Egypt Update

Amidst rising tension, Egyptian leaders seemed to have changed their minds about the presidential elections, advancing it a month to the end of may, but are still stubbornly set on prosecuting american and other foreign democracy workers in the country, in spite of all sorts of pressure coming from Washington.

Anyone still think it is a bluff? Recent news stories tell a different tale, and the frantic activity in the DC offices of the organizations involved – IRI, NDI and Freedom House – show how serious the situation is. Other democracy organizations, meanwhile, are following developments closely, trying to figure out how to help and what this means for the safety of their own activities. However, with the exception of the targeted programs, thankfully nobody seems to be putting anything on hold.

The IRI just released a fact sheet about their work in Egypt that I think it is worth sharing:

Facts on IRI’s Work in Egypt and the Crackdown on NGOs

The International Republican Institute’s (IRI) offices in Alexandria, Cairo and Luxor were raided on December 29, 2011, by Egyptian authorities.  The raids were conducted as part of an investigation opened by the Ministry of Justice at the urging of the Ministry of International Cooperation.  The raids were an aggressive action that ironically was never taken against IRI under the former regime of Hosni Mubarak.  The actions taken by the Egyptian government following the raids against IRI and other organizations have intensified.

 The Ministry of Justice has conducted 20 interrogations of 17 IRI staff since December 2011.  The grounds for the overall investigation were politically motivated and instigated by a Mubarak-era holdover attempting to stifle the voices of civil society organizations in post-revolution Egypt.  During interrogations, staff were asked to respond to assertions made by the Minister of International Cooperation that the IRI had conducted political activity in Egypt in violation of the Egyptian law.

 During the raids, the government of Egypt took hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of cash, equipment and documentation from offices in Alexandria, Cairo and Luxor, none of which has been returned to IRI.  The Cairo offices have remained sealed since December 29.  Much of the cash was for an official election observation mission that the Egyptian government invited IRI to undertake in support of the country’s people’s assembly elections.

 IRI’s Country Director, Sam LaHood, was prevented leaving the country on January 21, 2012.  LaHood was not notified that he was on a no exit list until he attempted to leave the country on a routine trip.  IRI has learned that the government of Egypt has officially barred nine IRI staff from leaving the country.  The government has also issued detention warrants upon arrival for five expatriate staff currently outside of Egypt.

 The raids have been followed by rumors and statements from the Ministry of Justice that 43 staff from IRI, the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House, the International Center for Journalists and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation will face trial as a result of the findings of the investigations.

 The rumored charges against IRI: 

IRI was not legally registered to work in Egypt.  IRI applied for official registration in 2006 with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to which the government of Egypt never responded.  At the request of Egyptian authorities, IRI resubmitted registration paperwork in 2011 and is awaiting a decision from the ministry.  IRI was not asked to close it offices and Egyptian authorities were thoroughly briefed on IRI’s work.

IRI gave money to political parties. In accordance with U.S. law, IRI does not give
money to political parties in Egypt, nor does it show any bias to any single political
entity. IRI training activities were conducted with a spectrum of political parties,
regardless of faith or party ideology. IRI has held workshops on candidate preparation
and registration, Election Day poll-watching and on the use of survey research in election
campaign design.

IRI conducts polling in violation of Egyptian law. IRI has conducted several public
opinion polls in Egypt in 2011 to gauge citizen perspectives on the political, social and
economic environment since the revolution. Poll results have been shared with the public
and with political parties to inform their party platforms and election campaign strategies.
Data for IRI’s public opinion polls was collected by a licensed Egypt-based marketing
firm. IRI has shared poll results with Egyptian officials.

IRI staff receive funds illegally from abroad. As is standard practice, IRI’s Washington
headquarters procures all funding for its programs abroad. IRI’s Egyptian and expatriate
Egypt-based staff did not sign any grant agreements in Egypt on IRI’s behalf.

IRI had a map in its Cairo office that showed it wanted to divide Egypt. IRI used
Internet-generated maps that displayed Egypt’s four natural geographic regions: Greater
Cairo, Upper Egypt, the Canals and the Delta. The maps were used to prepare for IRI’s
international election observation of the people’s assembly elections to show where IRI
would be deploying observers. Egypt’s Higher Elections Commission officially invited
IRI to witness the elections and gave official accreditations to all foreign witnesses.

Regarding the general situation in post-revolution Egypt:

IRI and other organizations believe that Egypt’s repressive law number 84 on
nongovernmental organizations seeks to control and repress civil society. The Egyptian
government continues to instill fear among Egyptian civic groups that carry out activities
or take funding not specifically authorized by the government. In the U.S., registered
nongovernmental organizations do not have to seek approval for funding or activities
from the federal government if they remain within their mandated mission, and they can
accept foreign funding, including funding from foreign governments.

The investigations carried out by the Ministry of Justice mirror politically-motivated
detentions and/or charges brought against Egyptian activists who have criticized the
Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in recent months. This suggests that there is a
well-coordinated plan to limit the space for political and civic activism in Egypt.

In accordance with the annual State and Foreign Operation Appropriation Bill, U.S.
democracy and human rights programming “shall not be subject to the prior approval by
the government of any foreign country.”

