The deposing of Mohamed Morsi as President of Egypt has raised a whole host of questions, almost all of them embarrassing, not just because the answers portray previously respected institutions in a poor light.The fundamental question is: whether democracy accommodates Muslims, or not? It seems that it does not, and in this respect, the Egyptian example is like that of Algeria, where the FIS won the first round of the 1991 parliamentary elections, which were cancelled because of a military coup. Again, 22 years later, the military has carried out a coup. This might seem to many as indicating that exponents of democracy only accept results that bring secular parties to power - parties with a modern ideology, not an ancient. Another important similarity is that the Egyptian intervention too was carried out by the military. That the USA is involved cannot be overlooked, because it provides the Egyptian military $1.5 billion annually, and if the events in Egypt are acknowledged as a coup, it will be cut off. That would explain why those opposing the Morsi regime are describing the coup as a ‘deposal’, or are simply saying that it was not a coup. It is interesting that the opponents of the coup are Ikhwan supporters, while coup supporters include Copts, who believe the Ikhwan produced a constitution that did not took care of them properly. If democracy is not an issue, that means that neither side viewed the elections as more than an opportunity to bring their party to power. As has been seen, there has not developed the concept of accepting election results. As a result, there was a campaign to oust Morsi even before he completed one year in office.The similarities between the man, who overthrew Morsi, Army Chief General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, and General Ziaul Haq, who overthrew Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, are being drawn in Pakistan. Both were handpicked, both were inclined towards Islam, both were simple soldiers. And both had attended the Army War College in the USA. Bhutto and Morsi may have been very different people, but their choice of Army Chief was surprisingly similar.There is also a racist undertone to the episode. Once again, whites have assured themselves that blacks cannot manage democracy. It has also been demonstrated that Muslims cannot manage democracy, especially Arabs. At the same time, the Arab Spring has been put in doubt more or less before it is over. The revolution in Egypt has been reversed, so now the Tunisian and the Libyan Revolutions are in danger. Though elections have been held in those countries, the Egyptian example shows that election results do not have to be accepted.At the same time, the Arab Spring is continuing in Syria. It is possible that one reason for Morsi’s fall is that he attended a rally in which support for the Syrian rebels was expressed. He did so because he wished to satisfy the Islamist constituency that wanted the Egyptian government to be part of the international intervention. However, the Egyptian military distanced itself from this with a statement, in which it said that it would defend the country. The Egyptian armed forces have not got a very distinguished war record, and the shameful defeats of 1956 and 1973 (the last time they saw action against Israel) only seem not so shameful compared to 1967, which is proverbial. However, they have been good at taking over, their most lasting takeover, the 1952 coup that brought Gamal Abdel Nasser to power leading ultimately to Morsi, via Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.Morsi is generally thought to have paid the price of making promises about the economy he could not keep. It is true that the economy remains in poor shape. However, democracy prescribes electoral defeat as the punishment, not deposition by the military, as the punishment for incompetent economic management.The PML-N government in Pakistan might take heart at that, but its failure to keep its promises of an ‘economic explosion’ may well return to haunt it, especially around the first anniversary of its taking office. However, one reason for the Ikhwan feeling particularly hard done by is its closeness to the military. The Ikhwan were allied to it when it carried out the 1952 coup, because the Ikhwan saw King Farooq as the enemy. However, Nasser moved on it, just as he moved on any real or potential challenger to his rule. There was a partial rehabilitation during the Afghan jihad, in which the Sadat regime took part because the Americans wanted it. The Egyptian role in Afghanistan is symbolised by the current head of al-Qaeda, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is an Egyptian eye specialist like Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Egypt has long had an interest in Syria, which dates back to Pharaonic times. Students of Muslim history will call the alliance between Muawiya ibn abu Sufyan, the Wali of Syria, and Amr ibn al-Aas, the Wali of Egypt. This interest is reflected most recently in the formation of the short-lived (1958-1961) United Arab Republic, which united Egypt and Syria, and a name which Egypt used until 1971. Together, these two countries are the cultural heartland of the Arab world. It should not be forgotten that Lebanon and Palestine are both historically part of Syria.Another reason why Morsi was so unceremoniously, and so bloodily, thrust aside, was Israeli opposition. They saw him as an Islamist dedicated to support for the Palestinian cause, not to be trusted despite his reassuring words. There will be a question mark over the IMF, which did not give Egypt the loan it needed to remain within the international financial system. Not giving Egypt loans has been a weapon dating back to the 19th century when the building of the Suez Canal heightened European interest in Egypt.Morsi’s fall is as bad news for Pakistani rightist parties as his election was good. The Jamaat Islami is closest to the Ikhwan, but Imran Khan’s PTI, which has already had more success than the Jamaat ever had, has affinities. Egypt is surprisingly like Pakistan, especially since the Camp David Accords. The model of being pro-American and pro-Islamic at the same time does not work. This should be a warning for the present government, even though it has passed the stage of getting an IMF package.Another parallel that seems appropriate is with Abdur Rahman Wahid ‘Gus Dur’. He became President of Indonesia in 1999 after the resignation of Suharto, military ruler of Indonesia, a huge Muslim country. He belonged to the Nahdlatul Ulama, and like Morsi, did not really look the part. He was so short-sighted as to be almost blind, and he too tried to mix fundamentalist Islam with the wishes of an essentially Muslim, but not so fundamentalist, people. He too could not complete his term, making way for Megawati Sukarnoputri in 2001. Sukarnoputri has since been succeeded by ex-Army Chief Susilo Bambang Yudhyono.Pakistan recently went through an election in which some campaigned, violently, that elections were not Islamic. They would be strengthened by the Egyptian example. Also, the present government must deliver on the economic front. Besides, the USA should note that its outreach to the Muslim world is failing: it will not succeed until it ends support for occupation, as well as occupation itself.
The writer is a veteran journalist and founding member as well as executive editor of The Nation.