Let's hope something can...

http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2013/08/secularism-can-save-egypt.html

Secularism Can Save Egypt

Elections, the favorite American tool for democratization, until they turn out 
badly as in the Gaza strip, are widely viewed as the way out of the current 
impasse in Egypt. But they are most likely to leave one of the major camps—and 
both are important—deeply alienated. What Egypt should focus on instead is the 
formulation of a new constitution, employing it as an opportunity to seek a 
basic understanding about the future of the regime to which both side can 
subscribe. This is unlikely to be simply a procedure like free elections. 
Rather, it could be a principle: separation of state and religion.

In pondering what might prompt the pro-Morsi and anti-Morsi camps to reach a 
compromise, I thought of a line I heard from the reformers in Iran during a 
meeting in Isfahan. The leader of the reformist group stressed that he and his 
comrades were anticlerical but not against religion. He put it this way: “we do 
not want to force people to pray; we want people to want to pray.” When applied 
to Egypt, this dictum would be best satisfied by a constitution that renders 
the state largely neutral on religious matters. Thus it would not ban the 
consumption of alcohol, not penalize women who refuse to wear a headscarf, and 
so on. At the same time religious groups and organizations (such as the Muslim 
Brotherhood and even the Salafis) would be free—and even financially supported 
by the state in their running of private schools and their provision of social 
and medical services. (Those who think this violates the separation of state 
and religion should recall that in the United States, the federal government 
reimburses religious groups for about a third of their social services, and 
Medicare/Medicaid dollars flow freely to hospitals of various religious 
denominations.)

This approach would allow Islamic groups to feel free to promote their way of 
life without limiting the secular liberals’ freedom to pursue theirs, inasmuch 
religion would not be promoted as a matter of law but through social means. 
Such a separation of state and religion may seem at first a very American idea. 
However, it is not alien or even novel for Egypt. Over the last forty years, 
the Muslim Brotherhood was first oppressed and then tolerated, but it was never 
was able to draw on the state to promote its religious agenda. Despite this 
limitation, it spread its ethos by providing social services. Skeptics who 
might ask why they would settle for something they always had should take into 
account that in the past the regime tried to curb and hinder the religious 
groups; under the new deal they would be sure to flourish. True, the Muslim 
Brotherhood wants more influence and power. It can be part of the government 
and share in all matters concerning foreign and economic policy, on which they 
and the liberals are not worlds apart. Only religious behavior, they must learn 
to agree, is not going to be legislated. They may see the light once they 
realize that otherwise they will face continued confrontations, if not 
oppression.

At the same the liberals would find such a separation far from unfamiliar 
because they lived for decades under Mubarak in a nonreligious regime (despite 
Islam being the official state religion according to the constitution, with 
sharia, the foundation of Islam, serving as “the main source of legislation”).

If the two camps could turn an Egyptian version of the separation of state and 
religion into a central part of a new, shared understanding, and transform it 
into the core of the new constitution that is about to be drafted, then this 
consensus would be much more likely to work than the current obsession with 
fair and free elections. During the last election, the Islamic camp gained a 
majority, albeit a slim one. If elections are run next year, the Islamic 
candidates may lose some followers. However, while at the moment the Egyptian 
street welcomes the restoration of services and order, along with whatever 
relief the $12 billion in aid from Arab nations will buy, this high is not 
going to last. Next year there will still be many millions of young Egyptians 
without jobs, and the Arab countries will not write checks forever. The bloom 
will soon be off the new regime.

Hence the more the United States makes the holding of new elections the 
criterion of a “good” Egypt, the more greater the chance that Washington will 
face the same issues we are facing now: an Islamic government chosen by the 
majority of the voters, which will clash with the military and the liberal 
minority. If we can help both camps to agree to let the Islamists promote their 
version of the proper conduct and life through voluntary means, and the liberal 
pursue theirs, we may be able to help Egypt find a lasting basis for an 
inclusive regime. Such a regime could focus on economic issues, beginning with 
the restoration of large-scale tourism, which is to Egypt what oil is to Saudi 
Arabia. Tourism will no longer hampered by the Islamic threat of imposing 
gender-segregated beaches, full-body swimsuits, requirements to show marriage 
licenses when booking a hotel room, banning the use of alcohol and other such 
measures. And if stability is restored, true investment—rather than 
donations—will flow again from outside sources. Egypt will still face many 
challenges, but at least it will have a prayer—albeit not one anyone will be 
forced to make.


-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to