FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Revolution Shall be Cannibalized

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Too much food makes one obese, or at the very least flabby; too much revolution strips the credentials of those who want it, destroys the premises with which it is started, and undermine the cause. We have seen how rebellions cannibalise themselves.  Bolshevism moved into bureaucratic stasis and murderous Stalinism; the French Revolution ended up, like Saturn, eating its children by first severing them on the guillotine after attacking the aristocrats. The finest example of this analysis remains Albert Camus’ The Rebel (1951), a searing account about how rebellion can turn on itself.

That process is largely one of the utopian dreamer who dons the uniform of combat.  The society makers, the dreamers, and the utopians strike in the hope that the next order is a more just one. The prisons are opened.  The unjust institutions are either reformed or abolished.  But disenchantment follows.  As Camus observed, the atrocities that follow by means of terror are committed on the basis of a temporary emergency.  You enslave people to free them.

The key to overcome this, suggests Camus, is the careful acknowledgment of transcendental values, be it the liberty of the subject, or the sanctity of life.  Be aware of those who deny history, who demand the fresh start in a vacuum of intoxicated enthusiasm.

The narrative of justification behind the deposing of Mohamed Morsi is markedly similar. It was an engineered emergency, and one that argued that the revolution had been hijacked by Islamist enthusiasts and followers of Sharia.  The democratic experiment fell into the hands of the “wrong people”. (Oh, the trials and tribulations of a democratic system!)

This view is best expressed by Al Hayat’s senior diplomatic correspondent Raghida Dergham, who thanked Egypt for restoring “to the Arab uprising its insistence on reform and freedom” and repudiating “dictates and despotism, in a spirit of rebellion, pride and perseverance.”  Notably, the military are but an instrument for Dergham’s vision of reform, an enlightened body, in fact “the people’s army” (Huffington Post, Jul 5).  Generals, it seems, can be enlightened.

Morsi, in the words of Alon Ben-Meir of the Centre for Global Affairs at New York University, “worked tirelessly to consolidate his powers while doing next to nothing to save the economy from pending collapse” (Mindanao Examiner, Jul 9).  Freedom of speech was assaulted; a constitution filled with Sharia law was implemented and “Islamic siege mentality and authoritarianism” embraced.  For all that, Ben-Meir argues that “political Islam and democracy can work, but not by pushing for early elections.” The time limit?  Two years.

In 2004, Reuel Marc Gerecht claimed in The Islamic Paradox that such figures as Hosni Mubarak invariably fed fundamentalism, a process that might create fundamentalist critics.  Secular dictatorships were not necessarily better than Islamic ones. Islamist rule was not necessarily incompatible with democratic tenets.

The coup (yes, let’s call it that) also reveals a few foundational ideas.  One is that Islam, or to be more precise, Islamic political governance, is incapable of democratic practice.  “This is also a good opportunity for those who had wagered on a ‘Turkish model’,” argues Dergham, “to reconsider the application of such a model of religious rule in the Arab region.”

This is a dangerous premise, for it is exactly one that some clerics and fundamentalists would have you believe. The work, in other words, is being done for the radicals by the very people who might oppose them.  The Muslim Brotherhood, is other words, is being placed outside the tent rather than being accommodated.

The other dangerous idea is that democracy, by its very nature, can be abridged by military fiat should the need arise.  The generals are the perceived guardians who can step in to rescue a sinking ship.  A popular vote can be nullified.

One way of undermining a revolution preaching democracy is by despising the very principle of legality, by affirming a mythological supremacy that rejects the law book as it stands.  To be legal, we need to undermine it.  To be functional, the constitution needs suspension in order to be redrafted.  This is the logic that Nazi Germany’s most fluent and controversial jurist believed in: the law of the exception, argued Carl Schmitt, should be embraced, rather than rejected.  Emergency decrees might be necessary to protect an order.

The offspring of this suspension, however, can be rather dangerous. In the case of Weimar Germany during the 1930s, democracy delivered a certain Adolf Hitler who stormed in while the democrats went to sleep.  That particular “transitional” government lasted till May 1945.  It proved a costly one.

