Egypt in the Mirror of Two Revolutions

The American Revolution was the culmination of a number of missteps by Parliament’s colonial government which, taken together, treated the citizens of the American colonies as if they were inferior Englishmen, less deserving of the rights and liberties enjoyed by their fellow citizens in England. The revolution precipitated a war whose purpose was to gain independence from the mother country and its government.

Many leaders arose to help America gain independence, among them Thomas Jefferson, who provided the intellectual argument to the world for dissolution of the “political bands” that connected colonies and king, and George Washington, who provided the military leadership, and after achieving victory, remarkably surrendered his sword and retired.

John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Adam Smith were sources for the ideology that influenced the leaders of the American Revolution. And arguments for and against the government that was proposed in the US Constitution were debated in the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as argued in pamphlets published by contemporary political philosophers.

The American colonists were also the heirs of the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 in England which bloodlessly overthrew the absolute monarchy of James II and replaced it with a constitutional monarchy establishing the respective powers of Parliament and the Crown in England with a Bill of Rights. These accepted rights enabled the American colonists to engage in limited self-rule during the colonial period which gave them the experience to successfully legislate and govern themselves after the independence had been won in 1781 and formally recognized in 1783 by the Treaty of Paris.

Inspired by the success of the American Revolution, the citizens of France in the 1780s also yearned to be free from the oppressions of their monarchy. Taxation, crop failure, and a rigid class structure stoked the fires of civil unrest. But unlike the American Revolution, which began with a declaration, the French Revolution began with the storming of the Bastille. Unlike the American Revolution, which sought independence from the British government, the French Revolution sought to overthrow its government and to execute the king and many of the privileged class.

Unlike the positive leadership which emerged to guide the American Revolution to its successful outcome, the French Revolution was plagued by anti-leaders, the worst of whom was Maximilien Robespierre. He would become a dictator who unleashed the Reign of Terror that claimed 40,000 lives, most by guillotine, and in the end, Robespierre himself was consumed by the guillotine. Rather than "liberté, égalité, fraternité" – a government of the people and by the people – France exchanged the corrupt absolute monarchy of Louis XVI for the absolute dictatorship of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and a generation of brutal and dissipating wars.

These two late 18th century revolutions moved along very different paths that produced quite different outcomes, one of which was unintended. Why? Because unlike the Americans, the French had no experience with democracy or citizen government. There was no French equivalent to the English legacy of 18th century constitutional power sharing. While the American economy was restricted by British regulations, it yet remained a private enterprise system. The French in contrast were the product of feudal economy. Literacy was comparatively widespread in America versus France, and statesmanship within and among American colonies was so commonplace that holding public office was considered an obligation, not an aspiration. Privilege and class, in contrast, were substantial barriers preventing pre-revolutionary social responsibility in France.

When the revolutions since the 18th century are viewed in terms of their method and outcome, most have turned out like France. The reason is that the starting point for the American colonies was a constitution-based monarchy. It is difficult for an autocratic regime like France’s to transition from the unlimited power of the governor or government to the limited power of a democratic regime, but it is impossible for a totalitarian regime, which controls every aspect of private and public life, to become a democracy.

Moreover, the motive of the American Revolution was independence. That of France and most other revolutions was to depose a hated tyrant. Swept up in the passion to oust a current incumbent, revolutionaries find out only too late how hard it is to find a better replacement.

At the tipping point of revolution, an autocracy can more easily devolve into totalitarianism than democracy. Cases in point:

The overthrow of the autocracy of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917 briefly produced the liberal government of Alexander Kerensky to govern a nation of serfs. But the liberals of the February Revolution were no match for the bloody and destructive Bolsheviks. Ten months after Kerensky, Russia was plunged into a horrific civil war that brought about genocidal inhumanity on a scale not seen even in the French Revolution, thanks to Lenin and Stalin, and Russia slid into totalitarianism.

The autocratic Chinese Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek held sway from 1928 to 1949. Despite its corruption and incompetence, it was an American ally in the Far East during World War II. But China, like France and Russia, had no legacy of democratic institutions or self-governing experience. With the defeat of Japan, the excesses of Chiang’s government led to a civil war which brought Mao Tse-tung to power. Chairman Mao, as he was known, was the architect of the totalitarian People's Republic of China. During his 30-year rule, the revolutionary communists killed between 40 and 70 million people, caused severe famine, and damaged Chinese culture, society, and economy in a combination of brutality, incompetence, and fanaticism.

