The real politics of Egypt

When Stephen Walt visited the School of International and Public Affairs one month ago, an enthused audience received him, filling the venue to its brim. Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, is known to theoretically conscious Columbians as a major proponent of political realism—the idea that power and security are the preeminent forces that govern U.S. foreign policy. Columbians specifically concerned with American policies toward the Middle East know Walt as the co-author of a seminal text on the Israel lobby.

It’s impossible to say what fraction of the audience attended the event out of reverence for the professor or, for that matter, how many attendees were staunch opponents of his views on American-Israeli relations. What is undisputable, however, is that every attendee came to hear about realism, a divisive concept that has permeated our academic, professional, and social discourses. Realism has complicated our handling of all political issues.

This theory is continuously brought up at Columbia, from conversations in Contemporary Civilization on Machiavelli to history discussions on the Cold War. This constant exposure to realism has drastically altered my perception of politics and has presumably affected the political opinions of my peers as well. An internal conflict over whether to accept realism or reject its amoral brashness has affected my politics of hummus and obscured my sympathies with political movements in the Middle East.

As an Egyptian American, I’ve been inundated with myriad opinions on how things should be run in Egypt. I’ve absorbed conservative viewpoints about the ruling regime from diplomatic acquaintances in New York and in Cairo, critical viewpoints from political talk shows on private Egyptian satellite channels, and distraught viewpoints from citizens of the Egyptian diaspora in America.

I have come to simultaneously embrace and hate opposition movements in Egypt. These movements have, laudably, aired numerous human rights injustices committed by the ruling regime and flagrant violations of globally-accepted democratic principles. High-profile opposition leaders, such as former International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei, have drawn much-needed international attention to economic and social injustices within the nation. International sympathy for the persecuted opposition led to even more necessary criticism of the ruling National Democratic Party.

Nonetheless, opposition leaders have pinned all of Egypt’s problems on the 29-year rule of its president. While Egypt can certainly be characterized by blatant nepotism, a powerful class of oligarchs, and a severely defunct electoral process—all symptoms of presidential mishaps—the nation also suffers from endemic issues, such as poverty and religious extremism, that transcend power politics.

On Sunday, much of the world sat on the edge of its seat, waiting to hear the results of what many hoped would be Egypt’s first truly democratic national elections. News outlets ran hundreds of stories in anticipation of the vote, and think tanks dedicated lengthy studies to its implications. This hopeful frenzy was somewhat bizarre given that many credible sources projected that nothing was likely to change. The Project on Middle East Democracy released a report on the eve of the election citing numerous instances of corruption that had already occurred. Not surprisingly, the ruling NDP won a sweeping majority of seats in the parliamentary elections amid allegations of wide-scale corruption, violence, intimidation, and fraud. In total, opposition parties won fewer than 10 seats out of the 508 seats contested, and the Muslim Brotherhood couldn’t capture even one seat. Completely aghast at the results, the Muslim Brotherhood and the New Wafd Party have boycotted runoff elections for the 250 seats still contested.

We stand at an important juncture in the future of American-Egyptian relations. As the flag-bearers of democracy, Americans should condemn and underscore electoral injustices and breaches of democracy. Nonetheless, if we use the theory of realism, we know that security trumps all normative rights and wrongs. By buttressing the ruling Egyptian regime, America has protected a trusted partner in a highly contentious region.

There are solutions to this realist conundrum. Americans, individually, should take up the cause of Egyptian democracy and urge Egypt to seriously consider comprehensive solutions to the nation’s tangible problems. By properly dealing with education, poverty reduction, disease, and a general improvement in Egyptian civil society, the NDP would allay the concerns of citizens who have lost faith in their government. The State Department cannot simply summon better democracy—the U.S. government needs to start using more sticks and fewer carrots toward Egypt.

It’s unlikely that the discourse surrounding realism will end anytime soon, whether in favor of the theory’s supporters or critics. But this discourse should not prevent us from properly dealing with issues that should be apolitical.

Real solutions for Egypt will be found only when realism is removed from the table.

Rhonda Shafei is a Columbia College junior majoring in history. She is an executive board member of the Columbia International Relations Council and Association and secretary general of the Columbia Model United Nations Conference and Exposition 2011. The Politics of Hummus runs alternate Fridays.