Essay on Challenges of Building Democracy in Egypt

Introduction

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the United States, once defined democracy as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." (Barany, 2011, p. 27) This definition of democracy regarding "a government of the people" implies that democracy involves the formation of a government that consists of ordinary citizens of a nation or people who are not associated with supremacy or loyalty. The definition regarding "a government by the people" implies that a government is formed and organized by citizens of a country, which is done by providing citizens with the freedom to vote governmental laws and figures. The definition regarding "a government for the people" implies that a government should serve the same citizens who formed the government itself. Hence the government should have an active political presence and participation of its citizens. Several governments all over the world have managed to establish a democratic form of government. Examples of these are the United States, Canada, and Portugal. However, there are numerous of countries that have failed to establish any form of democracy, and a good example of such countries is Egypt. A significant number of political scientists have outlined that such countries have not succeeded in creating a democracy due to various factors such as lack of enthusiasm and support from leaders, low economic development, and lack of democratic culture. Paying a special focus to Egypt, the challenges that have led to the failure to democratize include negative interactions between religion and politics as well as socio-economic inequality among the citizens. These factors have led to political chaos and turmoil, this disrupting peace and political stability in the country. Without value of the people or any form of democratic culture which is commonly known as the "spirit of democracy," Egypt will continue to be a highly afflicted and restricted nation.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Extent to Which Ethnic Diversity Constitute a Barrier to Democratization

Ethnic diversity is often perceived as problematic for political and economic development. Numerous political scientists have pointed that various kinds of social diversity have differential impacts on regime type. For instance, religious diversity leads to a decrease in prospects for democracy while ethnolinguistic diversity leads to high prospects for democracy. It is worth noting that ethnicity-related problems in Egypt are a threat not only to Egyptian autocracy but also to democracy. Ethnic diversity is in Egypt is likely to cause a regime type. In other words, ethnic diversity in Egypt lends itself to compromise and tolerance hence enhancing the prospects for democratic rule. An ethnically diverse community such as the Egyptian presents many barriers to political legitimacy which in turn makes it difficult to construct a democratic government. The country can only overcome these berries by democratic institutions. However, since Egypt is ethnically diversified, rulers or political leaders are often pressured to diffuse power among the ethnic groups, lest they face problems to their incumbency or lose control over territory or revenue. Spatial segregation also fosters tolerance across ethnic communities in Egypt. Ethnic communities usually inhabit various territories in rural areas as well as within cities. As such, one ethnic group's practices have no a direct impingement on the practices of another ethnic group. This spatial segregation raises many concerns over leadership. Power has to be devolved from the center to the periphery hence making it difficult to difficult to construct a democratic government.

Ethnic diversity in Egypt gives rise to inter-ethnic conflicts which are centered around material goods. Examples of the material goods that spark inter-ethnic conflicts include job opportunities, property rights, and other perquisites. In such situations, the minority ethnic groups feel that they have been marginalized by the dominant ethnic communities in the country. The minority ethnic groups feel the pressure of unequal distribution of power, resources, and other development opportunities. These inter-ethnic conflicts sometimes arise when national political leaders align themselves with their ethnic groups and tend to forget about socio-economic development in other ethnic communities. As a result, the minority groups fight back for their rights by rebelling against the government in power or the ethical groups that are purported to dominate the countries, economic, social, and political aspects. Notably, ethnic diversity may have an indirect influence on democratization chances by influencing and interacting with other factors such as institutional design, instability and largescale violence, the civil society's strength or weakness, governmental performance, and economic growth. Regarding this influence, ethnic diversity in Egypt has significantly lowered aggregate economic growth rates in the country. The situation has led to poorer governmental performance as well as a decrease in the provision of public goods. All of these challenges are detrimental to democracy since they undermine a regime. Since Egypt is an ethnically plural society, its political dynamics have a high sensitivity to institutional choices. For instance, the unmodified majoritarian arrangements in Egypt such as first-past-the-post rules of an election are recognized to perform poorly in representing the minority ethnic groups. This threatens to install power permanently in the dominant ethnic groups, and this destabilizes democracy in the region.

