Egypt's revolution was brought about by Egyptian people, who should now be suspicious of offers of Western aid, writes Sajida Tasneem* As Egyptians continue their struggle for democracy one month after former president Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down on 11 February, the unleashing of the democratic process in Egypt has challenged just about every cultural and political stereotype prevalent in the West about Arab people and the Middle East. The "chaotic", "irrational", "weak" and "politically inept" people of the Orient, once deemed incapable of bringing "order" and considered "incompatible" with democracy, have now not only managed to topple a dictator and pave the way for crucial political and constitutional reforms, but just as significantly they have also managed to achieve this by themselves without the help of the charitable hand of the West. Of course, no one should be surprised to hear that real democracy emerges through the power of the demos, or that it manifests itself from within the society by seeking representative government, accountability and social justice. No one should be surprised, either, to learn that its purpose is to serve the people and not the greed of foreign powers. The emerging democracy in Egypt conforms exactly to these criteria, being made in Egypt by the people and for the people. It is not being accomplished as a result of humanitarian help from the West in the form of UN resolutions, condemnations by world leaders, sanctions, arms-embargoes, NATO no-fly-zones, bombings, invasions, or any other assaults on national sovereignty. On the contrary, it is a movement that Egypt's people have made themselves, the result of cumulative and tireless efforts over the years by pro-democracy and human-rights activists, many of whom have endured beatings, torture, imprisonment and even death at the hands of Egypt's State Security forces. Yet, despite the fact that the Egyptian people are the legitimate agents and subjects of their struggle for justice, the mainstream neo-colonial political narrative in the West continues to propagate the belief that they need Western help in the transition to democracy. Indeed, since the protests began on 25 January this year, we have witnessed numerous self-important calls by Western politicians, commentators and media alike as to what the West can do to "help" Egypt in its struggle for democracy. The US has offered its expertise and money, we are told, and Western leaders have been doing their best to ensure that Egypt remains free of future tyrannical rule. The West is acting to ensure that the forces of democracy in Egypt are not hijacked by Islamist fundamentalists. British Prime Minister David Cameron visited Egypt last month with an entourage of arms dealers in tow because he wanted to "make sure that this is a genuine transition from military rule to civilian rule". This week British Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke of the "welcome progress towards democratic transition in Egypt and Tunisia", and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking with Egypt's new Prime Minister Essam Sharaf last Sunday, reassured the world of US support for Egypt's democracy. On the same day French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé visited Egypt, announcing his admiration for the Egyptian people and promising French aid and support. Yet, all this "helping" and "making sure" should not be allowed to fool anyone into believing that the West has suddenly begun to care about the freedom, dignity and aspirations of the Egyptian people. In their quest for global domination, the Western power bloc, led by the US during the post-colonial era, has supported corrupt, repressive regimes in the region, such as those of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and former president Zein Al-Abidine bin Ali in Tunisia, and in return for aid or oil deals in the desert, as in the Libyan case with Muammar Gaddafi, it has repressed democracy in these countries. As events continue to unfold both in Egypt and in the wider region, we will witness more opportunistic offers of support and assistance that are intended to guarantee that whoever comes to power remains a pliant ally of the West. Any really democratic government, whose aspirations would undoubtedly conflict with Western interests, will be kept at bay. The aid being offered to Egypt is not a humanitarian gift without the usual terms and conditions of compliance that such aid entails. On the contrary, these gestures are very much part of business as usual. They do not represent any fundamental change in the objectives behind Western foreign policy, but simply a shift in strategy. In this vein, Britain and the US will continue to bestow humanitarian favours upon Egypt, such as their efforts to evacuate hundreds of Egyptians stranded in Libya. When analysts, experts, politicians, and academics of all sorts line up to discuss whether Egypt and the Middle East is "ready" for democracy, creating panic over the possible "power vacuum" that Al-Qaeda could be standing ready to fill, such favours will be called in to legitimise interference. A case for