Save Hubris For The Pharaohs

One of the more interesting byproducts of the recent Arab protests has been the discussion among commentators over whether these events serve as an affirmation of the Bush Administration's "freedom agenda." Since most revolutions do not end in a functioning democracy, it is probably premature for neoconservatives to crow too loudly about recent events, however, the blowback from their critics has also been too emphatic. For example, earlier this month, Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate:

In this week of tumult and revolution throughout the Middle East, few spectacles have been more pathetic—more crudely and shamelessly vain—than the attempt by certain neocons to portray the rush of events as a vindication of their own long-discredited ideas.

If you haven't the time to read the article, that's good. I'm not endorsing the piece, just citing it for its tone. Kaplan never does get around to explaining why neocon ideas have been discredited. I guess if it happened long enough ago, it spares him the bother. However, the subtext is to make sure his readers are reminded that no good can ever come from the invasion of Iraq. For a similar viewpoint, you can watch Bob Wright fume when fellow blogger Mickey Kaus suggests the possibility that Iraqi democracy influenced the Egyptian protesters (52:25 of the February 7th video).

Alas, neocons and their critics aside, events in Tunis and Cairo need to play out further before sweeping conclusions can be made about the influence Iraq might have had. However, historian Niall Ferguson has highlighted one key way a continuing freedom agenda might now aid Egypt (if the Obama Administration hadn't canned it). Here is a video of the full eleven minute interview. The transcript (most of which came from Newsbusters - except for one gap I filled in myself) begins at 5:00:

Let me put it this way – if we want to see secular democratic forces prevail in a country like Egypt, which is overwhelmingly a Muslim country, which has a tradition of Islamic radicalism in the form of the Muslim brotherhood, it is not going to happen by itself. The lesson from Eastern Europe going right back through the Cold War is that the United States had to very actively support democratic forces until finally the moment came in 1989 when they could step forward into the limelight - and they were ready. Just take the example of Czechoslovakia: Vaclav Havel comes into the foreground in 1989, but he had been receiving support from the United States and other Western allies since 1977. We haven't got a plan here, and if we don't have a plan to build a secular democracy in Egypt it is not going to happen.

It would be too sweeping to suggest that every administration have a "freedom agenda" as its number one policy priority at all times. Even the Bush Administration backed away a bit in the second term. However, rejecting the freedom agenda outright can leave an administration caught off guard. The dangers of Mubarak's departure are pronounced. Here is Ferguson again (8:00):

I do think that the President regards making touchy-feely speeches as a substitute for having a strategy, and I want to emphasize the risks that are currently being run in that region. If you look at history –  and remember, I'm a historian – most revolutions do not lead to happy-clappy democracies, but to periods of internal turmoil, often to periods of terror, and they also lead to external aggression because the simplest way to mobilize people in a relatively poor and not very well-educated country like Egypt is to point to the alleged enemy within and then, of course, the enemy abroad. The scenarios that the Israelis are looking at involve a transition not to some kind of peaceful and amicable democracy, but to a Muslim Brotherhood-dominant regime, which then pursues an aggressive policy towards Israel. This is not a zero-probability scenario, this is a high-probability scenario, and as far as I can see the President isn't considering it.

For a more upbeat analysis, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had this to say shortly after Mubarak's departure:

The results of a new phone survey commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy show that Egypt is not going to become an Islamic theocracy ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the relentless fear-mongering of the American right wing.

I didn't know this was so clearly a right/left wing issue since even neoconservatives (who hardly speak for all on the right) have been split by this. But, it's a relief to know that the concerns are merely "fear-mongering" and that a phone survey can conclusively "show that Egypt is not going to become an Islamic theocracy". Those pollsters keep getting better and better. I never knew they could decide such a thing.

Sarcasm aside, the opening point bears repeating: there is a tad too much certainty when commentators discuss Egypt (or more specifically, when they denounce their political opponents while discussing Egypt). A little more modesty is in order here.