The coup in Egypt raises a lot of difficult questions about democracy. For example, does it matter if authoritarian government was originally elected? And can Islamist rule and democracy coexist?
Consider this from the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake:
“The issue is: Will Islamists use elections — and democratic elections — as the one stop to ultimately consolidate power — and have Islamic rule of some kind in their countries? And can Islamists … be compatible with democratic, liberal, open societies? And I don’t think we can say confidently, by any stretch, that that’s true. In fact, I think it’s not true. And I think that the experience of [former Egyptian president] Morsi and [Turkish PM] Erdogan in their authoritarianism — which is why it’s relevant — in my view, basically suggests that the grand bargain or the hope that we have that we can have Islamist parties presiding over open societies is, maybe, a false hope.”
I suspect Lake’s hunch is correct. But let’s suppose that it is not. Let’s suppose that Islamists legitimately wanted to advance their goals via the democratic process — and that they would be willing to step aside if and when the public chose another option.
This might seem far-fetched, but the coup has repercussions outside of Egypt. And it sends a signal that might be unhelpful to other countries.
Consider this from the New York Times:
Mr. Morsi’s overthrow had made it far more difficult for [Sheik Abu Sidra, an “ultraconservative Islamist” in Libya] to persuade Benghazi’s Islamist militias to put down their weapons and trust in democracy.
“Do you think I can sell that to the people anymore?” he asked. “I have been saying all along, ‘If you want to build Shariah law, come to elections.’ Now they will just say, ‘Look at Egypt,’ and you don’t need to say anything else.”
From Benghazi to Abu Dhabi, Islamists are drawing lessons from Mr. Morsi’s ouster that could shape political Islam for a generation.
Once again, Middle East politics is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. The notion that these problems can be easily fixed — or that deep-seated, fundamentalist religious beliefs can be easily subdued by holding elections — isn’t just quixotic, it’s also insane.