppress truth or one great idea." America is already slipping quickly down the slope away from democratic ideals. Maybe McFaul should teach his own boss what a democracy is about before he tries to lecture other countries about it. This mush I am sure of: if we try to make Egypt or Burma or any other country a democracy, we will certainly prevent it from becoming so.
Matt
From what I have read about the Muslum Brotherhood I have zero trust that they will not do exactly what Hitler and the Mullahs did. I'm also not aware of a single Muslum country in the ME which practices religious tolerance. The religion they practice is explicitly hostile to any other form even other Muslum forms as we see with Sunnis and Shiites. It would seem the religious leaders must buy into this principle first for any democracy to have a chance.
I was suprised to see Turkey next to Russia being described as less than democratic. Certainly the AKP is religious and the IHH organization's leader has been accused of financing Al Qaeda.
Maybe the West should focus more on preaching religous freedom than full on democracy. Take smaller steps focused on the key hurdles for specific populations. I just think if you could convince the religious leaders than the rest would be so much easier. Might still be a chance in hell.
Richard
It is wrong to use Burma as an example to prove that "recent events in Burma show that establishing a democracy is no easy feat",apart from Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and her party,who has ever try to establish democracy in Burma?Burma has been ruled by an illegitimate regime since 1963,some of the rulers are murderers.
in fact,aged Aung san suu Kyi is now the ideal candidate to bring democracy to Burma,although she is being opposed by many self interest groups in the West,some ASEAN governments and of course,those generals who are still the rulers.
Ohn
Except that Aung San Suu Kyi has been fully supporting the military who has stepped up the atrocities against the people as well as increased the land grabbing and general intimidation among the populace since she was freed.
She also has not put forth any practical, succinct policy on any subject at all.
All her enunciations thus far has been esoteric, other-worldly elitists , impractical views of high school essays.