A little bit of dictatorship in Egypt would be alright in order to enable President Mohamed Morsi to take control of the situation, as well as to prevent matters from getting out of hand and the state from heading towards collapse. This is the conclusion reached by right-wing American magazine Foreign Policy. It is true that such a conclusion does not represent the White House's official point of view. It does however provide the best expression of the agreement between the Right and the Left in the US on foreign policy. Indeed, dictatorship becomes required when it serves Washington's interests, just as democracy or secularism become condemned when they oppose them. Morsi took advantage of the United States' praise for the role he played in mediating between Israel and the Hamas movement to reach a ceasefire, as well as of the support of “Arab Spring" leaders, Turks and Arabs, to set himself up as absolute ruler. The mild reaction in the West in general, and in the US in particular, came as no surprise. Indeed, the man expressed his good intentions, and in effect presented his credentials, shortly after his election: he stood against the Syrian regime, embraced the “coalition" seeking to form a temporary Syrian government, attacked Iran, returned Hamas to the axis of the Muslim Brotherhood, and asserted not to have the intention to tamper with the Camp David Accords... He thus began to obtain rewards, most importantly the approval of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to grant Cairo a loan of five billion dollars, a mere few minutes before the announcement of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. No one asked the President about the conditions of such a loan, or about the way this loan would be spent or reimbursed. Indeed, there is no parliament to discuss such conditions (among them concealed elements that are certainly political in nature), to suggest amending them or to cancel the loan entirely, nor is there anyone to oppose his financial and economic policy, which, by the way, is an extension of the liberalism of the Mubarak era, which restricts wealth and influence to an oligarchy the President relies on to subjugate his people and make them his followers. The praise of the United States for Morsi and the role he played in Gaza did not come as a surprise, as nothing would be preferable for the US than for the Resistance to join Egypt's axis and its guarantees. No surprise either was its lukewarm reaction to Morsi setting himself up as a dictator who holds the powers of all branches of government in his hand. Indeed, Washington prefers to deal with a single ruler who decides and executes, than with democratic institutions that discuss, object and take the opinions and the interests of their people into consideration. That is its history past and present, and its policies in Latin America, Africa and the Arab World provide the best evidence of this. As for its calls for freedom, democracy and progress, they are from among the old instruments used by the white man (the master) to rule the world. Morsi thought, as many in the Arab World do, that American approval for his foreign policy would allow him to degrade the rights of the Egyptian people, without Washington turning its instruments and its media against him, and without the West protesting the violation of the most basic rules of democracy (the separation of powers). And he was right in thinking so, as reactions have been limited to the statements of spokespersons for this or that Foreign Ministry, all of them calling for the participation of everyone (who?) in the decision-making process. The fact is that the President relied on such foreign support, as well as on the support of the Muslim Brotherhood on the domestic scene, to issue his constitutional declaration. He was not hasty, nor did he depart from the methods of the Muslim Brotherhood or from the proposals of his party. He behaved on the basis of representing the party, not on that of being the President of all Egyptians, thus basing his declaration on the slogan “Islam is the solution" and the rule of “obey the commander". He is a commander before being a President, and he has the right to take any decision without consulting anyone, and without referring to state institutions, the control of which the constitutional declaration places entirely in his hands. Yet the President's considerations, which were correct in his view, were all wrong in the view of the majority of Egyptians, who filled Tahrir Square in anger, protesting the violation of their most basic rights to choose state institutions that are fair to them and govern in their name. If Foreign Policy magazine considers dictatorship to be alright in Egypt, that is only because it serves Washington's interests. As for the Egyptian people, they have proven that they would not be satisfied with an alternative to a democracy that would serve their own interests before those of others.