Little surprise, then, that such governments as the United States have been tip-toeing around the term “coup”.  Whole states in the past have been delegitimised on the basis of the term.  The script in Washington since the days of the Wilson administration was that an interruption of constitutional rule demanded severe international chastisement.  Military aid would also cease to such a regime.  Hence the need to call it something else.

The military, according to Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is “the one stabilising influence in Egypt that I think can temper down the political feuding that you’re seeing going on now, and then help a process that will allow for multiple factions of parties and beliefs to participate.”

Egypt again teeters.  The Muslim Brotherhood will be thinking of past failures when the Islamic experiment won, or threatened to win in the polls but was felled by military involvement. Algeria in 1991 is the most potent example.  Pro-Morsi supporters have already been slain. Civil war may be in the offing, though what is more likely is a return to the bloody cycle that defies accommodation in favour of despotism.  The optimists will be hoping for a third way, one untidily wedged between, to use Ross Douthat’s expression, “the minaret and the tank.”  So far, the tank is winning.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
July 28, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
Collateral Damage: U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Strike Western European Allies
Jim Kavanagh
Donald the Destroyer: Assessing the Trump Effect
Carl Boggs
The Other Side of War: Fury and Repression in St. Louis
Eva Golinger
There is Still Time to Prevent Civil War in Venezuela
Anthony DiMaggio
“A Better Deal”? Dissecting the Democrats’ “Populist” Turn in Rhetoric and Reality
Jeffrey St. Clair
Scout’s Honor
Conn Hallinan
Middle East Chaos
Mumia Abu-Jamal
James Baldwin: Word Warrior
Joshua Frank
The Fire Beneath: Los Angeles is Sitting on a Ticking Time Bomb
Myles Hoenig
It Wasn’t Russia, It was the Green Party!
Andrew Levine
Enter Scaramouche, Stage Right
Brian Cloughley
Time to Get Out of Afghanistan
Gary Leupp
The Trump Revolution Devouring Its Own Children
John Wright
Trump’s Hezbollah Gaff Was No Gaff
Alan Jones
“Finland Station” and the Struggle for Socialism Today
Robert Hunziker
Plastic Chokes the Seas
Eric Draitser
Enough Nonsense! The Left Does Not Collaborate with Fascists
Vijay Prashad
The FBI vs. Comrade Charlie Chaplin
Ishmael Reed
Trump’s Irish-Americans “Without Hearts”
Jane LaTour
Danger! Men Working
Yoav Litvin
The Unbearable Lightness of Counterrevolution
Charles Derber
Universalizing Resistance: How to Trump Trump
Gregory Barrett
Two Johnstones and a Leftish Dilemma: Nationalism vs. Neoliberalism
Joseph Natoli
Choosing the ‘Arteries that Make Money’
CJ Hopkins
Intersectionalist Internet Blues
Pepe Escobar
China and India Torn Between Silk Roads and Cocked Guns
Ralph Nader
Can the World Defend Itself From Omnicide?
Howard Lisnoff
Agape While Waltzing at the Precipice
Musa Al-Gharbi
Want to Shake Up Status Quo? Account for the Default Effect
Angela Kim
North Korean Policy Must Focus on Engagement Not Coercion
Hiroyuki Hamada
Delivering Art in the Empire
David Macaray
Talking Union
Binoy Kampmark
Refugee Conundrums: Resettlement, the UN and the US-Australia Deal
Robert Koehler
Opening Gitmo to the World
David Jaffee
No Safe Space for Student X
Thomas Knapp
The State is at War — With the Future
David Swanson
What’s Missing from Dunkirk Film
Winslow Myers
There Is Still Time, Brother
Robert J. Burrowes
Biological Annihilation on Earth Accelerating
Frederick B. Hudson – Dr. Junis Warren
Robot Scientists Carry Heavy Human Hearts 
Randy Shields
Not My Brother’s Reefer
Sam Lichtman
Where are the Millennials?
Louis Proyect
Death Race: the Cruelties of the Iditarod
Charles R. Larson
Review: Norman Lock’s A Fugitive in Walden Woods
July 27, 2017
Edward Curtin
The Deep State, Now and Then
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail