The government of Hosni Mubarak yesterday swore in a new cabinet in a last-ditch attempt to cling on to power. Egypt's opposition, meanwhile, is calling for a million people to take to the streets to remove from office the dictator who has ruled the country with an iron fist for the past 29 years.
Disappointingly, the modest calls for democracy emanating from Washington and London appear transparently about Western governments emerging on the right side of history, rather than the genuine promotion of democratic rule in Egypt. Western leaders, rather than wholeheartedly endorsing the push for freedom by the Egyptian masses, are instead calling for 'restraint' and 'managed transition'.
The reality behind Western relations with Egypt is more shameful than mere disingenuous words however.
To have 'Made in the USA' tear gas used against you, only to be retrospectively lectured by Hilary Clinton, using the plural 'we' and acting as the ventriloquist's dummy for the 'aspirations' of the people her country helped to repress for the past quarter of a century, is not simply to be on the receiving end of realpolitik as to be unapologetically fucked by the realities of imperialism. Most insulting for Egyptians perhaps is the assumption that they will not notice the armed forces of the Mubarak regime executing and maiming civilians with weapons made in the US and supplied by the US at the rate of $1.5 billion a year – for the past 29 years.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague weighed in with his own lofty contempt for the Egyptian people, saying that Britain, too, has always been 'in favour of greater freedom and democracy, of a more open and flexible political system… [and] freedom of expression'. This, despite the fact that there is little evidence of any UK government having challenged Mubarak over his appalling human rights record during the course of his rule.
The Egyptian government, however, is a pillar of US policy in the region. Just as in the past the US supported the violent regime of Augusto Pinochet and other unsavoury dictatorships as 'bulwarks against communism', so in recent years Mubarak's Egypt has been feted as a 'cornerstone of stability and security in the Middle East' by those who see democracy only in terms of how beneficial democratic majorities are to Western interests.
Encouragingly, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood - the largest opposition group in Egypt - has not yet featured prominently in the protests, which have been spontaneous and built on a disenchantment with the neo-liberal economic policies favoured by business elites surrounding President Mubarak. Socialists should be wary of forming alliances with self-proclaimed Islamists simply because they proclaim an opposition to American imperialism.
Less certain is what happens next, both in Egypt and the wider Middle East. It is unclear who will emerge victorious from the power struggle in Egypt; it is even less certain whether other autocratic governments in the region will be next to face the democratic forces of mass mobilisation. Despite the contemptible maneuvering of our political leaders here in the West, our solidarity should unapologetically be with the people of the Middle East who stand up to tyranny, regardless of the political orientation of the regime in question.
Solidarity with Egyptian workers!
The problem here is that numerous commentators & pundits (including ourselves) are trying to interprete the Egyptian Revolution through the prism of our own political views, hopes and fears. Many on the Left are seeing this as a template for opposition to our own govt, as if Cam & co. are somehow homegrown versions of Mubarak. Well they can dream on. Just as many are nervously seeing a re-run of Teheran circa 1979.
ReplyDeleteThis is a big mistake. We can't explain the Egyptian Revolution by using our own, somewhat dated language of left v. right, imperialist v. anti. Just how many red flags and Socialist Worker paper sellers can we see in Tahrir Sq.? Or indeed green or black Islamist flags? Are the people calling out for Egypt's mobile phone operators to pay more tax?
As mere spectators I say it would be best to sit quietly, watch and most importantly learn from what we are seeing on our TV screens every day and be inspired by the bravery, guts and backbone displayed by the Egyptian people in their fight for liberation.
We should also feel honoured and privileged to be alive in 2011 to witness the Egyptian Revolution.
I would agree apart from where you say: "our own somewhat dated language of left v. right, imperialist v. anti.".
ReplyDeleteWhat we are witnessing in Egypt appears to be about economic factors - Mubarak has surrounded himself with a business community who's neo-liberal policies have failed to give ordinary Egyptians a decent standard of living. Unless we accept neo-liberal economics as inevitable or rational then there very much is a debate to be had which sits within a left/right economic context.
The Western powers have supported Mubarak simply because he is 'our kind' of dictator; just as in the past they supported leaders such as Pinochet as bullwarks against communism. Imperialism plays a factor as it was weapons sent by America to protect its imperial interests which have propped up the regime for the past 29 years.
Cheers,
James
I think one thing we can say is that this does look like a working class revolution. While as I'm prone to confirmation bias as anyone else, I think there is some evidence for that; the heavy involvement of the ultras being an obvious sign.
ReplyDeleteRead this on Boffy's blog and must say I agree:
ReplyDelete'Our task as Marxists is to do everything in our power to facilitate the development of the Workers' Property, the Workers Democracy, and the Workers State, and thereby to make more likely its ultimate victory.'
Workers to power!
I don't think I agree entirely about the US and others being insincere about wanting democracy in Egypt. Although, marxists shouldn't adopt a strategy of "lesser-evilism", the bourgeoisie often do, but that's because they have different objectives.
ReplyDeleteDid Capital really want Nazism in Germany as opposed to the existing bourgeois democracy? No, and actually, I think had they known what they know now about how it would work out, I thyink they would have been even more reluctant to have ceded their political control. As Lenin says, I think its in "Left-Wing Communism", bourgeois democracy is the preferred political regime of Capital, and once it has achieved it, it is reluctant to let it go. Engels even analyses how the Big capitalists had adopted the programme of social democracy both to pacify and incorporate the workers, and to further thier interests against the small Capitalists.
In Germany, Capital resorted to Fascism as a last resort because it thought the workers might take power. It was a lesser-evil. But, Capital is in a different position to the workers. It has the benefit of being the ruling class, its ideas dominate, and the State even a fascist state is forced to act in ways that benefit Capital. Moreover, Capital can utilise all of its international links, it can simply go on strike by diverting funds to unproductive uses, or even moving them overseas, if the fascists get too uppity. In the end the Capitalists can call on their foreign brethren to come to their aid to overthrow the fascists.
In the meantime, Capital can adapt to the new circumstances in ways workers cannot. In France, it didn't take long for the French Capitalists to adapt to the German occupation.
But, that is not to say that because they can adapt and continue to make profits this is their preferred option. Or take Iraq. It seems likely that the US and UK did actually want to establish a democratic regime after the invasion - albeit one heavily influenced by them. But, at the same time it was common knowledge that if this proved impossible, things drifted into chaos, they would settle for another strongman like Saddam himself.
As I've written elsewhere the regime of modern Imperialism is different to that of Colonialism. In his new book Nicholas Taleb says, "Marx, a visionary, recognised that a slave is much more productive if you can convince him he is an employee." That is correct. Bouregois democracy convinces workers they are employees not slaves, convinces they are citizens with rights, and that is how modern Capitalism best exploits them.
It's good to be a dictator
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/video/66459174/