Turbulent waters in the Maldives

If every story has two sides, this one has them worlds apart. On one side we have a recently ousted president who is crying “coup”. He happens to be the first leader elected after the end of a lengthy dictatorship, but could not implement reforms, got the boot and now demands new elections.

On the other side we have his vice president, who climbed to power as soon as the boss left. Accused of being a puppet of forces loyal to the old regime, he says there was no coup and decides not to hold elections for the time being.

The Washington Post: groups opposed to former president Nasheed take the streets of Male

This is happening in the Maldives, and the only thing clear is how fragile the country’s infant democracy is. It all started with a script that is now familiar: A dictator, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, was overthrown after three decades of rule with multiparty elections in 2008. A young activist, Mohamed Nasheed, was then elected with 54% of the vote. Masses are jubilant, the outside world applauds.

Now turn to 2012: after disputes with powerful judges (allegedly loyal to the old dictator) and street protests, Nasheed resigned in a press conference on February 7th. He later said he was forced to do so at gunpoint and claims he was the victim of a coup. The vice president takes over, and the Judiciary issues an order for the former president’s arrest. To complete the picture, the rise of Islamic forces starts to worry the West.

Hopefully the second part of the script will not become commonplace. There are many doubts about what is actually happening in the islands. The process that led to Nasheed’s overture presents itself as a mass revolt, but many suspect it was orchestrated by supporters of the old regime – “looks much like an old-fashioned coup”, writes “The Economist”. Assistant secretary of State Robert Blake just flew to the Maldives this Saturday and supported the government’s decision not to hold elections, arguing that the country is not ready for them. But he got the new president to agree to an independent probe into the facts.

Of course no one wants to compare the Maldives with any other country in transition, but it is a dark reminder of how long and dangerous the path ahead is after a revolution. “Dictatorships don’t always die when the dictator leaves office”, wrote Nasheed the other day. Don’t we know it. As Barak would say: we gotta have patience.

Egypt on the line

A 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. The current interpretation is that this is a new low in Egyptian-American relations, and even the annual US$ 1.3 billion in aid to the country is on the line. Would it go that far? Things are definitely worse this time, but it is certainly not the first case of American pro-democracy groups being investigated and threatened. I wonder if these events will have long lasting impacts in the work of such groups, and what they could be.

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.

Call for Papers – After the Revolution: Looking Forward

Democracy & Society, Volume 9, Issue 2

We are seeking well-written, interesting submissions of 1500-2000 words on the themes below, including summaries and/or excerpts of recently completed research, new publications, and works in progress. Submissions for the issue are due Monday, February 27th, 2012.

After the Revolution: Looking Forward

The wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011 set a precedent for political and social change. Starting with Tunisia, people began to publicly call into question the leadership of governments and individuals that hitherto they feared challenging or accepted as their political fate. However, shortly after the Arab Spring, the stark realities of political transitions have become clear. Some regimes, such as in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, sought to use force to crush nascent uprisings. Even in the successful revolutions, most notably Egypt and Tunisia, securing political leadership that acts in the interests of the people remains a challenge. More broadly, we are witnessing revolutions still in progress, where the prospects for successful democratic transitions seem uncertain. What challenges exist to these nascent democratic movements? A number of questions emerge, including:

Opportunities and Dangers: Political transitions present groups with opportunities influence the direction or nature of the change. Notably, in the context of the Middle East and North Africa, revolutions may present Islamic parties with an opening to advance their ideologies and gain support. On one hand, this may lead to a more peaceful redefinition of groups that were repressed by previous regimes. But on the other hand, the political vacuum revolutions create may encourage the rise of more extreme ideological parties.

State and Society: The revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa have also called into question the fundamental basis upon which the state relates to society. To what extent have these political transformations altered peoples’ expectations about government accountability and notions of popular sovereignty?

The Role of the External Actors: To what extent has political change in the Middle East and North Africa called into question the capacity of external actors, such as the United States and Iran, to cultivate politically compliant regimes? Can democratic countries that were supporters of overthrown dictators, like the United States and France, play a constructive role in helping to foster democratic transitions?

The Role of the Media and Technology: There exist many untested hypotheses about the role of the media, notably Al Jazeera and technology like the Internet, added to the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Can we state with any degree of specificity the role these media played in them?

The Challenges of Governance: Democratic transitions often place political groups previously in opposition to the regime with the challenges of actually having to govern. What are some of the problems they face, or impose on these transition?

Slow Pace of Change: Many lament the slow pace of political change in the region since the uprisings began one year ago. Is this pessimism justified? Or should we expect political transitions in much of the region to be lengthy processes that are prone to backsliding?

Resistance from Regimes in Power: In the case of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen the regimes in power resorted to harsh tactics to crush dissent. Whereas in Egypt and Tunisia, leaders stepped down without much of a fight. How can we account for these differences?

These are just a few of the questions that arise as the challenges of the Arab Spring become more prominent. This issue of Democracy and Society will take a broad, analytical perspective on determining what these issues are. We seek to understand it from both a US, global, regional, and country-specific perspective. Please email submissions to democracyandsociety@gmail.com by February 27th, 2011. For additional information, please contact Andrea Murta or Ayesha Chugh at democracyandsociety@gmail.com.