Surely Goodness and Morsi

It’s really difficult for a President or a Prime Minister – almost always elected because of their point of view – to believe that that point of view needs to be contained within the restraints of the system that elected them. In this country, whether it was Franklin D. Roosevelt trying to pack the Supreme Court to get them out of his way, George W. Bush writing signing statements to Congressionally-enacted laws he didn’t really want to sign (challenging about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined) and justifying what the rest of the world viewed clearly as torture or Barack Obama sending drones into other nations to kill our enemies without such countries’ consent, presidents have often attempted to rewrite or ignore the statutes and constitutional proscriptions that attempt to rein them in. Just a note before we begin to cast stones “elsewhere.”

In Egypt, a once-obscure, American educated engineering professor who happened to be a member of a radical political party (The Muslim Brotherhood) that had never before had any legitimate political power found himself elected President. Mohamed Morsi inherited a nation ripped apart by dissent, used to despotic rule by its military class which churned out a series of dictators, facing staggering levels of unemployment with governmental coffers empty with few prospects for replenishment. The judicial branch of the government, which has disbanded the elected Parliament as unconstitutional, seemed fixated on containing Morsi.

As neighboring Gaza exploded into an escalating conflict in Gaza – knowing that Egyptian sentiments were clearly on Hamas’ side but that Egypt’s fragile economy could not survive its direct military involvement in that dispute – Morsi worked a miraculous ceasefire coordinated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who sold the standstill to Israel), and generated an American commitment to billions of much-needed aid.

Feeling the sting of a judicial system that exonerated senior military officials from killings associated with attempting to put down the popular uprising that took out the Mubarak regime and noting that the courts still seemed to be laden with powerful judges from the Mubarak era, Morsi declared that his going-forward edicts were beyond the pale of judicial review. Massive protests erupted – reminiscent of the popular discontent that toppled Hosni Mubarak – at this anti-democratic effort, and local newspapers queried as to whether a new pharaoh had been anointed. Morsi’s supporters also took to the streets and rallied to his side. It wasn’t pretty, and to many, it seemed that one more dictatorial regime was about to replace the one that preceded it.

How did the U.S. react? Not very negatively, for sure. “[White House s]pokesman Jay Carney said that Egypt’s path to democracy was not ‘perfectly smooth.’…The absence of strong U.S. opposition to Morsi’s assumption of almost total control over his country was itself rapidly becoming a political issue in Egypt on Monday. Opposition figures suggested that the United States was allowing Egypt’s first democratically elected leader to do what he wished domestically as long as he was a strong partner abroad in working toward a truce between Palestinians and Israelis.

“U.S. officials said that they had a degree of trust in Morsi’s ­motives. Although the proclamations appeared undemocratic and thus could not win any overt American support, they were born of internal political problems that Egyptians must settle for themselves, said an Obama administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.” Washington Post, November 26^th. Morsi himself realized that perhaps he had gone a bit too far, but still not wanting to relinquish his new-found stance. So a spokesman for the President “explained” Morsi’s position on national television, saying that only some of his acts would be protected from judicial review. Huh? Which ones and who decides? When the new constitution gets passed by the people in a referendum, it that when he backs off? What about the criticisms that some of his opponents have been side-stepped in the drafting the proposed constitution?

The United States – despite strong popular Egyptian sentiments against our position – seems to believe that Morsi isn’t going to be a despot but is instead trying to save face over a moment where he clearly overstepped his bounds. Morsi did send a strong signal to his judiciary, and perhaps they will be more accommodating. Morsi has met with high-ranking judges, and one might assume “this too shall pass.” “‘It has to be politically worked out. It’s clearly a way for Morsi to preserve what he really wanted plus to save face,’ said Nathan J. Brown, a professor of political science at George Washington University who is an expert on Egypt’s legal system.

“The move, if it were given legal weight, would confine Morsi’s courtroom immunity to decisions in which he is acting on behalf of the entire nation — such as going to war and signing treaties. But leaders in the region have also used such power on behalf of national security, which can be broadened to encompass far more… The distinction ‘has been a slippery legal concept, because authoritarian rulers have used it in the Arab world to get away with almost anything in the last half-century,’ Brown said.” The Post. So was this “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” or just a big “ooops, sorry”? Time will tell.

I’m Peter Dekom, and power corrupts…..