Double Standards
Friday of Rejection
Supporters
of deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi take part in a protest
during Friday prayers at the Raba El-Adwyia mosque square in Cairo
(Photo: Reuters)
"This is your democracy! This is your justice!Those are the risks of Western journalists found wandering about on the streets of any Egyptian city today, eager to ask the opinion of any Egyptian they may find wandering about, proficient in English, and willing to divest him/herself of an opinion. In this instance, out came a strident, aggressively blaming accusation.
"Why do you western people feel differently about democracy when it involves eastern people? We want an answer. We demand an answer. Our leader wins an election and is overthrown. And the West is silent.
"The West always talks about rights. Well, what about our rights? There is a double standard here."
Sabr Mohammed, Cairo schoolteacher
The thing of it is, 'the West' cannot win for losing in 'the East'. Become involved and the West, or any representatives of western interests, becomes bitterly accused of interfering in the sovereign issues besetting the East. Take, for example, those 'interferences' like the 1990 Desert Storm interference when most of the Middle East urged the United States and its allies to defend Kuwait from Iraq's invasion.
On the opposite end of the spectrum to Desert Storm where the Middle East loved the interference, there was the invasion of Iraq to free Iraqis from the tyranny of its dictatorial murderer Saddam Hussein. An unfortunate decision, actually, that under the feeble pretext of 'weapons of mass destruction' infamy, vicious sectarian hatred between Sunni and Shia was unleashed in a gory civil war. Still ongoing. Hell unleashed refuses to dissipate.
And then, of course, before that there was and remains as yet Afghanistan, and the West's complex, uneasy relationships with Pakistan, with Iran, with Saudi Arabia, with Libya, where yet another interference resulted in the removal of yet another tyrant whom his Libyan enemies were able finally to compulsively mutilate until death embraced and released him from their vengeful celebrations.
As to the angry charges and accusations by the Muslim Brotherhood supporter Sabr Mohammed, this was not the democracy of the West; it was most decidedly an Eastern-type democracy which the West hopefully looked with favour upon, in the expectation that things would eventually turn out for the best.
It was, after all, what Egyptians themselves chose, and as it happened, what occurred over the year that Mohammed Morsi ruled Egypt as its Brotherhood president was to give evidence that Islamism and democracy meld as neatly as oil and water.
The disappointed Brotherhood supporters should invest themselves in demanding an answer from their Brotherhood leaders, not the occasional visiting Western journalist eager to hear from the proverbial horses' mouths what their opinions are.
The first thing they should ask is why a government that purported to be democratic simply because it was elected by a ballot box exercise in civil behaviour, thought it should serve the entire country by monopolizing power to reflect its rigid theocratic ideology. Bypassing democratic inclusion of other ideologies and religious and political verities.
And why it felt that this was far more important, to consolidate power and enshrine Sharia law in the constitution, and render unto Morsi what Caesar himself could not achieve, rather than apply themselves to the imperative of advancing Egypt's economy, production, employment, food supply, energy availability, and civil structure; the most vital under the circumstances of high crime being internal security.
Rather than, say, make polite reconciliatory overtures to Iran which is threatening regional stability and security throughout the Middle East and beyond, even while condemning Syria's butchering of its own people.
Labels: Democracy, Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, Revolution
posted by Pieface @ Saturday, July 06, 2013
<< Home