There is a wide-spread misconception that Muslim societies cannot sustain a democratic system. However, the Muslim societies did not have a chance to choose the type of government they live under let alone to draw the borders of their states. The Middle Eastern order is based on the Sykes-Picot agreement signed between Britain and France after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was an unnatural order not regarding social, ethnic and religious characteristics of the region. This order was maintained even after Arab societies gained their independence after the World War II. Probably due to the heat of polarization during the Cold War era, these societies were not given a chance for democracy.

 

Even the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of Cold War era did not change the situation. After the democratic transition of the Eastern Europe, it was the Arabs’ turn to live under democratic regimes. It did not happen not because the region populated by mostly Muslim Arabs do not need or want democracy but it was delayed due to the strategic importance of the authoritarian Arab world for the energy sources and for the security of Israel, a western implant in the region.

 

The US leaders realized the unsustainable nature of the situation in the Middle East and the need for a democratic reform. George W. Bush’s Neo-Conservative plans to democratize the region was a false start. It was because the US envisaged exporting democracy selectively (i.e. according to their relative interests) and by force rather than supporting democratic movements’ demands in every country. Moreover, the nationalist and unilateral approach of the Neo-conservatives was not resonant with the local demands for democracy, accountability and the rule of law. The US seemed to want democracy for the challenger’s of US hegemony or the so-called axis of evil while ignoring the demands for democratization in the US allies such as Egypt and Jordan.

 

Like others, Egyptian people have demanded democratization for a long time but they were brutally suppressed. In 2008 Muhammed Al-Baradai, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, came to Egypt to promote reform in Egypt. He demanded a democratic constitution, fair-elections and social reforms in Egypt. However, the government showed a deaf ear to these demands. Even though he was well known in the West, the US and European leaders did not support his calls for reform. The US continued to support the Egyptian regime financially and with arms and did not want to risk any change, worrying it might end-up in the Brotherhood hands.

 

Yesterday Obama said he told Mubarak to reform Egyptian system. Even though it is a positive step and must be welcomed, it also shows they hold the strings and are also responsible a long delay in that regard. It is probably too little, too late as the protestors want a change in the regime long ruled by former generals. Those who are responsible for corrupting the system can hardly reform it. Husni Mubarak’s promised democratic reforms on Friday night will probably materialize after his departure.

 

Democratic reforms and good governance will bring Egypt from poverty and underdevelopment, clearly benefiting the Egyptian people with its Muslims and Christians. As the largest and central country of the Middle East, Egypt’s social and economic development will decrease radical and anti-western tendencies among Arabs. A democratic Egypt can be a hub for stability in the region to prevent or alleviate the social, cultural and political upheavals like the ones we currently witness in Lebanon, Sudan and Yemen. By consolidating its domestic welfare and achieving stability, trough democracy, Turkey contributes to the stability in Iraq and Lebanon. Similarly, a democratic Egypt can do more of that as a central Arab country. Availability of democratic means for expression grievances can limit the tendency for radicalism and terrorism in the world. This will even help Israel if it wants dialogue, a fair peace and justice in the Middle East.

 

In brief, Egyptian democracy can help bring development and stability to the region. Since almost every one in the world is concerned with the stability in the region, these new developments will benefit all; well, almost all.