some sort of intervention is being mooted should radical Islamist elements seize power, even though this seems unlikely to happen given that the mass protests were not underpinned by religious fervour. The protests in the region have not been driven by "mad mullahs": there has been no anti-US sentiment, no burning of US flags, no death-to-Israel chanting, and local branches of Starbucks have not been set alight. The Egyptian and other uprisings had nothing to do with radical Islamist elements or Al-Qaeda. Instead, Egypt's revolution has a popular base inclusive of all segments of society and cutting across class, religious, age, urban-rural and gender divisions. The demands of the protesters were not for Sharia law or clerical rule. What they wanted was an end to social injustice and growing economic disparity. While the West's neo-colonial civilising mission is likely to continue, in Egypt we are unlikely to see the kind of military humanitarian interventionism that was seen in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. In these latter countries, over the past two decades and under the pretext of saving the world from Al-Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction, or protecting peoples from their despotic rulers and genocide, the West has been trying to bring about liberty through bombing campaigns. Now, however, given that the global financial crisis has strained Western military budgets and there is a lack of international and domestic support for more such interventions, the West will likely use more subtle strategies in finding partners to promote its interests. Whilst it is nice of our former colonial masters to be thinking of the best interests of the natives when they say they now want to help Egypt, it is rather presumptuous, to say the least, to suppose that Egypt's 83 million inhabitants are asking for Western help or interference in their struggle for justice, when clearly they are not. It is noteworthy that both during the uprising and during the activist struggles in the months and years leading up to it, Egyptian people did not come to the West beggar bowl in hand, kneeling at its feet and asking for democracy to be dished out to them. Indeed, no individual or group ever asked the West to condemn the regime's use of force against the protesters during the uprising or its human-rights abuses perpetrated during the past 30 years of brutal oppression. They did not ask the West to help them overthrow Mubarak, and we are not hearing cries by Egyptians asking for Mubarak and members of his corrupt regime to be brought to justice in international courts. When the Swiss government announced that it had frozen Mubarak's assets, it was not at the request of Egypt's interim rulers. The Egyptian prosecutor-general issued his own order on 28 February that froze the assets of Mubarak and his family and prevented them from travelling outside Egypt. Even though it is well known that the Mubarak family has amassed huge wealth in the UK, no request has been made to Cameron to freeze their assets. Whether or not this is a political strategy on the part of Egypt's interim military rulers, it nevertheless reflects popular sentiments rejecting any kind of interference by the West. Egyptians are less than appreciative of such help because they are well aware of the hypocrisy and track record of the West in cases where it has interfered to the detriment of the people it is supposed to be helping. This happened in Afghanistan, for example, where Western efforts to support democratic elections led in the end to the glorified war-lord Karzai regime. On a more fundamental level, however, the Egyptians have not asked for Western help because they understand democracy better than the so-called heirs of democracy themselves. They know that it is nonsensical to believe that democracy can somehow be "exported" to people in the form of foreign aid, arms deals, sanctions and no- fly zones. While Egypt has a long way to go in dismantling the apparatus of a corrupt regime, Egyptians are not looking for international sympathy. They believe that they can make their own destiny, which is not one approved and decided on by Washington, Brussels or the UN. The American politician William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) once said that "destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved." Likewise, democracy is something that has to be achieved by the people, not waited for in the form of arms deals and conditional foreign aid. The West will continue to keep its fingers in the pie, and it is certainly on the lookout for a suitable horse to back in the forthcoming elections. However, Egyptians are a smart, pragmatic, politically astute people striving to make their own history. Both Egypt and Tunisia have made it more apparent than ever that democracy does not have a western copyright, and nor are Western nations the protectors of democracy. As the sands continue to shift in the region and new political landscapes are formed, a clear message is being sent to both the West and the prospective rulers of the new Egypt: Egypt's soul is not for sale. * The writer is a political analyst.
