By Tsvi Bisk Recently I wrote an Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times regarding the situation in Egypt. I suggested that a military dictatorship that respected the persons and property of minorities and women might be preferable to a democratically elected government that turned a blind eye to violence against minorities and women and violated constitutionalist principles on a daily basis. In a letter to the editor Michael Posner, former assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor from 2009 to 2013, attacked the premise of the article. His thinking was ill-informed and even one might say uneducated in the extreme. That this kind of thinking is stalking the halls of the State Department is frightening to say the least. Following is the article in question after which Posner’s letter with my comments inserted in bold.
For now, a liberal dictator may be better than an elected thug.
The events in Egypt are causing a great deal of moral and intellectual confusion in Western circles, preoccupied as they are with the concept of democracy (after all, ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was elected). Populist sentimentality abounds.
I suggest, instead, judging events by the standards of constitutionalism — an ideology that asserts that human beings have certain unalienable rights that cannot be taken from them either by dictator or by the majority. Fareed Zakaria makes a good case for constitutionalism taking precedence over democracy in his book, “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.” Or as Publishers Weekly put it in a review of the book: “Democracy is not inherently good.… It works in some situations and not others, and needs strong limits to function properly.”
Better a liberalizing dictator than an elected thug. Morsi was an elected thug; Gen. Abdel Fattah Sisi, the head of the Egyptian armed services and now in charge of the nation, might turn out to be a liberalizing dictator who at least protects minorities and women.
Democracy is a mechanism that chooses governments by elections in which the majority decides. But the Founding Fathers were just as afraid of the tyranny of the majority as they were of the tyranny of the individual tyrant. That is why the Constitution was written, separation of powers institutionalized and the Supreme Court (an unelected, nondemocratic body) chosen to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws that might be supported by the overwhelming majority of the population.
The 20th century is sufficient proof that majorities can be just as brutal and vicious as tyrants. Jim Crow was supported by the majority; Eastern European pogroms were justified by the majority; Adolf Hitler was supported by the majority; Josef Stalin was revered by the majority. Even today, according to a 2012 poll in Russia by the Carnegie Endowment, Stalin is first among the great figures of Russian history.
Democracy is only a value when it tends to widen and deepen the constitutionalist protections of individuals and minorities, as it has in the U.S. Blacks and women getting the vote enabled them to fight for their constitutional rights. But Hamas was democratically elected in the Gaza Strip, and the result: fewer rights for women, religious minorities and political opposition. If the German military had overthrown Hitler, would we have called that a military putsch?
When Americans and Europeans use the term “democracy,” it is shorthand for constitutional democracy; namely, “the will of the people,” limited and moderated by the constitutional protections offered to individuals and minorities, and not majoritarian democracy in which the compact majority (in Egypt’s case, Islamist fanatics) can crush individual and minority rights.
How does this relate to Egypt? If you were a Coptic Christian (40 of whose churches have been burned by Morsi supporters), a Shiite Muslim (four of whom were lynched by Morsi supporters in June) or a university-trained woman (no need to detail her status under Islamist rule), would you prefer Sisi’s military dictatorship or majoritarian Islamic “democracy”?
Answer that question honestly and you will know which side to root for. You will also know which side has the biggest chance to eventually morph into a constitutional democracy as it integrates into the global economic reality. The military dictatorships of Taiwan and South Korea gradually evolving into constitutional democracies as a consequence of integrating into the global economic order are good historical examples. Tourism is Egypt’s biggest nonfarm employer and earner of foreign currency. What would be its fate under the Islamists, and how would this inhibit Egypt from integrating into the global economy?
From a non-Egyptian point of view, which faction would most likely be more rational and maintain the peace with Israel? Consider the consequences of another Israeli-Egyptian war for the region and the world. Moreover, consider the implications for the region and, indeed, the rest of the world if the Muslim Brotherhood defeats the Egyptian military. It would be frightening to say the least.
