Something in the rhetoric coming out of the West, especially from Washington, curiously resembles that of the ousted Muslim Brotherhood. The arguments used by the Islamists and Westerners alike seem to rely upon the same points about democracy, the legitimacy of the ballot box, and the right of free expression. However, when these arguments are shared almost verbatim by such strange bedfellows, one wonders whether this is just a matter of coincidence or whether there is more to this than meets the eye. The Muslim Brotherhood misruled this country, and it was thrown out of office as a result by the collective action of a nation determined to have a better form of government. Yet, as a result of ousting the Brotherhood from power, Egypt is now being maligned not only by the Islamists, but also by a cabal of Western and US officials who should know better. The question is why. The answer commonly given by Western officials is that Egypt was wrong to remove a government that had come to power through the ballot box. Another frequent answer is that by clamping down on Brotherhood supporters the country was wrongfully repressing free speech. What is so curious about these two answers, however, is the fact that they come from Western officials who should know that democracy is about more than just the ballot box and that even free speech has its limitations. The legitimacy of governments is a function not of the ballot box but of the right policies. No group can be allowed to abuse a nation just because it has won in the elections, and nor can it be allowed to be above the law just because it is in office. As for free expression, even countries with long histories of democracy have occasionally had to curtail it when their interests or social fabric were at risk. The Americans and their European allies have recently been trying to pressure Egypt into reconsidering some of its policies, or even reversing some of its decisions, especially with regard to the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood. Washington, which has cut back its military aid to Egypt, is particularly vocal about everything to do with the Brotherhood and its rights, and as a result we have been led to believe that Cairo's good relations with the West now hinge on what it does regarding the Brotherhood. If the government rescinds its decision to disband the Muslim Brotherhood, the US will be satisfied, we have been led to understand, and Egypt will receive its aid in full. If former president Mohamed Morsi is put back in power, the same line of thinking runs, Egypt will have the lasting approval of Washington. However, strangely enough the US and its European allies have remained silent about the attacks on the police and army in Sinai, attacks that must fit any definition of terrorism. We have also not heard much about the attacks on the Copts and Christian churches in Egypt that escalated under Brotherhood rule. Listening to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri's recent remarks about Egypt leaves little doubt about the path on which the Brotherhood was leading the country. Yet, all this does not seem to trouble the Americans. Is this because their concern for the ballot box and freedom of expression outweigh all other considerations? Or is it because, as one is more prone to suspect, they have made a secret deal with the Brotherhood that they would hate to see wasted? In other words, is the West, led by Washington, really concerned to defend democracy? Or is it rather concerned instead to implement secret deals and fulfil promises made to the Muslim Brotherhood behind our backs? The two issues that now feature most prominently in Western rhetoric about Egypt have to do with the ballot box and free expression. We should turn our attention to these two issues. In 1848, the French people elected Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte president of their second republic, but three years later he introduced an imperial system, styling himself Napoleon III, which he based on the legitimacy of the ballot box. How valid were Louis-Napoleon's actions? In Germany, the dictator Adolf Hitler also acceded to power through the ballot box in a legitimate manner. The rest is painful history. The Watergate scandal in the 1970s that ended the tenure of former US president Richard Nixon also shows that the ballot box is no guarantee that an elected president will meet high standards in office. Regarding freedom of speech, it is well known that the US, when the threat of communism seemed all too real in the 1950s, espoused the draconian policies often referred to as McCarthyism, which involved banning organisations, books, and even films that were suspected of being left-leaning. To this day, the French ban Nazi and other forms of hate speech, and they have placed every hurdle they can in the way of the extreme-right National Front. In short, democracy is a much bigger package than just the ballot box, and free speech is not as universal as the West sometimes claims it to be. In Egypt, like in any other nation, when millions of people tell the president to step down, the right thing to do is for that person to step down and to remain out of office. Washington's threats to discontinue its military aid to Egypt are nothing less than insulting, and they can only be motivated by ulterior motives, including the possibility that the US wants to keep part of an earlier bargain it has made with the Muslim Brotherhood. The recent rhetoric from Washington and its European allies suggests that they are willing to go against the wishes of the majority of the Egyptian people. No wonder, then, that this same majority is now rallying around the army and that Nasserism is making a comeback. Western views and actions on Egypt have been nothing short of disruptive, and they have seemingly been aimed at fuelling the chaos on our streets and in our universities. However, Egypt as a nation will continue. We will stick to our roadmap for the transitional period, see that a civilian government is freely and fairly elected, write a sober new constitution and elect a parliament that is capable of speaking for the entire nation. What the country will not do is accept the buying of votes, the exploitation of the poor, and the use of religion for political purposes. These tactics, and the Muslim Brotherhood that used them, are simply not acceptable.
