Mursi’s lack of understanding of democracy

It seems unlikely that Egypt’s President Mohammad Mursi has read Thucydides’ famous record of the great Athenian politician Pericles’ speech when he describes democracy as the system of government that acts for the many and not the few, gives equal justice to all and regards merit as the sole criterion for office — and he does not even mention holding elections.

Or if Mursi did read Thucydides, he decided not to pay to much attention to Pericles’ inclusive principles as related by the fifth century BC author of the History of the Peloponnesian Wars, who has been called the originator of “scientific history” because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering and instance on finding genuine cause and effect.

The point that Mursi has missed is that democracy is not just about holding elections, but also has to include what a government does when it is in office. There has to be a broad social understanding that underpins the political system and that common base has to include the principle that all citizens are part of the nation and the government has a responsibility to all citizens.

Mursi is following a divisive agenda that promotes the policies of his Muslim Brotherhood over the wider interests of building a more inclusive political structure in Egypt. When Mursi took office, he was the first genuinely elected president Egypt had ever had, but he used that wave of popularity to entrench his party’s power. Mursi quickly formed a working alliance with the military establishment, some of his most vicious opponents under the Mubarak regime; he rushed through an Islamist constitution that failed to win wide acceptance and last week, he reshuffled his cabinet, adding yet more Muslim Brotherhood members as ministers.

Uncertain future

The turmoil of the Arab Spring posed a huge challenge to the Arab world, as it moved in a few weeks from being governed by predatory military regimes, whose main purpose was the maintenance of their own regime at the expense of the people, to a very uncertain future in which elections were only the first step and sectarian politics has dominated.

The Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt is only one example of this. Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki in Iraq is becoming increasingly blatant in the way that his government favours Shiites over Sunnis and non-Muslims, which has finally led to a Sunni backlash and several Sunnis from the government are either wanted by the state or have joined the opposition.

Very few countries in the Arab world have seen routine changes of government, which include leaving the departing politicians in peace while not arresting them or investigating them for corruption as a matter of course. Only Lebanon has experienced a head of state leaving power routinely and relatively gracefully, although Jordan and Morocco have seen relatively calm changes in the executive.

The tragedy of sectarian politics is that very little compromise is possible. A Sunni political party is there to protect and support the Sunni population, so any Christian or Shiite has to feel left out of their agenda. And any party that is based on a particular sect will not have developed the essential wider manifesto that any government needs. There is nothing particularly Sunni or Shiite about building good roads, installing good telecoms, or welcoming foreign investment.

Inclusive politics

Politics based on different understandings of the role of the state allows for more rational political debate, which can lead to cross-party agreements and a more constructive national political life, such as the very common debate between those who want the government to play a larger or smaller role in the economy; or the government to offer either more or less social benefits to the less well-off. This kind of debate can be very emotional, but at least it can also be rational, unlike sectarian loyalties when they are politicised.

Of course, inclusiveness in today’s large nation states cannot match the Aristotelian ideal of mutual social acquaintanceship in a small city state, where everyone could meet regularly, and anyway Aristotle was describing a system of democracy that excluded all women and slaves from inclusion.

Even so, these populist ideas terrified Plato who ranted that democracy was no better than mob rule and giving governance to the ignorant and self-interested mob is what ruined Athens.

The modern British philosopher, A.C. Grayling points out that the way to avoid mob rule (or rule by referendum in today’s world) is the principle of representative democracy, under which elections appoint a parliament and government and then the elected politicians get on and do their work — only to be recalled by future elections when they will have to answer for their successes and failures.

He points out that this requires a free press, the rule of law with an independent judiciary and a well-educated and reflective electorate. Grayling is writing in today’s London and is content with the first two conditions, although he regrets the lack of the third. His opposite number writing about Cairo would have to be worried about all three conditions as Mursi tightens his grip on the levers of power.