An Exodus of Egypt's Ruling Family?

The questions: Who are Hosni Mubarak's political enemies; who are his allies? The answers: pro-democracy activists at home and abroad; foreign policy realists and academic multiculturalists in the West.

One of the most effective and bravest members of the first group, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, has repeatedly criticized Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's corrupt and, it now seems, declining regime. Writing in today's WSJ ($) [check Opinionjournal.com for free articles a day or so after their initial publication in the subscribers-only section] in a piece aptly titled "Mubarak the Pharaoh," Prof. Ibrahim says that Egyptians want democracy and freedom. And he broaches the topic that got him thrown into an Egyptian prison in 2000 -- the possible succession of Mubarak's 41-year-old son Gamal upon the father's death or retirement.

The cult that Mubarak and his cronies have cultivated over the years -- of youth (via Grecian Formula), vigor, and strength -- is crumbling amid reports that the dictator has just returned from two weeks' medical treatment in Germany. This follows his fainting spell, carried on live TV, during a speech to Parliament in November. His ill health brings the possibility that Egypt may reform its sclerotic political system. In spite of assurances that Egypt "is not a monarchy . . . . We are not Syria and Gamal Mubarak will not be the next president of Egypt," no one takes seriously Mubarak's word on much any topic these days, especially where it concerns his own power.

Worth taking seriously, however, are those who would keep the new Pharaonic dynasty on its thrown. According to Prof. Ibrahim, one of Mubarak's principal defenses against pro-democracy activists is his claim that liberty is part of an "American agenda" that should be rejected as "alien and antithetical to the region's cultural specificity." Mubarak declared this as Egypt's pro-democracy community distanced itself from America's plan for democratizing the Middle East as set forth in the President's Greater Middle East Initiative, not because they don't agree with its principals, but because of the risk of appearing as American puppets. That danger is very real and should inform the administration's dealings with would-be reformers throughout the region, but it's a fact of life in the area that should be understood and dealt with, not an excuse to allow the region to fester and decline.

Note, too, that the dictator's cynical reasoning -- that liberty is a Western construct alien to the Arab mind -- echoes the assertions of so-called realists in the foreign policy arena and radical multiculturalists in academe. The realists would allow Egyptians (and Iraqis, Saudi Arabians, Syrians, Iranians, Libyans -- pick your country) to seethe under brutal, illegitimate regimes in the name of "stability" and "continuity," never mind the grave risks of radical revolution leading to regional instability and the certainty of continued gross human rights violations. Dictators never owe allegiance to foreign supporters -- something the West should have learned from its dealings with such men from Marcos to the Shah to the Saudis.

I've blogged before about the intellectual and moral nihilisms of Western multiculturalists, who spend their hours in the safe harbors of university towns expounding on the righteousness of "indigenous causes." Those with memories of the policy struggles of the 1980s will know that the alliance of the multicultural left and realist right marks a burying of old antagonisms. Whereas the left once excoriated diplomats for ignoring brutality abroad in pursuit of Cold War containment efforts, they now applaud those same figures for their opposition to efforts to spread democracy. That some of the dictators are the same men -- among them Mubarak -- seems not to matter. For such academics, the domestic enemy of my enemy is a closer friend than the pro-democracy activists who risk all in their pursuit of justice. It's a further indication of just how morally and intellectually bankrupt -- and cynical -- opponents of liberty can be so long as they take their own country's safety for granted. After 9-11, it's clear that's a gamble we can no longer afford.