Without political confide, tranquil determination of the question, and any confidence in the trade-off, Egypt will not have the capacity to effect change into a good establishment at any point soon. With a specific end goal to trade an equitable constitution, the general population of a nation must have the capacity to receive a law based arrangement of qualities, which is ordinarily alluded to as the "soul of majority rules system". Such esteems incorporate resistance for different perspectives, trust from people in general, faith in bargain, ability to lose, bolster for reasonableness, and quiet determination of debate. Market analyst and logician Amartya Sen portrays popular government as "a requesting framework, and not only a mechanical condition (like greater part administer) taken in separation," which the nation of Egypt needs to get it. The majority of the social estimations of vote based system must be acknowledged and introduced by Egypt keeping in mind the end goal to make progress towards a just organization. "To minimize the radicals and settle the nation, Egypt's present leaders must permit more prominent opportunity and figure out how to bring a greater amount of Egypt's assorted populace - Islamists, secularists, and Christians; youthful activists and business people; material specialists and ranchers - into new overseeing establishments." (Tamara Cofman, Brookings)

As indicated by a current overview directed by the Egyptian Partnership in Development Research Program, 73.7% of its respondents guarantee that there is less resistance of political, social, and religious decent variety in Egyptian culture now than previously. The overview additionally closed "there is no connection amongst resistance and training, while there is a connection amongst resilience and religion." Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel likewise clarify the requirement for social and social balance to build upvote based system, "... majority rule government is well on the way to rise and survive when certain social and social conditions are set up." With across the board, narrow-mindedness comes disdain and brutality, which at that point prompts political doubt and uncertainty, at last bringing about the loss of ethical culture and a lessening in the capacity democratize.

Alongside just social esteems, a nation must build up economic advancement and modernization to democratize effectively. Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel state, "over the long haul, modernization brings majority rules system." For Egypt's situation, shifts from conventional to mainstream level-headed esteem and survival to self-articulation esteems must occur to democratize. As indicated by Inglehart and Welzel, such self-articulation esteems incorporate social resistance, sexual orientation balance, the right to speak freely, and relational trust. Inglehart and Welzel additionally guarantee that an expanded accentuation and worry towards such esteems "induces a culture of trust and resilience in which individuals appreciate the singular flexibility and self-articulation and have extremist political introductions" which are "essential to vote based system and along these lines clarify how financial development... prompts democratization." It is likewise trusted that numerous elements of Egypt's customary esteem are not ready to modernize, "... change here happens gradually and is regularly looked by protection; there are a few conventions and traditions that are profoundly attached and can't adjust to the prerequisites of the age" (Hala Mustafa, Middle East Forum). Such factors incorporate narrow religious mindedness, the nearness of religion in political issues, and mistreatment towards ladies. Then again, Michael Sodaro depicts how majority rules system is in truth conceivable in Muslim nations, for example, Egypt; in any case, it will require strenuous exertion and hazard:

Majority rule government is well on the way to develop and get by in Muslim nations when a minimum amount of elites and components of the populace need it and will go out on a limb to get it, regardless of whether their motivation is to wipe out oppression or insufferable mistreatment, turn away thoughtful war, or offer the national riches all the more even-handedly. Changing Egypt may seem difficult to many. Be that as it may, it isn't unimaginable; it is simply colossally difficult to induce all individuals from the nation to feel the need and need to modernize.

The last factor of a fruitful majority rules system incorporates support and eagerness for change from its leaders. In nations of more stringent political frameworks, for example, Egypt, it is fundamentally harder to influence leaders to help any progress towards the popular government. Marina Ottaway states, "leaders with dictator inclinations are a genuine obstruction to vote based change." According to a current Pew Research overview, a dominant part of Egyptians trusts that having a just type of government, as opposed to a solid leader, would be more successful in taking care of the nation's issues. Because of the nonappearance of a vote based system, the general population of Egypt lamentably don't have the energy to propel any further with this hypothesis. Ottaway additionally clarifies the absence of significant worth that vote based system gets by its leaders, "Egypt informs a great deal concerning the end of the law based space in the nation, indicating not just the administration's assurance to hold tight to control, however, similarly essential, the insufficiency of the majority rule restriction to end up an important power." Therefore, the likelihood of democratization will keep on remaining thin because of the protection of their exceedingly intense and avaricious leaders.

In spite of the fact that the general population of Egypt stays resolved to get a handle on any strain of vote based system, there is an excessive number of political and social inconveniences keeping them down as of now. Ottaway states, "Egypt can't in any way, shape or form be viewed as a democratizing nation anymore." The most important complexities can incorporate its history of races, its apparently endless highly sensitive situation, an...