Brief Reflections on the Revolution in
Egypt
by Sean Gabb
Libertarian
Alliance
I have been asked to comment on the revolution in Egypt. Every
newspaper is already filled with commentary. Every time I switch on the
television, no one seems to be discussing anything else. All this may be
very good for sales of Mr Blake’s novel, Blood of Alexandria. But I am
already bored with Egypt. For this reason, I will try to be
brief.
I will begin with the Egyptian people. According to the narrative pushed
by the BBC among others, the current wave of revolutions sweeping through
the Arab Islamic world shows a longing for democratic modernity.
Particularly in Egypt, a dictator has fallen who, for thirty years, kept
his people in subjection with threats of arbitrary arrest and punishment.
Now, we are told, democracy can flourish at last. Earlier today, I saw
films of departing crowds in Cairo or Alexandria, while some stupid woman
explained with tearful optimism that the people had now spoken.
Well, I have no doubt that most Egyptians, called on at random, would say
they wanted representative democracy, and independent courts, and a bill
of rights and an end to government corruption, and so forth. But I doubt
this is what they will vote for. If they do get any of it by chance, I
fail to believe they will lift a finger to keep it from being swept
away.
Egypt is not a nation in the sense than England or France or Germany are
nations. It has no history of the kind that unites and inspires a people.
It has always been ruled by absolute despots. For most of the past few
thousand years, the despots have been foreign. It has no observable
racial homogeneity: the higher classes seem invariably to be white; the
lower classes range between brown and sub-Saharan black. It has no
cultural unity. Most people there are young. Most are very poor. Most are
without education. We therefore have a country without any secular
identity, where the people are desperate enough, and ignorant enough, and
energetic enough, to demand the impossible. Given this, Egypt is as
likely to become a stable democracy as I am to become a Quaker.
What will happen, I think, is that someone rather old and westernised
will be the next President. He will make fine assurances to everyone who
will listen. Of course, he will take his orders from Washington. Nothing
much will change. He will last a few months – he might manage a few
years, if he is bright or lucky or both. But the one unifying force in
Egypt is religion. Sooner or later, enough people will accept – or enough
will stop denying – that Islam is the answer. And that will be an end to
American efforts to manage the popular will.
Egypt will get a government of radical Moslems. This may not be
completely horrid to the Christian minority. It may choose not to copy
the full radicalism of the Iranians. I hope it will not damage the
monuments or empty out the museums. But the westernised veneer of
Egyptian life will be swept away, and there will be no more jolly parties
on the Nile cruisers. There will probably be a war – these do accompany
revolutions, and they break out as much for the same demographic reasons
as for any internal dynamic of revolution. Perhaps the enemy will be
Israel. Almost as likely, it will be Libya or some other
neighbour.
Unless the Americans continue interfering in the country’s internal
politics, this Islamic government will, in time, become another cynical
kleptocracy. Even with religious supports, revolutionary fervour is
unlikely to survive longer than one generation. And, since Islam,
considered either in its traditional forms or in the modern
reformulations, has no answers to the questions that really face Egypt,
there will be a new ruling class, with a new legitimising ideology, and
new barriers to entry to keep up average incomes for its members. Except
they will continue to benefit at second hand from scientific and
technical progress elsewhere, most ordinary Egyptians will be no better
off nor worse off than under the government they have just pulled down.
All that can be said is that they will have a government more acceptable
to their cultural values.
What this revolution means for the nations of the West is less obvious.
What has just happened in Egypt will probably be repeated in Jordan and
in Saudi Arabia and in various other countries. It is reasonable to
suppose that the Arab Islamic world will become a regional alliance of
states hostile to Western values and generally hostile to the
West.
Now, I am not about to drift off into some neoconservative rant about
“Islamofascism” and the need for a new Cold War, or another set of
Crusades. I suppose the Israelis will find life rather harder, without
all those corrupt Arab rulers they have been dealing with in private
since about 1973. But that is an Israeli problem – and the Israelis are
clever enough and ruthless enough to make whatever threats and
accommodations will ensure their survival. For every other Western
people, the loss of the Middle East will mean somewhere between nothing
very much and modest good fortune.
In the first place, there will be no disruption to the oil trade. Every
oil exporting country in the Middle East is as desperate for our money as
we need the oil. Whether the people in charge are secular dictators or
divine-right monarchies, or excitable young men with beards, the basis
for trade will remain. Oil will continue flowing out of the region until
scientific and technical progress provide us with more convenient
alternatives. Once more, this assumes that the Americans will behave more
sensibly than they did in Iraq or have with Iran. I suspect they will be
forced to behave sensibly, however. In Iraq, they lost militarily, and
its costs at home have contributed to an approaching state
bankruptcy.
In the second place, a much more Islamic Arab world will be less inclined
to sign up to all the global police state treaties. It will stop
co-operating in the war on financial privacy, or in whatever lunacy about
the environment may be in fashion. It will probably allow the sale of
proper light bulbs or of full-strength vitamin pills. Already, the
Islamic world is a place of refuge from the despotism of Western
governments. Northern Cyprus and Morocco both have growing colonies of
Europeans who are on the run with their children from the social workers.
An Arab Islamic world impermeable to Western influence is to be welcomed
as a place of refuge. And the removal of one more part of the world from
its zone of control will slow the growth of the global police
state.
This is not to say that the loss of the Middle East will destroy the New
World Order – any more than it has been prevented from emerging by the
non-adherence of Russia and China. But it is a question of balance.
Confine the global police state to the white nations alone, and it may
become less dangerous.
There – I have been brief and have said all that I can about Egypt. Let
us now see how many of my predictions come true.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
