The bankrupt Western democracy in Egypt

Those who are unwilling to call the removal of Egypt's first elected President Muhammad Morsi from office by a military coup, in the very first year of his term, a "coup" keep bringing water from a thousand streams. Those who, looking at the crowds filling Tahrir Square who did not want Morsi's presidency, consider the military justified in heeding this voice, ignore the crowds gathered at Rabia al-Adawiya and in the squares of all Egyptian cities, which exceeded those at Tahrir many times over.

Quite plainly, they make an "aristocratic" distinction between the people gathered in Tahrir and the people gathered in the other squares. Aristocracy is a system in which the votes, views or participation of some sections of the people, even if they are the majority, count for nothing. In fact, the practice in ancient Greece, regarded as the cradle of democracy, was merely a system in which only the elite segments of society were considered the "demos" (the people), and women, non-Athenians, peasants and slaves could not participate.

The democracy deemed fit for the Islamic world until now has never actually been anything more than this. They make a clear distinction between the people gathered in Tahrir and in the Rabia al-Adawiya squares. That the military coup carried out by heeding Tahrir's voice is seen within the ordinary limits of democracy, while, by contrast, even the demand for legitimacy is not heeded when it comes from the other, is the clearest indication of what kind of democracy is deemed fit for the Muslim world.

Despite this approach, the attempt to pull the debate we are having into the context of whether Islam is compatible with democracy is a perfect example of shamelessness. As if those who overthrew a president elected through the normal processes of democracy by a military coup were Islamists. They are the ones who violated the clearest rule of democracy and displayed complete insensitivity toward it, yet they are also the ones who test others on democracy. What kind of hypocrisy is this?

Even before they revealed their stance on the coup in Egypt so clearly, we knew very well, but the Egypt affair has laid everything out much more openly. They are never interested in the development of democracy in the Islamic world. Indeed, if they are interested, this interest is only in the direction of democracy's being set back and obstructed. The reason is very clear. Democracy confronts them with a people who act of their own free will and whose preferences are in any case uncertain. This is a situation that demands constant effort and makes governing considerably harder.

Rather than such an adventure of democracy that could put their own interests at risk, it is far safer for them that these countries be ruled by one-man rulers, dictators, or elites brought to the fore in an environment where an illusion of democracy has been created. That is why, instead of a Morsi elected by the people, it is much easier for them to deal with rulers and dictators installed by a military coup that they themselves support. There is no rationality in choosing the hard thing when the easy one is available. That they conduct their foreign policy with the Muslim world in line with this preference while at the same time continuing to keep Muslims under democracy pressure only shows the dimensions of their hypocrisy.

They saw the military's overthrowing Morsi because he failed to meet the people's expectations as a quite normal procedure. As if the hypocritical situation they fell into on this were not enough, they also began to talk about the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, they simply did everything in their power at the level of government to make Morsi fail. During his term all of Egypt's foreign aid and IMF loans were suspended. Gasoline, bread and electricity crises that did not exist at all appeared. We are not even counting the resistance that the military, the judiciary and the administrative bureaucracy displayed on every matter.

All the problems produced in the Morsi period on all these matters were presented as the product of his incompetence in government. Yet the very day after the coup, all foreign aid began to be released, and gasoline, bread and electricity suddenly became abundant. Just like our 12 September people solving in one night the terror problem that had lasted for years. If we say that just as Kenan Evren solved that problem in one night, the Egyptian junta members solved it in the same way, I think we understand very well what kind of game was played.

Therefore the failure attributed to Morsi is in fact nothing other than an assassination or sabotage that they themselves conducted against him. The failure they attribute to the Muslim Brotherhood or to Muslims on this occasion only depicts their own bankruptcy.

What went bankrupt in Egypt with the coup is not the Muslim Brotherhood but only Western democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, or the political discourse of Islam, with the upright stance they have shown in the face of this open hypocrisy and fraud into which Western powers have fallen, have gained a very great advantage in building the world of the future; let no one be in doubt about it. In return, it was the Westerners who proved intolerant of the political consequences of Muslims being effective in the democratic process.

It is clear that Westerners are still not ready for a world in which Muslims seek and exercise their own rights, and what is being lived through is their crisis.

With this mindset, it will not be possible for them to emerge from this crisis without great losses.