Vote Like an Egyptian?

“The election of a president will be through direct, secret balloting, giving the chance for political parties to run for the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to choose among them with their own will,” he said. “If it happens, it would be the first time in the political history of Egypt that a chance is given to somebody who is capable of shouldering the responsibility to protect the people’s achievements and future security, to come forward. I took the reins of this initiative in order to start a new era.”

Al Ahram, a newspaper closely aligned with Mubarak’s government, touted the speech. The headline, in red ink for the first time, blared: “Egypt Starts a New Era on the Path of Reforms.” An analysis in Al Ahram Weekly declared, “Mubarak’s statement should be seen as nothing short of a declaration of a second republic.”

It was certainly a dramatic reversal. Mubarak has long downplayed talk of meaningful political and constitutional reform. And yet his speech and the historic developments that it could portend were eclipsed almost immediately by coverage of the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. It’s a pretty good week for human freedom when the announcement of multi-party elections in Egypt is the second biggest story.

In many respects, Egypt provides a better test case of the Bush administration’s commitment to democracy in the region. To encourage change in Lebanon requires the administration to confront Syria publicly and forcefully, which it is inclined to do anyway for a number of reasons. After all, Syria continues to support terrorist groups, and Bush administration officials are convinced that Damascus was behind the February 14 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and the February 24 suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. When CENTCOM published a new version of its Iraq Most Wanted list on February 11, seven of the 28 men listed were said to be “hiding in Syria.” Confronting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria was unavoidable and probably overdue.

Egypt is considerably more complicated. Mubarak has long been considered a U.S. ally. Successive administrations have willingly overlooked human rights abuses there in the name of regional stability. To further the same, both Democratic and Republican administrations have given Mubarak’s regime vast sums of taxpayer money to prop up a stagnant, quasi-socialist economy that has been crumbling for decades.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian sociologist and democracy advocate, says Mubarak’s regime has successfully played three cards to keep Washington as its benefactor. “First, the Egyptian regime claims that the Islamists will win if we democratize. Second, it’s a trade-off–Egyptian aid for Mubarak’s help with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. And third, economic liberalization is a priority–we must have economic liberalization before political reform.” Ibrahim calls these “bluffs,” but they were enough for Americans to continue their wink-and-nod diplomacy with Mubarak. “No other dictator has received more American support,” Ibrahim adds.

All the while, Mubarak has ruled under the emergency law in place since the assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981. Elections in Egypt have been a joke. The presidency is decided every six years in a national referendum–with the candidate (singular) chosen by Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic party and voters given a “yes” or “no” option. Ibrahim was jailed for 14 months after threatening to monitor the 2000 parliamentary elections. His case drew international attention and even protests from the United States. But U.S. aid kept flowing–reaching some $2 billion a year.

On January 20, Bush delivered his second inaugural address. “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world,” he declared. In a speech on January 29, Mubarak rejected as “futile” calls from the Egyptian opposition to amend the constitution to allow multi-party, competitive elections. On the same day, Egyptian authorities arrested Ayman Nour, a colleague of Ibrahim’s and the leader of the new Al Ghad (Tomorrow) party.

Mubarak’s timing was not good. The following day, nearly nine million Iraqis braved attacks to vote in their historic elections. And on January 31, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher expressed “concern” about Nour’s detention and his health. “He is one of Egypt’s most prominent opposition leaders,” said Boucher, “and the arrest, in our mind, raises questions about the outlook for democratic process in Egypt.”

In his State of the Union speech on February 2, Bush shined a spotlight on Egypt. “The great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.” (The line was recycled from Bush’s speech at the National Endowment for Democracy on November 6, 2003. But its prominence in the State of the Union was noted in Egypt.)

On February 15, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hosted Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit. At the press conference after their meeting, Rice said that she had expressed “strong concerns” about Ayman Nour’s detention and noted that she addressed the subject in private “at some length.”

But the news from the press conference came in Rice’s answer to the final question. Rice had been scheduled to attend a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on March 3. According to an account in Al Ahram Weekly, Gheit had repeatedly told reporters that Rice had no plans to skip the meeting. But a reporter from the weekly put the question directly to Rice: “Are you going to Cairo?” She responded: “Our delegation has not yet been decided, but I’ll get back to you, how’s that? ”

Rice subsequently made clear that she would not attend the Cairo conference–which was to cover reform and liberalization in the region–so long as Nour was held. She did not attend.

Mubarak’s pledge to reform has sparked new debate in Washington–both inside and outside of the Bush administration. What is the best way to ensure that Mubarak follows through on his high-minded rhetoric? Some officials favor a hands-off approach to Egyptian reform, reasoning that Mubarak will be more likely to make good on his promises if they are not seen as directed, or even inspired, by Washington. Others disagree, arguing that the U.S. government should push now to take advantage of the strong regional momentum for reform.

One Egyptian reform advocate argues that Bush should be outspoken about the need for change. He points to the widespread coverage of Bush’s line on Egypt in the State of the Union. “He should say this in every speech. He can say it even after a Social Security speech, at the end.” He begins mimicking Bush’s voice. “Thank you very much. And, oh, by the way, ‘The great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.’ It gets attention. Al Jazeera will show it. Al Arabiya will show it.”

Saad Ibrahim wants Bush to go further. “Condition your aid on a democratic timetable,” he says. Ibrahim, who has put himself forward as a challenger to Mubarak in the September elections, has called for additional reforms, including a two-term limit on the presidency and the lifting of emergency law.

“The devil is in the details,” cautions one Egyptian liberal. True enough. There is a long way to go. In a background briefing with reporters late last week, one senior Bush administration official signaled a willingness to hold Mubarak to his word and to press him for further reforms. “It’s a very significant change. We don’t view it as a symbolic step, we view it as a very important first step,” said the official. “But there have to be follow-on steps to the announcement from President Mubarak.”

It’s worth noting just how far these discussions have come, particularly in light of recent criticism of the Bush administration and its alleged ex post facto justification for the war in Iraq. On October 3, 2002, as Congress debated the resolution for war in Iraq, the New York Times ran an article by Jane Perlez with this headline: “Egyptians See U.S. as Meddling in Their Politics.” The article detailed the “tense times between Washington and Egypt, the largest Arab country and an important strategic ally.”

And then there was this paragraph:

Perhaps she was. But it’s a dream apparently shared by Gabr, the editor who called the Mubarak speech an “electric shock.” Last week Gabr wrote: “The winds of change blowing through Cairo could sweep away quite a few regimes in the region. They will be faced with the march of democracy in the Middle East.”

Mubarak himself, on August 28, 2002, warned about the “repercussions” of a war to remove Saddam Hussein. “If you strike Iraq . . . not one Arab leader will be able to curb popular sentiments.”

He may have been prophetic.

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.