News of a possible military intervention in Egypt did not sound realistic a couple of days ago to me. As world media reported the largest number of people protesting without events turning violent overall, the situation in Egypt had seemed tense but hopeful. President Morsi had declared he would not give in to protesters and would actually defend “democracy” against all pressure.
Like many leaders in the same part of the world, he confused democracy with the share of voter-support behind him and defended his stand through the legitimacy of his presence in the presidential position. However faulty it is to assume, unfortunately many people behind him viewed the situation as just because he had received the most number of votes, he was allowed to abuse all liberties for self-favor. This was the general attitude that millions of people had been against on the streets recently.
However, the military had issued a warning two days ago stating that unless Morsi established common ground to negotiate more power-sharing, they would have to intervene. The word intervention even is cynical in this case, as it turned out to be a military coup. As the world watched in “worrisome” mood, Morsi was pushed off his position, and then came the declarations, reactions etc.
While I believe that the civilian people of Egypt, having formed the biggest protest on the streets, were capable of taking care of their problems in democratic manners, military’s involvement in this situation complicates a lot of things. Initially it is necessary to mention that no army could bring or sustain democratic principles, as it has always been obvious in the history of mankind, with all “liberating” armies establishing themselves to be the next oppressors. Secondly, what happened in Egypt seemed to be military taking people’s initiative as refugee and speaking in their name, after taking Morsi down. However important the military declarations can be, the underlying psychology of any army cannot be perceived from in front of the cameras, especially because their power does not emerge from legitimate support of the people (no matter how big a group might call for resignation of a ruler).
With Morsi down, there has been mixed reactions throughout the world. Some people cheered up because an Islamist ruler was forced out of power, some resented to see an Islamist lose power. But what happened actually was an elected leader being forced out by the hand of a military commander who does not represent the legitimate support of people. It is hard to understand especially those who have been supporting Gezi Park, Brazil, ERT, DANS protests globally and now cheer for the military coup in Egypt; was it not democracy that they were seeking afterall? If it is so, democracy is, or better should be, an umbrella stretching out above all, including one’s most hated rivals too. Any authoritarian ruler deserves to be protested and harshly criticized, yet it all needs to take place in civil manner, with all tools of a democratic society and never through violence, show of force or shade of rifles & tanks.
I would like to believe the Egyptian society will wake up to a new day to realize that toppling a pharaoh only to erect a new one is useless and not an improvement; hopefully they will realize that the widely celebrated military coup of today is not the solution to their deeply rooted problems and not promising for the future of their people, country and region.