Ambassador Patterson … Americans deserve better - 2

In my previous article dated 26/6/2013, I discussed how I see hypocrisy in the American Administration policies in the Middle East. I stated that the current American decision-makers seem to have departed from Lincoln’s values when it came to policies related to the Middle East as they only see the business side of politics”. I argued that the Obama’s “Market Failure/Forces” approach that fashion the American’s policies in the Middle East is not only bad, but also a disastrous one for both the region and the Americans themselves. I finally touched on the support of US Ambassador Patterson for the Muslim Brotherhood theocratic government in Egypt.

A few days before the 30 June revolution, Ambassador Patterson stated that "U.S. policy in Egypt is based on the idea of establishing a democratic system where change depends on the ballot box, not on the popular protests that have no effect at the end of the day.” Patterson also was reported to say: "The United States will not say to Morsi to leave because he is not Mubarak. Morsi was an elected civilian president and he came through the ballot boxes after the revolution, but Mubarak was not an elected president, and his regime is not founded on democracy" [4].

In this article, I contest Ambassador Patterson’s argument as simplistic, and argue that Morsi had to go with´-or-without election.

1.Introduction

Removing a democratically elected official from office is not unheard of in the politics of democratic countries like Australia, USA, Canada and Switzerland. Removing of an official from office goes back to the ancient Athenian democracy as Aristotle in the “The Athenian Constitution” [5].
In 1975 the Governor-General “ Sir John Kerr” dismissed the Australian Prime Minister “Gough Whitlam” – who was democratically elected in 1972 - after the coalition parties in the Senate led by Malcolm Fraser used their numbers to delay passage of the government’s Supply Bills.

In 2010, the Australian Labor Party decided to remove the Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – a democratically elected head of State - and replaced him with his Deputy Julia Gillard. This was organised by a group of Labor factional leaders with the support of the Australian Council of Trade --union--s (ACTU). Ironically on 27 June 2013– three days before the late Egyptian revolution – the very same Labour party decided to get rid of Julia Gillard and return Kevin Rudd to the Prime Minister’s position.

In the USA, 19 states permit the recall of state officials including Minnesota, Washington, California and Arizona. These State laws allow the recall and removal of State representatives, senators, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, the state auditor, the attorney general, Supreme Court judges, court of appeals judges, and district judges. In 2011 alone, the USA had at least 150 recall elections. Of these, 75 officials were recalled, nine officials resigned under threat of recall, and 73 were held in 17 states.

In the USA, there are four ways to remove a state elected official from office including “removal”, “expulsion´-or-exclusion”, “recall” and “Impeachment”. The mother of all impeachments occurred in 1988/9 when the USA House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton on two charges, one of forswearing and one of obstruction of justice. The Senate acquitted Clinton in 1999. This is permitted in the USA for “malfeasance” – intentionally doing something unlawful´-or-wrong while performing duties of the office - “nonfeasance” - intentionally and repeatedly not performing required duties of the office – and finally “serious crime” committing a gross misdemeanor and involves assault, intentional injury, threat of injury, dishonesty, etc. I believe Morsi has done them all.

I acknowledge that the political system and tools in Egypt are different from those of the countries that I mentioned. Yet, the concept is more´-or-less the same, i.e. removing a democratically elected official from office with´-or-without the ballot box.

I also remind Ambassador Patterson that democracy is not a mere voting booth, it is a process that must be conditioned on a pre-existing democratic culture, which Egypt lacks at the moment. Such a process without democratic culture becomes a circus that is described as “democratic legitimacy”. Therefore I believe that Ambassador Patterson is confusing this circus “democratic legitimacy” with the real “legitimate democracy”. Democratic legitimacy is what has existed in Egypt in the last 12 months, where the Muslim Brotherhood won an election that was shrouded in suspicion and which gave Egypt a totalitarian Islamists government.

2.Was Morsi really a democratically elected president?

