Egypt's leader should have focussed on people
Only a secular leader can bring about true democracy, by instilling trust and fostering unity, writes Aylin Kocaman
I am not Egyptian. But I am writing from a country whose democracy has grown under the leadership of a religious party — from Turkey. I opposed with all my might the pretentious comments regarding my country from some representatives of the foreign press during the Turkish protests. I therefore have no intention of doing the same regarding Egypt. However, a Turk is without doubt the person who can best understand Egypt among all the voices on the outside.
Turkey is of course different from Egypt, but the permanent demand in the two countries is the same: greater democracy. For that perspective, I think there is a need for the Egyptian people and government to know the stages Turkey has gone through.
Last April, I met in Istanbul with Abdel-Mawgoud Dardery, Saad Abdel-Mawgoud Ahmed and Mohamed Abdel-Salam Al-Senousi, representatives of the Mohamed Morsi government from the Egyptian Freedom and Justice Party. They are very pure, civilised and modern people. Dardery spoke of fine and positive plans for the future and intended to change the country through various reforms. He was aware that Egypt had not entirely settled down, but believed this was possible with a bit of time and effort.
The Turkish example was always present in their ideals: Turkish democracy, Turkish economy and Turkish conceptions of freedom. Although this democracy and liberty was being questioned on the streets of Turkey at the time, even the current situation is still a good model for Egypt.
They wanted to achieve what the Justice and Development Party (JDP) had achieved in 10 years.
The system the JDP found itself facing 10 years prior in Turkey was a collapsed economy, very high inflation, a huge foreign debt, water and electricity cuts, an impoverished middle class, hunger and poverty. People could not find bread, oil or cheese, and if they did they could not afford them. All the coalitions up to that time had made similar promises, and yet every government always left an impoverished Turkey behind it.
Looked at from that perspective, the difference between Egypt and Turkey is this: when the Erdogan government came to power the public had been acclimatised to the internal situation for many years and had no great expectations. But there were great expectations of Morsi, who came to power with a majority following a dictatorship. The Egyptian people wanted immediate democracy, economic improvement, freedom and wellbeing. Even if reforms were made, they were lost in those great expectations. Some Egyptian people were not satisfied because the public was impatient; but the real problem was that the administration began from the wrong place.
Crises stem from a lack of confidence. And poverty. People do not produce or create at such times; rather, they hide things away. They feel themselves in a climate of war that savage capitalism brings with it. They cannot trust, or help one another or act for other people's benefit. The system seizes up. A broad lack of confidence is the sole cause of the global economic crisis.
Therefore, if you are looking for solutions to the problems such as economy and tourism, you need to focus on the people, not the financial statistics. And you need to focus on the greatest psychological need of a human being: the feeling of trust.
The Morsi administration should have focussed on that first.
Bahieddin Hassan's assessment in Al-Ahram Weekly last week attracted my attention. He wrote that Morsi had tried to convince people that Islam is the solution, but that he failed to convince them. Morsi may have failed to convince people, but that did not stem from Islam. Politics must always be secular. People must be able to think, believe and speak freely. This conception of democracy is the basis of the Quran. Only a religious leader can bring about such a conception of democracy. Not radicals or peddlers of the nonsense of bigots. A true, open-minded religious believer is needed.
Actually, it was an advantage for Morsi to have come as a Muslim leader. He should have used that advantage by focussing "on people" rather than policies. He should have been unifying, have shown he was open to all ideas, and to have attached importance to love and affection. He should not have forgotten that for many, Islam brings to mind the fear of radicalism and should have been as libertarian as possible to quell that fear. He should have wholly rejected all repressive policies. He should have given women more rights and stressed them at every opportunity. He should have persistently stated and publicly demonstrated that he embraced Christians, Jews, believers, non-believers, Shias, Sunnis and everyone. He should have given the public the right to be heard. He should have established offices to deal with the public. He should have shown he valued art, music and science, that he sought high quality as a Muslim leader and that he wished this for his people.
He should have inspired trust first.
Unity comes when the people have trust. The people will support you if they trust you. If they trust you, they will look for solutions rather than feeling anger.
That did not happen in Egypt, because the people had no trust.
That was the advantage enjoyed 10 years ago by the JDP in Turkey. A devout government came to power with a modern understanding. Freedoms were offered to all faiths and opinions. Believers and non-believers were all put at ease. That is how it had to be if we did not want hypocrites among us. Allah despises the hypocrite. That is why Islam forbids a system that produces hypocrisy. That is why the idea of democracy in Islam is one in which all can think and speak freely. An Islamic country run by a true Muslim is the most democratic country in the world.
Morsi should have used that advantage.
The Egyptian people must be careful! It would be a tragedy for Egypt if they collectively decide, "This is not the answer" and turn to a Marxist system or a never-ending series of military coups. A worse dictatorship than Mubarak's would be the likely result and this valuable country would sink into petty despotism. Radical voices are another grave danger: any administration that includes radicals would inflict terror on the Egyptian people.
They must think of unity. I have seen with my own eyes that there are people in the Egyptian Freedom and Justice Party who will heed their demands. They can draw up a new strategy and submit that to the government. Protesting is good. But a protester must always have novel and constructive plans. When plans are submitted, doors that are bolted fast will suddenly open.
They must also attach importance to unity. Disunited societies always fall prey to others. Conflict and fighting never end. Unity is what Islam commands of us. We must not forget there is a secret behind this.
Let me remind people at this point that of course the Egyptian people are more experienced than us Turks when it comes to uprisings. But if there is one thing I have witnessed in the latest protests in Turkey, it is that various external powers seeking their own interests can easily spoil your peace, security and development. They will produce solutions for their own interests, not yours. While everything works in their favour, you will suddenly realise that the alternative they depicted as a laudable goal for you has led to your downfall.
Disorder inevitably favours opportunists and weakens you; but unity means strength.
The writer is a commentator and religious and political analyst on Turkish TV and a peace activist.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
to Subscribe via email :
batavia-news-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
----------------------------------------
VISIT Batavia News Blog
http://batavia-news-networks.blogspot.com/
----------------------------
You could be Earning Instant Cash Deposits
in the Next 30 Minutes
No harm to try - Please Click
http://tinyurl.com/bimagroup
--------------
No comments:
Post a Comment