Accordingly, Egypt has demonstrated extreme discretion in its conduct of foreign policy. Egypt was frugal in its engagements, restrained in its initiatives, and prudent in its positions. In several occasions, Egypt chose to become a tepid observer rather than an engaged partner. In other instances, it continued to watch from the sidelines and lacked the initiative lest it steps on the tows of others. The adopted policy can be described as a reactive rather than a proactive one. This is translated into a withdrawal of Egypt from its spheres of influence. Accordingly, the country’s influence dwindled and its international standing waned.
Egyptian foreign policy became obsessed with strengthening ties with the West only. Egypt has continued to be a steadfast ally of the United States. This approach was a way to ensure that Egypt is sheltered from the lamentable fate that other unfortunate countries had to endure during the tumultuous times of the post Cold War era. To “bend to the wind” seemed, in the opinion of the Egyptian policy makers, the sagacious option compared to a reckless confrontational approach. Relations with the West, however, came on the expense of that with the rest. The fact that Egypt overlooked other venues proved detrimental to its national security. The latest impasse with the riparian countries over the distribution of the Nile water is but an example of the consequences of this approach.
The evidence to the Egyptian retreat from the regional equation is abundant. The lack of initiative and engagement in the Sudanese file caused its worst nightmare to come true: the looming separation of southern Sudan. This possible scenario further entangles the complicated problems of the Nile basin. The Egyptian stance in the Gaza blockade puts it in an awkward moment with the Arab world public opinion, as it tarnished the image of a country acclaimed the leader of the Arab world. Egypt’s less than impartial position towards the Palestinian Authority constrained its ability to extend to other factions, and is translated into its incapacity to conclude the conciliation process between the Palestinians. Its open endorsement of one side of the Lebanese political landscape does not permit Egypt to play a critical role in Lebanon either. The Egyptian presence in Iraq is almost non palpable. In addition, the rupture of relations with Syria and Iran renders Egypt more irrelevant in the regional arena. The accusations that Egypt is subservient to the United States also alienated the country from several active players. Therefore, its ability to influence events, and to extend communications with all parties, has been greatly curtailed. As Egypt continued its withdrawal, others such as Iran and Turkey stepped in to fill the vacuum. Thus, Egypt cedes its once prominent position to other regional players.
2. In the Name of the Nation or in that of the Son
2.1. Turkey
As Turkey takes giant leaps in the international scene, an overhaul of the internal front is undertaken as well. Turkish politics was rife with shocks, reflected in a penchant for military coups. This has haunted political figures for decades, as the army intervened several times to depose civilian governments. As self proclaimed guardians of Kemalism and bastions of Turkey’s uncompromising secularism, their intervention was justified as an attempt to safeguard these principles. As the possibility of military intervention lessened due to European Union accession conditions, the judiciary began to take on this protracted tutelage mechanism. The judiciary declared themselves as staunch secularists, and declined to countenance any other vision. The judicial bureaucracy took over the job of system guardianship and made overtly political decisions. This was an impediment to political activities as the judiciary interpreted the law through a partisan lens.
Nevertheless, the burgeoning social consciousness set the scene for a drastic change: the Justice and Development Party dominating the political landscape. Faced with the continuous fear of a military interference, the party introduced reforms. This was declared not an overturn of the long cherished secularist ideals and Kemalist values, as much as an attempt to tame the army and thwart the specter of coup d’etat. Accordingly, the militarists became increasingly the subject of scrutiny despite their best attempts to turn back the clock on Turkey’s democracy.
The package of amendments to several articles in the constitution was to be decided in a referendum. This was one of the clearest challenges to the ideological underpinnings of the establishment and gave a clear mandate to the ruling party to reform political life. The attempt ushers in a set of amendments to: empower civilian courts, reduce the jurisdiction of military courts, increase judicial accountability, make the judiciary more attuned to the transformations by broadening its composition, and relax the reins of the judicial bureaucracy over the legislature and the executive branches. In addition, these amendments increase civilian control over government, and enhance the latitude of civilian leaders to legislate and govern. They also strengthen individual freedoms and promote human rights. Finally, they expand collective bargaining rights, curtail immunities, and make it harder to disband political parties.
Public debate and political discourse ahead of the vote turned vitriolic. Polarization and frantic political maneuvering were the common theme. The adversaries claimed that this is the current government’s attempt to cement its own ideological institutions, and to advance its own agenda. Tinkering with the makeup of the court also stirred concerns that this intends on chipping away at the secular state. With all the warnings, the results of the referendum allowed the winds of change to buffet Turkey. Despite the criticism that the ballot is packed with elements that should not be decided in sum, this is considered a significant step in tilting the political equation in favor of the national will. This also endows a democratic Turkey the ability to carry forth with a reckoning of its past, which was impossible with the hitherto assured immunities of the entrenched traditional powers.
