The recent elections in Iraq heralded change, not only for Iraq, but for the entire Middle East. But should it be a blueprint, or merely a sketch for the future in other countries? Democracy for all nations is a noble goal (if somewhat lopsided one), but one wonders if some proponents for change would sacrifice true change for speed and rapid deployment of democratic governments in other nations in the region. At what cost is an accelerated timeline for change effected?
Toward that end, Joseph Braude makes a compelling argument regarding free and fair elections in Egypt. He writes the nation cannot afford to have “free and fair” elections this coming spring, else it is in danger of falling into a deeper well of theocratic, anti-American rule than it currently is under.

Not for the first time, President Bush called upon Egypt in his recent State of the Union address to “show the way toward democracy in the Middle East,” and pundits want to hold the administration to its word. A Washington Post editorial in January hailed a group of anti-Mubarak protesters in Cairo and slammed Bush for giving “no indication that he objects to another of the fraudulent referendums with which Mr. Mubarak has ratified his rule.” Max Boot, writing in the Los Angeles Times, has asserted that there is “little evidence that Islamists are popular enough to win a free election in Egypt” and urged Washington to cut or squeeze the umbilical cord of aid to the regime “unless there’s real economic and political progress.” Throw the bum out, some argue, and let the chips fall where they will.
The desired ends of the Post editorial writers and Boot–liberal democracy in Egypt–are noble, and I share them. But the means they apparently envision–regime change through free elections this spring–would be self-defeating.

Braude goes on to say that opposition to Mubarak’s rule is as, if not more, theocratic and fundamentalist as the extremist opposition in Iraq. With conditions in Egypt, Braude says, Mubarak, himself a leader with a spot-stained record, might be in the best position to clean things up.

To foster a semblance of political balance in Egyptian society, political and cultural pressure must first be exerted from the top–a twenty-first century Ataturk-style project to undo the country’s decades-long tilt toward Islamism is needed. This means opening Egyptian broadcast media to progressive voices, not just religious clerics and the political establishment. It means advancing a secular humanist agenda through the educational system. It means opening the organs of state, from the judiciary to the executive, to the sort of exchange programs with democratic countries that bore fruit so profoundly in the Ukraine in recent months. The details of the project would best be left to Egypt’s liberals themselves, who know better than outsiders what they need to gain ground. But the central question has already been well expressed by Egyptian dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim, no stranger to the country’s prison system himself: “What, Mr. Mubarak, have you done to preserve the popularity of non-Islamist forces in the country?”

Mubarak’s response to increased American pressure indicates that, given the right motivations, he might be willing (and perhaps even enthusiastic) to enact more liberalized changes to the political structure in Egypt. Of late, he has demonstrated a more facile involvement in the Israel-Palestinina peace talks, whilst threats of aid withholding has Mubarak in a conciliatory mood, releasing political dissidents from prison that the United States has deemed useful and helpful for reform.

With Bush signaling that he intends to make the promotion of liberal democracy a staple of his second term, it would be a bad time to see one of the world’s more malleable Arab despots pass from the scene–assuming, as seems likely, that a replacement governing coalition gleaned from today’s political opposition groups would be worse.

By keeping a hands off approach in Egypt, at least for a couple of years, Bush would maintain the luxury of an ally whose words, if not actions, are aimed at not only remaining in the United States’ good graces, but also fostering an environment in which his son Gamal may have a better chance at winning an election. Gamal, as Braude writes, is far more accomodating a figure for democratic change in Egypt; his embrace of Western secularism, his uninvolvement with Islamist fundamentalism, and his political ambitions seems a far more approachable aim. Bush would be wise to wait and allow time to foster what free and fair elections would only undo.
Read the whole thing–it was a pretty fascinating and informative piece, despite my relative virginity with the subject matter.