What's The Matter With Egypt?

If you've walked past a TV even for a single second in the last week, you probably know that there is rioting in Egypt.    Mubarak, a dictator and a general who runs the country through use of a police state, is in power now but will soon allow elections in which he will not participate.  This has happened because of largely peaceful (on the protesters side, at least) shows of civil disobedience that has undermined his regime. 

Is this not a great thing for the United States?  After all we are fighting two wars to bring democracy to two other Arab countries, all the better if a third one changes without a shot fired.  Doesn't this even redeem Bush who believed that planting a democracy in the middle of the region would create a "domino effect"?   Well, not really and that's where things get confusing. 

Mubarak is a US ally and tempers his people's more Islamic leanings.  The Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group associated with both Hamas and Hezbollah, is the largest opposition party in the country.  A democratic movement that installs a theocracy that is hostile to the West could well cause even more problems for the US.  Although Bush would have us believe otherwise, just because a country is democratic does not mean they will be aligned to the interests of the US.   We have often made common cause with dictators and autocrats against democracies: Louis XVI against Parliamentary Britain during the revolution, Napoleon against Duke Wellington in 1812, Tsar Alexander against the Brits in the Civil War, Russia was with us in WW2 while democratic Europeans such as Switzerland sat it out.  

But is this not at least a win for the people of Egypt since they will depose of a dictator and at least have a theocracy that they have democratically decided upon?  Governments only exist for one legitimate reason and that is to ensure the natural rights of their people.  Natural rights spring from our humanity, not from government but government is one of the best ways to ensure that these rights are not infringed upon.  However, if a poplar theocracy does spring up it will likely trample the rights of females, religious minorities and homosexuals in that country.  A government cannot rule by pure majoritarianism, because the majority will sometimes seek to oppress minorities and that is the fear in Egypt.  

Unfortunately, inculcating the idea of natural rights into a region is even more difficult than installing a democracy.  Forcing a country to accept the precepts of Western-style natural rights best exemplified in the Constitution is a contradiction of terms at best and a recipe for disaster at worst.  Much of the third world rejects these rights without understanding that that is the reason that they remain part of the third world. 

UPDATE:  As this column "goes to press", it is being announced that Mubarak is being removed prior to the scheduled election in which he vowed not to participate.  What will replace him is unknown at this time other than the military are taking charge.  With neither the people nor the military having a record of respecting the natural rights of the people, it is hard to determine which is the better option.  Although the liberals will be quick to claim cultural imperialism if we attempted to spread the idea of natural rights as codified in the Constitution, they will wring their hands when the oppression begins. 

Although America continues to struggle with its commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can all take heart in that we are able to have that discussion.  Although it is cliche, everyone born in this country and throughout most of the West essentially won the lottery by being born into a country where natural rights are a cornerstone of jurisprudence.