(BRUSSELS) — “Egypt is a key country in a region that is so close to and important for Europe. Egypt’s success would have positive repercussions on the region as a whole,” Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, said to welcome Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in Brussels for the first ever visit of an Egyptian president to the European Union headquarters earlier this month.
Europe wants to keep Egypt as a firm ally of the West after the collapse of Hosni Mubarak’s rule last year and hopes Cairo can turn into an example in a region that has seen considerable change since the beginning of the so-called Arab Spring in 2011. The EU and Egypt also have strong economic and commercial ties, the EU being the first economic partner and the first source of foreign direct investment in Egypt. For Morsi, who has been in office for less than three months and is confronted to a sluggish economy, it was vital to win economic aid and reassure the EU of his democratic credentials.
On the first point, José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, offered Egypt macro financial assistance worth €500 million ($647 million) provided Egypt signs an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. To sign that agreement though, Cairo will have to slash the energy subsidies that absorb a fifth of state spending, a measure unlikely to be very popular. The EU is also ready to consider a budget support operation of €150 million-€200 million ($194 million-$259 million) in support of an agreed economic recovery plan.
These pledges come on top of €449 million ($581 million) the EU has already made available to Egypt for the period 2011-2013 for programs such as job creation or vocational training for young people. This is not much considering the fact that Egypt is confronted with an important budget deficit, a huge internal debt and considerable unemployment rates. The Egyptian economy is in dire need of foreign aid, investment and tourism.
Morsi knows that the image of post-revolutionary Egypt is important for the country’s economy and for his relations with Western countries. In a first reaction to the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in Benghazi, the Egyptian president said, “We are eager to protect visitors, tourists, diplomatic missions, public and private properties. We are required by God to respect them and to be custodians of those visitors and we know that if one person is killed without justification, it is as if someone has killed all of humanity.”
He knows that Europe is seeking reassurances on the rule of law and democracy and the talks in Brussels included questions about a new constitution for Egypt. He took pains to portray the new Egypt as a “modern, civilized place,” noting that out of his five top officials, one is a woman and one is a Coptic Christian.
It seems paradoxical though that the first democratically elected Egyptian president needs to provide reassurances only three months after his election; this clearly reveals the European ideological bias and fear. Why should a democratically elected president of a country – as José Manuel Barroso and Herman van Rompuy themselves recognized – provide reassurances on the rule of law? Three months is much too short to judge a new government. It shows that EU governments still view Islamic parties with suspicion and question their democratic legitimacy even when they participate in free and fair elections and win.
This attitude is fundamentally flawed. A lot of these parties have nothing to do with radical and violent groups. These “Islamist” parties are all very different from each other, hence one cannot speak of an “Islamist” movement but rather of many different “Islamist” currents and parties. Europeans should stop putting simplistic labels and recognize the importance of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as the support the movement has from the Egyptian people.
It is important that Europeans understand the nature and role of some of these parties. The dilemma is not new for Europe: In 1991, when the FIS won the elections in Algeria, European leaders either supported or turned a blind eye to the fierce military crackdown on the “Islamists.” In 2006, when Hamas emerged victorious in legislative elections in Palestine that EU monitors deemed fair and free, Europe responded by refusing to recognize the new government. This time, Europe must do much better if it hopes to engage with the Arab world constructively.
For years, Europeans, just like the Americans, have had an intimate relationship with some Arab dictators as it was hoped that autocrats would adopt a liberal route and prevent Islamist parties from acceding to power. They did not care much then about democracy and the rule of law. In the framework of its Euro-Mediterranean policy launched vis-à-vis its southern and eastern Arab neighbors in 1995, the European Union was never able to forge a coherent policy of support for democracy. Instead, European leaders had always been very supportive of Hosni Mubarak despite his poor democratic credentials; the least they can do now is the same with a president who has been chosen by the Egyptian people.
European leaders apparently still find it difficult to accept that they do not decide on who their interlocutors are, but the Egyptian people do, and given a free choice, Egyptians may not necessarily vote for Westernized, secular parties. Europeans may prefer a secular party to govern Egypt but they cannot deny the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and its Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) of which Morsi is a member. The attitude of the EU toward the new “Islamic” government may prove crucial to the democratic future of Egypt: If the EU were to fail to develop cooperative relations with the new authorities, this would be interpreted not just as opposing the “Islamists” but as denying the right of the Arabs to choose their own leaders.
Another aspect of the debate is the tendency Europeans have to equate democracy with secularism. As a result, calls for Islamic constitutions are often interpreted as a desire to establish theocracies. But there is more than one model for relations between state and religion in the world’s recognized democracies. This also reveals a lack of knowledge on the role Islam plays in Muslim countries — not only is it part of the daily life of Muslims, but for many of them it is closely associated with justice and dignity. In a country like Egypt where levels of impoverishment are high and social problems countless, Islam is often viewed by the people as the only means to get their dignity back.
So, the first thing Europe should do is recognize that they have not always supported Arab democratic aspirations in the past and work to overcome the causes of this past reticence. Europeans have long favored stability over democracy. Events, however, have shown that dictators cannot bring stability; stability can only be achieved through democratic and accountable governments. It is time to let go of the defensive attitude — “Islamist” parties are necessarily anti-democratic and dangerous — and replace it by a more open and constructive attitude. Second, EU should become a force of reconciliation between Islamic democratic forces and secular liberal groups instead of seeing them as antagonistic. Third, it should provide economic and social support for countries, such as Egypt, confronted with severe economic problems and help them deal with youth unemployment and other social issues.