Morsi's ouster in Egypt: Is Arab Spring finally over?

The Arab Spring — a much heralded harbinger of change in the Arab Muslim world — is apparently turning into an Arab drought. The hiatus and the void that dissipated the momentum of mini revolutions that occurred in many parts of the Arab Muslim world has now been filled by a reversion to mean, so to speak. This means that the mode and method of governance and politics is reverting to the old type: authoritarian, military regimes. The ouster of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt encapsulates this. The Egyptian military overtly ousted Morsi and his government in what amounts to a clear cut coup d’etat. The recent protests which led to the deaths of protesters became the fulcrum which catalysed army action and intervention. The ‘deep state’ struck and removed a democratically elected government. This does not bode well either for Egypt and the Arab Muslim world for a whole host of reasons and raises a set of questions. The salient of these are: Is Islam fundamentally incompatible with democracy? Does the Muslim Brotherhood’s brief stint in power validate this? Is authoritarianism — as has been propounded by Orientalists — the default mode for Arabs and by extension, Muslims? What is the future of the Arab Spring? Can a synthesis between Islam and democracy be ever arrived at? Philosophically, Islam and democracy are antithetical to each other. [caption id=“attachment_937421” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Protesters who are against ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi celebrate in Alexandria. Reuters[/caption] Islam’s founding premise is faith in the absolute sovereignty of God , wherein law flows from this and the injunction of the Prophet of Islam(Peace be upon him). The foundational premise of democracy, on the other hand, is that sovereignty resides in man and that reason is the bedrock of law. On the face of it then, Islam and democracy are incompatible. This, however, obscures a very important point: procedurally , a synthesis can be arrived at between Islam and democracy. That is, in terms of governance and perhaps even the law-conceptualisation , formulation and implementation, human rights — Islam and democracy can be reconciled. The concepts of _Ijma (_consensus) and ijtihad (independent reasoning) all point out to an eminent reconciliation between faith and reason. The Muslim Brotherhood’s brief rule or stint in power was marred by Egypt’s deep structural problems which were a function of both legacy, inexperience and a degree of incoherence. The tottering economy, years of authoritarian rule, a warped state society dynamic coupled with inexperience were indications of this. The Brotherhood cannot be held to be entirely responsible for Egypt’s deep and enduring problems and issues. The coup and reversion to military and authoritarian governance — an alarming development — does not mean that Arabs and authoritarianism are synonymous. This inference is plain wrong. Liberty, freedom and the set of rights emanating from it with due allowance for culture and different legal systems are universal. The Arabs are no stranger to this. That authoritarianism is a natural concomitant to the nature of Arabs is an orientalist canard and a self serving myth. What, given the coup in Egypt, is left of the Arab Spring? The Arab Spring — a momentous revolution — was and is of world historical significance. Judging and gauging the fallout and significance and import of a world historical development by years or even decades is a fallacy. The fruits of the Arab Spring will bear fruit with the passage of time. The Egyptian rollback, even though a bit of a tragedy and a step back will not detract from its historical significance and trajectory. Time will tell and be the best judge. In the final analysis, the Arab Spring is about the compatibility of Islam with democracy. This, to repeat, despite the philosophical incompatibility between Islam and democracy is eminently possible if procedural democracy is viewed as the yardstick for determining the synthesis. The Arab Spring has, like it or not, set this in motion. The direction of history is set. The coup in Egypt is more in the nature of an event; not a trend. Events do not dictate history; mega-trends and developments determine its course and trajectory and these are almost set in stone in the Arab Muslim world.