The argument that Morsi is a democratically elected president is evidence of the American Administration’s hypocrisy. It is well documented that Human right advocates, observers and election monitors raised concerns about the freedom and fairness of the 2012 election that brought Morsi to power. For example: The Carter Center had faulted Egypt s presidential elections, and stated that the voting process and procedures were obstructed by several factors. Carter said that “election monitors were not allowed sufficient access to polling stations”, and “international and local observers were intimidated”. "I am deeply troubled by the undemocratic turn that Egypt s transition has taken," added Carter [1].

On 7 April 2013, El-Fagr Egyptian daily newspaper reported that the Egyptian National Security had found documents sent by fax from the Muslim Brotherhood head office to Faiyum-Governorate branch providing evidence that Ahmed Shafik had won the presidential election [7]. Shafik complained to the Egyptians Supreme Presidential Electoral Commission (SPEC) – which was run by Hatem Begato, a former judge and a minister of parliamentary affairs in Morsi’s government - to review the presidential election results. Yet so far no steps have been taken to clarify the situation after a year from the election results.

It is widely accepted amongst Egyptian people that Morsi’s election process and procedure was fraudulent. Tarek Heggy – a prominent Egyptian thinker, writer and intellectualist – has published that the American Ambassador in Egypt told him that the American administration was aware that Shafik was the winner of the 2012 election [2].

Even if we agree – for the sake of the argument – that Morsi was a democratically elected President, his people are entitled to remove him due to what he did during his 12 months of presidency. Democracy doesn’t exist without the power of people to decide their fate.

3. Why did Morsi have to go?

During his election campaign, Mr Morsi guaranteed Egyptians that he would govern "for all Egyptians", but since being sworn in - as Egypt President – he is proving to be a President only for his Muslim Brothers, his “family and tribe”. He appointed people he trusted, rather than those who were qualified for his cabinet and advisors. Muslim brothers and Islamists now head all Egyptian institutions and organisations. Back in November 2012, Morsi granted himself unlimited powers, including the right to legislate without judicial oversight. He then pushed an Islamist constitution as the first stage of applying the Sharia law in the country. Morsi continued attacking the judicial system in Egypt, and removed the Egyptian General Persecutor (EGP) replacing him with an Islamist Judge, defying a constitutional court order to return the old EGP to his position. That’s why Egyptians believe that Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood belong to a backward culture and age, and no matter what they promise, they do not belong to a democratic system of governing.

In addition, Morsi’s economical management has failed the already sick Egyptian economy inherited from Mubarak, and Egyptian people are still suffering, barely able to meet the basic living requirements. During Morsi’s government, Egyptians job creation has been negligible, unemployment has increased, and the budget deficit has risen.

Morsi violated the Egyptian law and defied the Egyptian court orders. On 25 June, Ismailia Appeal Court ordered the Public Prosecution to investigate 34 leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood - including President Morsi - on charges of killing 13 prisoners, spying and breaking into prisons, and terrorism. This -according to the current constitution – suspends his role as a president until the investigations’ outcome proves him not guilty. Morsi continued to ignore the court’s order.

Morsi’s and Muslim Brotherhood’s violent approach in dealing with the Egyptian political problems is evidenced during his presidency. Morsi’s supporters killed several opponents in December 2012 outside the presidential palace in Alethadia in Cairo, including the journalist Al-Husseini Abu Deif. This prompted three of Morsi’s advisors to step down during the clashes. In addition, Morsi’s supporters killed dozens of protestors at Port Said back in February and March 2013, and attacked the main cathedral of the Coptic Orthodox Church as Christians held a funeral and protest there over the killing of four Christians in sectarian violence the day before. Moreover, last month, Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis beat to death four Egyptian Shiites in a village on the outskirts of Cairo.

Bloodshed is the usual approach of the Muslim Brotherhood and all Islamist groups that come out of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is evident throughout their history since its existence. They assassinated the second prime minister of the Kingdom of Egypt “Mahmoud an-Nukrashi” in December 1948, the writer and thinker “Farag Foda” in July 1992, and the Egyptian President “ Anwar El Sadat” in October 1981.

