Just how democratic is the Egyptian uprising?

SEEING the crowds gathered in Tahrir Square calling for the overthrow of a brutal dictator, one instinctively sympathises with the people. It reminds us of uprisings in the past against tyranny: the Prague Spring of 1968; the Hungarian uprising of 1956; the popular revolution in Manila against Ferdinand Marcos and, more recently, the Green Revolution in Iran.

Many of those gathering in Tahrir Square would have deep scars from the brutality of the Mubarak regime: personally abused or tortured by the police; relatives and friends murdered. So naturally the international media reports from the square with unqualified sympathy for the protesters.

But is it not the responsibility of the media to report the events factually and accurately, and not be swept away by a tsunami of sympathy? News reports widely describe the gathering as a democratic revolution, but is it? It is being reported as representing every segment of the nation, but what evidence is there that this handful is representative of 80 million Egyptians?

My observation of the television reportage leads me to very different conclusions. While there were elements of the middle class in the crowd, the majority seemed to be ordinary working people, not surprising for a poor country. At any such gathering, we are used to seeing the crowds burning American and Israeli flags, screaming “Down, down USA”. However, here not one flag was burnt, not an anti-American peep out of the crowd.

Why? The answer, in my opinion, is discipline. I believe the crowd was well controlled by its leaders, who realised the importance of support from the international media and that such flag burning would be counterproductive.

When watching the crowd in the first days of the demonstration, we realised there were no women present. None. It was an all-male show in contrast to the Green uprising in Tehran of 2009, where women played such a crucial role. After about a week, however, suddenly we saw flocks of women before the cameras. While in Tehran men and women mingled, here the women were kept together in tight pods, shepherded by men. Significantly, all the women were wearing hijabs.

Now where was the secular component of the population? After all, a significant proportion of Cairo is secular. Among the men one cannot tell their religious orientation by their attire, but with women the hijab is the telltale sign. Where then were the ­secular women?

From my reading of the situation, a large, well-organised and controlled section of the gathering at Tahrir Square was heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, the only highly disciplined and organised political  group outside the Government. It took great authority to maintain discipline in this unruly crowd in the face of the brutal provocation of the Government’s goons and to control their reflex anti-Americanism.

So can the media describe this as a pro-democracy movement? Let’s see. Do they know what democracy entails? Does it simply involve dropping a paper into the ballot box? Remember the election in Gaza won by Hamas, which disposed of its opposition subsequently by throwing them to their deaths from multi-storey buildings? This is known as the “one man, one vote, one time” democracy.

No, democracy entails protection of the rights of minorities, the rights of individuals; the rule of law; institutions independent of each other – the executive, the legislature, the judiciary. And underlying all should be a constitution detailing all of the above.

So what will be written into the constitution? That girls cannot be coerced into marriage. That gay people are free to behave as they wish. That adultery is not a crime. That the press should be free and independent. That people can express whatever opinion they wish, even what may offend some as blasphemous.

That corporal punishment is abolished and preferably capital punishment as well. That members of one religion are free to marry members of another religion. That people are free to choose their religion.

Now, can the media put their hands on their heart and state that all those present on the square were devoted to the above? My guess is that a small minority in Tahrir Square would have supported such ideals – they are the true democrats – but that the vast majority would have been opposed to much, if not all, of these policies.

This, I fear, was not a pro-democracy gathering. It was united over one issue and one issue only. They all want Mubarak out.

The next step for the true democrats would be to slowly and cautiously guide the nation towards a constitution that enshrines democratic values.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel understands the treacherous waters the Egyptian people are in. Barack Obama doesn’t. His responses betray a reflex support for Mubarak’s immediate resignation rather than a focus on the process.

The key players now are the army and the Muslim Brotherhood, the latter being in a pivotal position to control the political process if it is rushed. Nor do they have to win the majority in an election to change the nature of Egyptian society. We see in Turkey today a minority party led by a charismatic and determined leader reorganising the society towards a more extreme religious orientation against the wishes of the secular elements of society.

Mubarak has led a ruthless regime, which tortured its opponents, suppressed opposition, was corrupt, provided limited opportunities and held the country back. But he did maintain peace in the region.

The alternative may be all of the above but no peace. The replacement regime may be anti-democratic, antagonistic to the West, an ally of Iran, an aggressive force for Islamic internationalism, a supporter of Islamist terrorism and a determination to become a nuclear power.

The importance of Egypt should not be underestimated. Nor the dangers inherent in the situation.