20-Democracy: Egyptian Style Part 2: The Two Views of Morsi

The BBC's World Have Your Say is a discussion panel with a moderator and guests (a varied mixture of local people and worldwide experts). If you don't like the sound of foreigners, this is not for you. I admit, it often takes effort to capture the gist of a native guest, speaking through a spotty cellphone from their war-torn homeland. And we all know about English fair-play; the makeup of the panel is implied. As they've covered this story, I find a stark difference between the emotion of pro and anti-Morsi supporters in the aggregate. Before military intervention, the anti-Morsi camp was wounded, serious, and detailed; the pro-Morsi side, adamant, vague, and loud. And after? One side is still loud, vague, and adamant. The other? Still serious and detailed, but also mostly silent and mostly standing with Sisi's Army.

Both share a deep desire to champion the fundamental property of democracy's veracity: the voice of the People speaks through the voting process; one holds to a past election while the other prepares for a new one. Morsi supporters claim legitimacy as if a single election in a country discovering the concept is enough. In this revolutionary time, Egyptians are allowed to shake this tree over-and-over until an authentic constitution can be established and the unique spectrum of their homeland is fairly represented by its leadership. Imagine a world with a new, viable, flexible, Middle-Eastern democracy. What we cannot expect is for them to do it like anyone else. They're Egyptians; they have a depth of history not easily fathomed. When was the last time so many of us cared so much for our collective fate as an enraged Egyptian standing upon the hot summer concrete of protest? Raw times birth this unique era.

Morsi supporters sound as if they cannot stomach another election. Why? Is there an agenda? Is it embarrassment? Is it simply faith? Could it be fear? The Muslim Brotherhood is one movement among many working to bring about an Islamic state in Egypt. After Sadat's assassination, Al Qaeda split from the Brotherhood because, until recently, the Brotherhood rejected the path of violence and embraced the path of democracy. Initially the Brotherhood said they would not run a candidate for president because they wanted to give the democratic process time to develop. When they changed their mind, they ran an unknown, American educated engineer named Dr. Morsi. He was such a dark horse, he was euphemistically called the “Spare Tire.” In light of their spectacular failure, will they join the growing chorus of outside Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda, chanting “Democracy is a Western plan to undermine Islam,” and reject their own agenda or will they recommit, stay true to their roots, and at least unofficially participate in new elections?

And were was Morsi's voice in all this? Imagine if George Washington was in Morsi's position when the military required a response to the demands from Tahrir Square. We all know he would not hunker down in defiance as Morsi but would have said something like, “Let us determine if I am held in confidence by the People. If I am not, then let Us determine who is.”

There is something inherent to the right of secular freedom that is required for a capitalistic democracy (AKA Western philosophy) to thrive – something about how the color of money removes barriers. Will Egypt, and for that matter Turkey, fall into civil war over the religious partisanship of a presidential term or will they continue to struggle for equality among all people and harvest the fruits of peaceful, Western prosperity?