Being Morsi

How times have changed for Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi. A year into his term as the first democratically elected president of Egypt following the popular uprising that saw Hosni Mubarak deposed in what has come to be termed the Arab Spring, he finds himself battling hard to retain control of the country. Protests have rocked the nation in all major towns, with protesters demanding nothing but the head of the Egytian president.  Right now he wont care whether his surname is spelled Morsi or Mousi, his main concern remains the ever increasing number of protesters who will not rest till his government is brought to its knees.

Among his litany of alleged indiscretions is the fact that he has failed to deliver on his promise to turn the country round in 100 days (then someone goes and says 90 days; politicians! they never learn), has been amassing too much power and has overseen a deterioration in public services such as the supply of electricity. 

Egyptians were hailed for holding democratic elections following the end for the dictatorship at the hands of Mr Mubarak. Mr Morsi representing the Muslim Brotherhood emerged a narrow winner of the elections, getting 51% of the vote. You could say he had his job cut out in trying to steer the country from years of misrule into a modern democratic society. The name of his party suggested a leaning towards Islamist dogma, but Mr Morsi assured voters of his commitment to the rule of law and the upholding of the requisite democratic tenets. 

Egyptian president Morsi... for how long? 

“If the bull knew its power, it wouldn't let a boy lead it by a rope” goes an ancient proverb and one which I understand profoundly having herded cattle myself. It seems the "Egyptian bull" has finally realised its power and is not scared to flex its muscle. Morsi now finds himself reeling from the fruits of the same process that brought him into power.

The question as an analyst that I ask is, what does this portend for western style democracy in a place such as Egypt. And by extension, as different people realise that the saying that "politicians are merely servants of the people" has more significance than mere cliche, what happens to governance as we know it?

The democratic answer to these questions is buried deep in the workings of western style democracy itself. And that answer is: The median voter. The median voter has come to represent the people in western style democracy. Forget the intellectuals, forget the minority groups, please the median voter and everything will be fine. 

The only problem is that the median voter is extremely fickle as I am sure Mohammed Morsi will tell you. Compound that with the fact that the median voter is no longer under any illusion as to his/her power and we have a recipe for governments constantly on their toes. When the median voter expresses the patience of a pissed off Roman Abramovich, politics suddenly becomes a very daunting and scary prospect.

On a positive note we might end up seeing governments that are more responsive to the people's needs and will spare no effort in advancing the common good. The only problem is that governments are more likely to be cowed into making popular decisions regardless of whether the same decisions are against sound policy advice or historical precedence. We all know that governments at times need to and often do take highly unpopular decisions when such are required for longer term benefits. However all of this might be thrown out of the window in the mad and most pressing desire to please the median voter.

So what now for Morsi. The first thing he needs to do is to ensure that the military is on his side (and signs for this being the case don't look promising). Secondly seeing that he was democratically elected, he can then escalate the issue with regional organisations, the United Nations or what is now collectively called "the International Community" to rally their support behind his democratically elected government.

It would be good if the United States could also say something considering that they were most vocal during the first round of Tahir square protests which brought Mubarak down. Their silence now is actually more loud and there are many who construe it to be actually backing for the protestors.

I am not privy to the nuances of Egyptian politics. But if it is democracy they wanted, at the very least they should have faith in the process they themselves adopted as a means of governance. But then, the bull has known its strength. Who dares to challenge it?