It is also widely accepted among the Egyptians that Morsi threatened to burn Egypt if his opponent “Ahmed Shafik” won the election. Egyptians also expected that this was Morsi’s approach when Military leader “Abdul Fatah Al-Sisi” advised him to step down. This was confirmed when the Military published details of the last meeting between Morsi and “Abdul Fatah Al-Sisi”. During this conversation, Morsi told Al Sisi: “Don’t you ever think that the Muslim Brothers will be silent if I leave the government, they will burn the world?” [6].

Indeed, the only difference between 25 January 2011 and 30 June 2013 revolutions is that in the former, Mubarak voluntarily stepped down and turned power over to the military. In the latter, Morsi refused to step down forcing the Military to remove him in support of millions of Egyptians’ demands.

The current Egyptian President “Adli Mansour” said that Egypt has documents proving that Morsi requested that USA, Turkey and Britain to attack the Egyptian army on the first of July, if the Military decided to remove him. He also said that Egypt has evidence proving that Morsi had incited violence and murder against the Egyptian people. Egypt also has records to prove that Morsi is a spy for foreign countries [3].

Indeed, what Morsi did during his presidency constitutes malfeasance, nonfeasance and serious crimes against his people and against humanity – that’s why he had to go.

It was encouraging to see in the last few days that the American Administration came out denying that it supports Muslim Brotherhood against the desire of millions of Egyptians. I also read with interest President Obama reiterating that America “does not support any single party´-or-group … [and] that only Egyptians can make the decisions that will determine their future” [8].

It remains to be seen whether the 30 June 2013 revolution marks the beginning of the end of USA meddling in Egypt’s affairs – and perhaps the Middle East region – through the aid “the donor-recipient” relationship.
One would ask: is it the beginning of Egypt having a balanced relationship with Russia, China and the European --union-- instead of putting all its eggs in the American basket?

References

1. Abdellatif, R 20 June 2012, Los Angeles Times, “Carter Center faults Egypt s presidential elections”, viewed 30 June 2013, available from: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/carter-center-faults-egypts-presidential-elections.html
2. Abdel-Rahman, A 3 June 2013, Misr Elgdida news, Tarek Heggy: Anne Patterson admitted Shafik is the winner in the elections and that they were behind bringing Mursi to power, Misrelgdida Online news, accessed 3 June 2013, available from: http://www.misrelgdida.com/interviews/118623.html
3. Al-Anany, A 6 July 2013, Almogaz News, “The Republic President: we have official correspondence from Morsi demanding America, Turkey and Britain to threaten the Egyptian military”, Almogaz Online 6 June 2013, accessed 7/7/2013, available from: http://almogaz.com/news/politics/2013/07/06/997801#sthash.gvxQR8bG.dpuf
4. Arabic Media, 20 June 2013, “Patterson: America supports Morsi and rejects protests June 30”, accessed 5 July 2013, available from: http://arabic-media.com/articles/id/posts.php?title=patterson-support-morsi
5. Aristotle, 350 BC, “Article 43 : 3” in “The Athenian Constitution”, with introduction and notes, Translated by Kenyon FG (1904), G Bell, London, UK.
6. EL-Fagr News, 6 July 2013, “The last conversation between Al Sisi and Morsi before his removal’s statement, viewed 7 July 2013, available from: http://new.elfagr.org/Detail.aspx?nwsId=377117&secid=1&vid=2#
7. El-Fagr News, 7 April 2013, "National security found documents from Brotherhood "guidance" to prove Shafik is the winner of the presidential election”, viewed 5 June 2013, available from: http://new.elfagr.org/Detail.aspx?nwsId=376242&secid=1&vid=2#
8. Embassy of the United State, Cairo – Egypt, 2 July 2013, “Readout of the President s call with President Morsy of Egypt”, News and Events, accessed 2 July 2013, available from: http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr07022013.html

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 25%							Participated in the vote : 6