By Daily News Egypt
Scarcely a week on, the world has begun to worry whether Egypt’s revolution will amount to anything. These worries are not founded on nothing — establishing a democracy where one did not previously exist is not easy. And yet, there is so much more reason to hope than there is to fear.
There is a trick to democracy. This trick involves everyone wanting whatever they want enough to argue for it, but no one wanting whatever they want enough to fight for it. As simple as this sounds, it can be very difficult to get the balance right, particularly when fighting has thus far manifestly been the only thing that’s worked in wringing progress from a corrupt system.
But these issues have been dealt with before, and Egyptians have the benefit of a world of experience to draw on.
One of the guiding lights for American democrats is an essay known as Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison in the early days following our own revolution when Americans were arguing with each other over what type of government should replace the tyranny of King George. Federalist 10 includes profound insights into both the necessity and the dangers of “factions” in a functioning democracy. These factions may include groups united around a common economic interest such as crop irrigation or water bottling, or a common language such as Arabic or Nubi, or a particular religious identity such as fundamentalism or secularism.
There are two threats in regards to faction in a democracy. The first is that the factions may be so fractious and unwilling to work with each other that managing the affairs of state is effectively impossible. But the other threat is that the strongest of these factions, through seeking to advance their own interests without regard to the others, will take advantage of majority rule in a democracy to create a “tyranny of the majority,” in which freedom is no more present for dissenters than it was under an ousted autocrat.
Tyrannies — whether of the majority or of an individual — tend to insist on the existence of a phony national unity. Every dissenting voice is, after all, a threat to the established order in which the majority, or the monarch, rest secure. Under the guise of upholding this manufactured unity, individual freedoms — including the freedom to shift factions as one grows and changes intellectually — are eliminated. Dissent is unpatriotic and, therefore, illegal. This is how even the best revolutions can crush competing factions one by one and end up with single-party rule and “presidents for life.”
So what is the solution?
For Madison, “liberty is to faction what air is to fire,” and therefore any attempt to remove factions is equivalent to tyranny and unthinkable in a democracy. As long as there is freedom to speak openly, differing interests and differing opinions will assert themselves, because they exist. Instead of seeking to limit the existence of faction, what must be done in a democracy is that the effects of factionalism must be limited by channeling the energy of the factions into the machinery of state.
In a way, this is the essence of democracy. It is nothing more than a venue in which competing interests can be openly advocated, but then distilled into a sort of net common will, which is then acted upon by the state. When a fairly elected parliament is in session, the members represent a broad variety of factions. Resulting legislation, as a rule, gives no one everything they wanted, but everyone something that they wanted. For democracy to work, then, factions have to be willing to accept what is and always will be a state of affairs in which all solutions are imperfect and ultimate policy goals are never reached.
The fear for many observers overseas is that Egyptian factions, having had to fight so hard merely for the right to exist, may not be willing to accept a state of affairs in which fighting, and political advocacy, has to be self-limiting. Foreigners, more as a result of their own experience than as any judgment of Egyptian character, worry that a society in which winners previously took all may not be able to transform easily into a society where compromise is commonplace and government institutions are too powerful to be controlled by any one faction.
And yet, what is it that we saw in Tahrir Square if not a society that is ripe for democracy? What does it mean for factionalism when Copts and Muslim Brothers set aside suspicion and fear and literally link arms and defend each other in prayer? What does it mean for factionalism when Maadi neighbors cease bickering over who is responsible for upkeep of their building’s entry way and take turns standing guard outside against a horde of thugs freshly released from Tora prison? What does it mean for factionalism when 300 strangers take turns dying to bring freedom to their countrymen? Did the martyrs pause to consider whose faction would benefit most?
If Egyptians are not a people ready for democracy, then it is difficult to imagine who is.
Nor is it only the grand gestures and the abundant drama of recent weeks that provide reason to hope. What does it mean when, the day after the big show has ended and the cameras have shut down, tens of thousands quietly return to Tahrir Square with brooms, dustpans and scrub brushes to clean up after themselves, to partake in a sense of responsibility for public space?
If Egyptians are not a people ready to share responsibility for managing a country, then it is difficult to imagine who is.
As much as it hurts to think of now, and as annoying as it is to hear the foreign commentators fret about this faction or that one “hijacking” the revolution, please be certain that there will be those who will try to co-opt this new political energy for their own limited purposes. Factions exist.
But in response, I hope that Egyptians of all factions will cling simply and unceasingly to the true narrative of the January 25 Revolution. This is a revolution where your neighbors’ rights are as important as your own. Believe that, and you will have democracy.
