Jan 29, 2012
Andrea Murta

How far should we go?

The recent crackdown on international pro-democracy organizations in Egypt wasn’t only a cold reminder of the real dangers for those involved in the field. It also questions the limits of political action for foreigners in transitioning countries. Pushing those limits is in many cases the most important part of the job… but does it ever become too much?

Right now it seems members of at least three D.C. based organizations – IRI, NDI and Freedom House – are under investigation by the Egyptian military, alongside dozens of other foreign and local NGOs. Their offices in Cairo were raided and shut down on December 29th, and now part of the staff is under travel ban, including Sam LaHood, the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who directs the Egyptian program of IRI.

After LaHood was prevented from leaving the country, the organizations probed and discovered that at least 40 foreigners (six Americans) are under the ban as a result of the investigation.

IRI said they have been questioned about funding and their legal status in Egypt, and that the investigation might lead to formal charges.

Neither inquiry is completely far-fetched: it is undeniable that there is foreign money coming to Egypt for purposes related to the political situation, and apparently the organizations still have problems in getting totally cleared to operate in the country.

Of course, authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, transitioning or in any way questionable governments will always have an interest in making life difficult for foreigners who try to get in any way involved in local politics. If that was reason enough to prevent the organizations from working, they might as well give up now and close their offices. The fact that there is work to be done in opening up, strengthening and democratizing the political scenario is exactly why they are needed. Not to mention it is a common scapegoat to blame foreigners for popular unrest.

On the other hand (and let me be clear: I am NOT talking about Egypt or any of the above mentioned organizations right now), I wonder if in some cases the involvement doesn’t turn into interference. Let’s face it, sometimes foreigners are indeed engaged in supporting uprisings. And with good reason. But where should it stop? Or shouldn’t it?

I personally would never side with, for example, the Kremlin in its attempts to circumvent the work of international NGOs, but I do think there is space to talk about how far they can or should go. With so many new countries joining the list of transitional ones right now, the situation in Egypt might provide a good opportunity to re-discuss the safety and boundaries, if any, of the activities of international pro-democracy groups.

2 Comments

  • [...] quick update on the situation of americans under travel ban in Egypt, subject of a recent post: at least two of them are being sheltered at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for fear of being arrested. [...]

  • I’m not sure how we can draw the line here. It’s easy to say “don’t infringe on sovereignty,” but it’s hard to achieve in practice. Right now the IMF is demanding all sorts of economic reforms in return for a massive loan. Is this interference? No one makes the Government of Egypt take money from the IMF, just like NGOs that receive assistance don’t have to take it. Why should the government of a regime the people in Egypt really don’t like be able to decide from whom NGOs can take money? I think popular sovereignty wins here over an unelected military government.

Leave a comment

Founded in 2004, Democracy and Society is a biannual print journal published by the Center for Democracy and Civil Society at Georgetown University. The D&S Blog provides web-only content, including special reports and investigative series, on issues relating to democracy and development.

Sign up for our mailing list

Posts by Region

Posts by Topic

Switch to our mobile site