2.2. Egypt
As the skies clear in Turkey, they turn cloudy in Egypt. Serious concerns float to the surface about Mubarak’s ability to fulfill his duties, with the recurrent relapses, and who will follow in his footsteps. Egypt is obsessed, nowadays, with the succession issue. With this in the background, the scene is prepared for the forthcoming parliamentary elections. This will be followed by presidential elections in the coming year. The former is considered a prelude to the latter, as the presidential candidates are required to seek the endorsement of the members of the parliament. As the parliamentary elections approach, the regime imposed restrictions on SMS exchange, sacked a dissident editor-in-chief of independent press, banned the broadcast of several satellite channels, restricted the ability of political parties to advertise their campaigns, continued to crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood members, and imposed a ban on brandishing their political slogans. The regime also amended the constitution to obviate judicial oversight, and declared any international monitors are not welcome. All these efforts lead observers to foresee circumscribed elections, whose purpose is to allow the ruling party to promote its candidate for presidential elections without obstacles.
Mubarak has not disclosed his intensions if he is seeking another term in the upcoming presidential elections. The predicament is amplified by the fact that there is no successor in sight. Unlike his predecessors, Mubarak has been reluctant to appoint a vice president. This inconspicuous position left analysts to scour for clues over the identity of the successor. The rumors abound that Gamal Mubarak is being groomed to carry his father’s mantle. These fears are confirmed by the latest amendments to the constitution, to determine the conditions on candidacy to the presidential office. These amendments stipulate that only high ranking party leaders satisfying threshold requirements could contest elections. Thus, the stifling provisions preclude any one to mount a realistic bid without the backing of the ruling party. These stringent requirements drastically diminish the potential pool of candidates. The fact that Gamal is one of few who satisfy the criteria is not a coincidence. The speculations on presidential candidates are thus constricted to either the father or the son.
This is not surprising in the Egyptian politics. The regime has always been impervious to change. Mubarak used to lead without relenting to any of the public demands on political reform. He continued to stress stability, even on the expense of the aspired-for-reforms. This attitude precluded any but cosmetic changes. The emergency laws continued to be in effect. No discussion on constitutional reforms and the reinstatement of presidential term limits was ever entertained. The morass of restrictions, security scruples, and containment policies, all acted to cripple conventional party politics. To conclude, Egyptian politics lack transparency with bitter cynicism on any prospect of change. This leads observers to voice their concern about the prospects of stability in Egypt.
3. Foreign Policy
This is an appropriate context to discuss one of the most contentious issues of foreign policy. In foreign affairs, there are two approaches: either to stand for the promotion of democracy, or alternatively to safeguard interests even if it entails fostering alliances with totalitarian regimes. The former implies that any administration should elevate democratic imperatives and voice opposition whenever it encounters serious violations to democratic practices. The latter is a pragmatic approach aimed to ensure the strategic interests, and is willing to overlook non-democratic behavior as long as other practices are conducive to achieving foreign policy objectives. The comparison between Turkey and Egypt sheds light on this dichotomy.
In this context, it is imperative to realize that democracy and prospects of stability are intertwined. If stability safeguards interests, then democracy promotion cannot be dislodged on the premise that it is not practical to pursue. The succession scenario, as planned, will cause a focal country like Egypt to be susceptible to instability in the future. The repercussions of that possibility on the region can not be remedied easily. On the other hand, the reforms will cause Turkey to enjoy stability and avoid the specter of coup d’etats. These reforms will not only benefit Turkey, but could act as a source of inspiration to the entire region as well. In this context, Turkey’s most valuable contribution is its synthesis of Islam and democracy. Turkey provides a pattern to be promoted and a standard to be emulated in the Muslim world. The steady advance of Turkish progressive ideals also exposes the unpopularity of the totalitarian regimes in the region and their legitimacy deficits. In addition, it provides a model where modernizers advocate reforms but preserve the traditional culture at the same time.
This is also a context to discuss whether the United States should seek allies who enjoy a degree of freedom that allows them to move and maneuver in the international arena, or obedient ones who concur without any genuine contribution of their own. Alternatively, should the United States seek loyal unquestioning allies, or can it rely on independent diplomatically inclined partners to promote security and prosperity in a complex world. The comparison between Egypt and Turkey sheds light on this dilemma as well. The latter is one that exhibits signs of independence as expressed in its diplomatic forays. The appraisal of its approaches caused some to conclude that a return to the halcyon days of close ties is untenable. Turkey is a rising star in the international scene, and is becoming influential in one of the most critical geographies: the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even though its policy is touting of controversy, the Turkish claim it is to the tangible benefit of their allies by affording them access and channels to actors they would otherwise be unable to reach. In this context, the Turkish swagger makes it a valuable asset and increases its utility. Obama’s administration’s international approach emphasizes diplomatic engagement and multilateralism. For an administration that puts a premium on these virtues, what is needed is not an appreciation of obedience but an encouragement of assertiveness.
