To be or not to be?

The revolution in Egypt

03 February 2012

The Arab spring, the Facebook revolution and the first free elections resulted in the disenchantment of many Egyptians who demanded a change in the system last January and led to more violent unrests at Tahrir Square. But is that really the case or is there another reason for the disillusionment of those who were hoping for the bright democratic future? In his work The End of History Francis Fukuyama (1992) famously proclaimed an end to the ideological evolution of political governance with the liberal democratic system triumphing over communism. Such a conception of politics facilitated the end of the Cold War and the transition to a liberal democracy which relies on certain universal values and norms. At that time countries all around the world implemented this system as the preferred way of governance in the process well known as the Third Wave of democratization. However, the regions of the Middle East and North Africa remained without any significant qualitative change towards democracy or liberalization in recent decades. The process of democratization in this region is failing and democratic rule there has not been sustained and eventually resulted in electoral authoritarian regimes. Samuel Huntington attempts to explain this phenomenon in his work Clash of Civilizations (1993) in which he argues that the inherent incompatibility of cultural and religious heritages of Western democratic societies and Arab Islamic societies is the primary reason why these two civilizations would be in conflict. Therefore, the implementation of democratic political system could not be possible in the Middle East. However, it may be argued that recent developments point to the contrary. The Arab Spring in 2011 brought a wave of protests around the region serving as the accumulated expression of dissatisfaction with the existing way of governance. In addition, they imbibed a sign of the desire for a change, possibly even a democratic one. Thus, the events of 2011 suggest that the democratic transformation might be viable even in the Middle East. In this context, the issue of whether the revolution in Egypt has any meaningful impact on the creation of a new power structure in the country comes into place. Discussion surrounding this matter, however, has been further complicated by the question of Was there a revolution to begin with? when in fact there are few evidences of a revolutionary change. That is to say, the previously established means of governance are still intact such as the substantial involvement of the military elite in the political decision-making and policy implementation. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that the change in the power structure externally imposed certainly is not a viable solution. The example of such an imposition of a new power structure is the

democratic experiment in Iraq. In contrast to Egypt, that transformation proves that the promotion of a new type of governance which is not driven by the society in question would not have a revolutionary impact. And the crucial questions remain: What condition should be present for a significant alternation of the political culture? Are there such conditions present in Egypt today? In conclusion, change in the power structure is not necessarily a product a revolution alone. It is neither the result of a foreign intervention of the domestic affairs of a certain state. What a revolution should actually stand for is a self-realised movement/ awareness of the society towards a transformation which potentially become a democratic transition. The current situation in the Middle East provides a starting point for this and a major case for analysis to follow. By Michaela Kurucova and Denitsa Raynova