Tsvi Bisk, a former senior researcher for the Labor Party in Israel, is the author of “The Future of Constitutionalism” and director of the Center for Strategic Futurist Thinking.
Original post from the LA Times Op-Ed
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bisk-back-egyptian-military-20130827,0,74754.story
Letters: Egypt’s choices and U.S. options
August 31, 2013 from Michael Posner, assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights & labor from 2009 to 2013.
Tsvi Bisk castigates those “preoccupied” with the concept of democracy in Egypt. His analysis is based on three mistaken assumptions.
First, Bisk says we should focus on “constitutionalism” rather than democracy. Our Constitution has been central to our success. But in Egypt, with its winner-take-all mentality, constitutions are imposed, not negotiated. The Muslim Brotherhood imposed its last fall; now the military seeks to do the same. Neither is legitimate.
I wrote constitutionalism (which I clearly defined) and not constitution. One can have constitutionalism without a written constitution (England and Israel) and one can have totalitarian gangsterism with a written constitution (Stalin’s Russia). That an assistant secretary of State for democracy and human rights cannot make this distinction is frightening to say the least.
Imposed constitutions that ‘lawfully’ restrict human rights and enable the tyranny of the majority to discriminate against individuals and groups are by definition not ‘constitutionalist’ – i.e. not reflective of the principles of constitutionalism. I nowhere in the article advocated that Egypt have a written constitution (which, and here I agree with Posner, under present conditions would be discriminatory) but rather advocated for the side under which at least some of the principles of constitutionalism had a better chance of being honored (such as respecting the persons and property of minorities).
Second, he assumes that democracy is only about elections. Not so. A sustainable democracy depends on the rule of law, a free press, the empowerment of women and a strong civil society. These elements were not present during deposed Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak’s three decades nor during Mohamed Morsi’s short tenure. Interim leader Gen. Abdel Fattah Sisi has offered little encouragement that these foundations of democracy will exist going forward.
Sorry Mr. Posner, Democracy is only about elections and the majority deciding who is to govern. The rule of law, free press, women’s rights and a strong civil society are some of the principles of constitutionalism meant to moderate and limit the will of the democratic majority. Democracies without these constitutionalist limitations are called Totalitarian Democracies (Hitler and Stalin). Democracies with these limitations are called Constitutional Democracies even if they do not have written constitutions (England and Israel).
Moreover, I never claimed that Si-Si was either a democrat or a constitutionalist – he is neither. I only claimed that if you were a Copt, a Shiite or a university trained woman you had a better chance of your person and property being respected under Si-Si than under Morsi. I also indicated that given the inherent secular disposition of the military that Egypt would have a better chance of integrating into the global economy thus enabling the eventual morphing into the beginnings of a constitutional democracy (as previously South Korea and Taiwan had done). It is certainly clear the Egypt’s tourist industry (its biggest money earner and employer) would have a better chance of rebounding under Si-Si than under the religious fanatics of the Muslim brotherhood.
Finally, Bisk asserts we must “root for” Morsi or the military. Instead, we should hold to our principles and amplify the voices of those in Egypt who share our commitment to human rights and democracy. Egypt’s long-term success and stability rides on them.
Posner offers advice that ignores reality. The voices of Egyptian democracy and human rights cannot win an election and do not have tanks and therefore are not an alternative. The real life alternatives are Morsi or Si-Si and I suggest that it would be easier for the USA to defend human rights in Egypt under Si-Si because the military is totally dependent on American largess.
Sometimes reality dictates that you have to make a choice between one thug and another thug. In WWII the US sided with the Stalin thug against the Hitler thug. I am suggesting, considering all of the above and what I wrote in my article, that today the West side with the Si-Si thug against the Morsi thug.To my mind Posner’s letter encapsulates all that is intellectually and morally deficient in western policy making. It reflects a moralistic pose that prevents the United States from pursuing policies that can be justified and explained with moral and intellectual clarity.
