Quick takes // by Ben FrankelReflections on a tumultuous week in Egypt
This past week’s tumultuous events in Egypt raise four questions: first, the United States, in the past, has preferred to encourage political participation rather the political institutionalization as the best way to democracy; this approach has failed, and we should try something else in Egypt; second, al Jazeera has made many contributions to updating — and upgrading — political discourse in the Arab world; its reporting from the field, though, has often occupied a place somewhere between overt editorializing and crude propaganda; the station’s coverage of Egypt is a case in point; third, Qatar is a feudal fiefdom which, one would think, would prefer stability ad predictability; yet, its al Jazeera TV station promotes not only democracy and openness, but also populist radicalism; what is Qatar’s game? Fourth, if Mohammad el Baradei believes he can use the Muslim Brotherhood to gain power, and then turn around and discard them, he should think again; as John Kennedy said in his 1961 Inaugural Address: “In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding on the back of the tiger, ended up inside”
The momentous events in Egypt dominated the week, and rightly so. Here are four quick comments on the evens of passing week in Egypt.
1. Advice to the U.S.: institutionalization before participation
The late Samuel Huntington correctly pointed out that the best, most stable political system is one in which there is a high level of institutionalization and a low level of participation.
You want a system in which the democratic institutions and processes are robust and accepted by all. There is a clear distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the executive, legislature, and judiciary; the rights and responsibilities of the majority and minority are well-defined and protected; the processes by which this political party or that one becomes a majority are well-defined and accepted by all. The loser in an election goes home without a fuss.
A stable democracy, however, also requires a low level of participation. You want people to delegate the decision making to their representatives, who know more about any given subject and who, because of their knowledge and broader perspective, are less swayed by fleeting emotions when it comes to public policy.
For Huntington, the United States is an example of a high institutionalization-low participation model. For him, the fact that only 50 percent or so participate in a typical U.S. election is not something to worry about — but something to celebrate. Satisfied people do not feel the urge to go and vote. The United States, does, however, have the mechanisms to accommodate a high level of participation should the populace want to express its preferences in large numbers.
The worst, and most unstable, political system is one of low institutionalization-high participation. Lebanon is a perfect model for this. Different factions have their own militias and they control their own parts of the country. If you do not agree with this move of the government or that, you do not wait for the next elections: you take up arms now and occupy a government building or two, or kill people in the neighboring village who belong to a different faction. A faction like Hezbollah is participating in the affairs of state to such an extent, it has not only its own army (much stronger than the national army), but its own foreign and defense policies. It starts a war with Israel when it wants to, it signs agreements with Iran when it wants to, and more.