Likewise, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, whose aftermath was incompetently managed by Jimmy Carter, led to an Iranian theocracy, a mindless war with Iraq, and a regime worse than the Shah could have inflicted on the Iranian people. Iran has not completely shed its vestiges of autocracy and embraced totalitarianism, but its mullahs are moving the country in that direction.

.
Despite Obama’s embarrassment in admitting to American Exceptionalism, history proves the American experiment was unique. The current revolution in Egypt, therefore, is more likely to be a variation of a French revolution than an American one. Those in the Obama administration who have said that the crowds in Tahrir Square are the voice of democracy would do well to remember that the French Revolution did not produce a democracy. Neither did it produce a stable government following the overthrow of Louis XVI. In the 200-plus years after the American Revolution, France had a revolution, two empires, five republics and a quasi-fascist dictatorship. Egypt, during the same period, lived under two regimes – the monarchy created in 1805 and the 1952 Free Officers Movement that put Gamal Abdel Nasser in power. Since then Egypt has been effectively governed by military emergency law, which has not prepared the Egyptian people for self government or produced political parties, freedom of speech and assembly, a free press, the rule of law, and an impartial judiciary – all necessary elements of a democratic society.

In 1789 Americans watched the progress of a revolution against their closest ally, Louis XVI, whose decision to back the colonists with money, ships, and troops forced Britain to recognize American independence. As he tottered on his throne, there was little that America could do to repay his help.

Likewise, for the past three weeks, Americans have again watched the progress of a revolution against a close ally in the Middle East. Yes, Mubarak was venal, corrupt, and repressive. His net worth, estimated at $70 billion, was mostly stolen from American taxpayers who have provided Egypt aid over the past 30 years. But for all of his faults, Mubarak kept the peace in the Middle East, he suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood, kept the Suez Canal open, supplied Israel with natural gas through a protected pipeline, and has respected the Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty. Throughout regional crises – the civil war in Lebanon, the Iran-Iraq war, two wars against Saddam Hussein, and the war on terror – Egypt remained an ally, even sending troops to fight for the liberation of Kuwait 20 years ago.

On Friday, the news was flashed to the world that Mubarak had resigned – as a practical matter, forced out by a peaceful military coup. In the absence of a civilian successor, the country will be temporarily ruled by a military junta consisting of generals headed by the Defense Minister. Reportedly, the junta has committed "to shepherding the legitimate demands of the people and endeavoring to their implementation within a defined timetable until a peaceful transition to a democratic society aspired to by the people."

What will that “democratic society” look like? If a Pew poll taken last April is any guide, only 59% of Egyptians polled believed “democracy was preferable to any other kind of government” – second only to Pakistan (42%) with the lowest popular support for democracy of any country surveyed. Another data point should give pause to those expecting widespread support for democracy in Egypt: only 27% of those polled sided with “modernizers” while 59% espoused fundamentalism.

Other attitudes hardly reflected a country ready to embrace democracy: 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning people who commit adultery, 77% favor whipping and cutting off hands for theft and robbery, and 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.

Whatever else Egypt will be post-Mubarak, it will be overwhelmingly Islamic according to what the Pew poll says. This would explain why the Muslim Brotherhood has the unofficial support of at least a quarter of the Egyptian population despite having been officially banned for 30 years. Under Mubarak, the army suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood. If it continues to do so, how long will it take to shepherd “the legitimate demands of the people” toward “a democratic society aspired to by the people"?

Moreover, during the last three weeks when journalists recorded what the Obama administration confidently called “the voices of democracy” in Tahrir Square, some of those voices said they want freedom because freedom means making war on Israel.

The army may remain in control for a long time.

Whatever the outcome of the Egyptian Revolution, it does not seem headed for a 1688 or a 1776. It is not likely that the people who fill the offices of government in years to come will represent as pliable a partner as the Mubarak regime was. They will not accord the United States the friendship or regional influence it has had for the past 30 years. It will be an Egypt much less pro-American and much less pro-Israel.

Egypt will progress from dictatorship to democracy fitfully, if at all. It is the nature of revolutions to be unpredictable, and they often require decades or more before their outcome can be known with certainty.

Asked about the historical effect of the 1789 French Revolution, Chinese Premier Chou En-lai famously replied: "Too soon to tell." That will no doubt be as true for Egypt.