Egypt and the US’s “Underdog” Problem

Americans love our underdogs.

The Miracle on Ice. Rudy. Michael Oher (aka “that guy from the Blind Side”). Every March Madness Cinderella story ever (I’m looking at you Butler). Rocky Balboa. Whichever team is making a run for the championship when they haven’t won one in 60+ years.

And we love our sentimental “win one for the Gipper” stories: the New Orleans Saints after Hurricane Katrina; the Patriots after 9/11; Boston Red Socks after the Marathon bombings; Keri Strugg at the ’96 Olympics. I mean, seriously – who rooted for the Red Socks before the bombings? Other than, obviously, the greater Boston area.

As a lifelong Cleveland sports fan, rooting for the underdog is a way of life. I can name the number of times in my life we haven’t been the underdogs. Mostly because they actually have names - and they're all associated with the other side winning. Red Right 88. The Drive. The Shot. The 1995 and 1997 World Series. And the Decision (which I think should be called “The Betrayal”).  More often, we’re hoping and praying for a Kardiac Kids pre-Red Right 88 moment; a moment when our under-dog status brings us a Cinderella ending. It very. rarely. happens.

As a Cleveland fan, I have three rules for sports: root for Cleveland; root for whoever is playing the Steelers, the Yankees or the Heat; and when neither of those rules apply, root for the underdog.

These rules are bent sometimes when the playoffs are on the line, but for the most part these rules tell me who to root for without regard to who the team was playing the week before or who they will play the next week. In the course of two weeks, I can root against the Bengals (when playing the Browns) and then for the Bengals (when playing the Steelers) and never violate my great rules.

I know I’m not alone, and across the US these rules apply with just a change of the team’s names.

But the US has a problem when we transfer our love of the underdog to our interactions in international affairs.  We tend to jump into the middle of serious issues as if it was a sports season. It doesn’t matter who we would have rooted for last week or last month, it’s a whole new game whenever we decide to start paying attention. And whoever is on the losing side?  That’s probably who we are going to root for.

This often leaves us as a society under-appreciative of the complexities of the conflicts we take sides in. We assign white hats and black hats based solely on who is winning or losing at a given moment.

Once we choose sides, we hold on to that choice, rooting for or against a team to the end, often times in spite of changing information or alternatives. It doesn’t matter that Iran was opposed to al Qaeda and the Taliban before we were, or that they were one of the first countries to officially condemn the terrorist attacks and offer condolences and solidarity after 9/11.  They’re the bad guys; we root against them; and so it apparently made perfect sense to assign them to some insane Axis of Evil that no one who understands the political situation of and between Iran, Iraq and North Korea could possibly accept. 

It doesn’t matter that Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame has invaded other countries and is accused of aiding war crimes. He’s a Tutsi, and they were the victims in the ’94 genocide so he’s a good guy who got unflinching support until only a year ago.

Our unfailing support for Israel in the face of systematic oppression of Palestinians both inside Israel and in the Occupied Territories hasn’t changed despite mass changes in the circumstances. We know who is right and wrong:  it’s the side we chose when Israel was the underdogs, formed of Holocaust survivors facing war with all their neighbours. So despite the fact that now Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are at peace with Israel, providing Israel a strong buffer against any invasion from anyone other than Hezbollah or Hamas, and despite the fact that Israel is building settlements in land it doesn't own, displacing thousands of Palestinians and making it harder for them to travel within their own territory, despite the fact that Israeli actions mean that thousands of Palestinians die because they can't physically get to the hospital on time, despite the fact that Israel soldiers arrest 5 year olds for throwing rocks, despite the fact that they have instituted segregated busing that makes it harder for Palestinians to access their jobs in Jerusalem... despite all the power Israel has over the daily lives of Palestinians, and despite the relative peace they now enjoy with their immediate neighbours, we know who our underdog is and we’re gonna stick with them.

And that’s our problem. That’s why the rest of the world sits there and shakes their head in amazement at the choices we make in the international arena. We play international politics like we cheer for football: absolute loyalties with no reason and thought about the complexity of the conflicts.

Right now, we have that problem with Egypt. 

We know a little more about Egypt’s recent history than most every other country we’ve taken sides in recently, but our media and our politicians are still displaying a horrendous lack of awareness about the complexity of the situation. 

The truth is, no one can really judge what's going on in Egypt unless they speak Arabic and are there. I don't speak Arabic and I'm not there, so I'm just as bad as our politicians and media and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But, I do think we're missing so much of the picture, and the more I see and hear from Egyptian friends, the more the western media and our politicians sound ridiculous. I did ask 3 Egyptian friends to read this before I posted it and made some tweaks based on suggestions, though ultimately this is mine and they shouldn't be blamed for my opinions.

Most Americans woke up to the oppression in Egypt during the Arab Spring protests against Mubarak, cheered for his removal, briefly condemned the election of the Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) and then stopped paying attention when it became clear the MB wasn’t going to declare war on Israel.  So we mostly missed the constant stream of developments in the year since then.

We mostly missed the declaration from Morsi that the courts could not overrule his decisions, placing himself above the rule of law.

We missed the ongoing attacks against Christians and Christian churches around Egypt, with little response from Morsi and the MB leadership. (It is imperative to note that there have been other Muslims in Egypt speaking out in defense of Christians, and many who have risked their own lives for the protection of Christians and Christian churches both this past month and over the past few years.)

We missed the steady stream of Morsi placing his MB colleagues into positions they weren't necessarily qualified for.  Yes, we oftentimes accept this as part of US politics, but not everywhere is so willing to take on random, unqualified political appointees in the top ranks of their administration.

We missed the abuse of journalists, and the mob attacks on those who demonstrated against Morsi.

Perhaps most importantly, we missed the news before the coup that the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court ruled the Parliamentary elections were unconstitutional.

Literally. We missed it. If you google “Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court declares upper house of parliament and the constituent assembly unconstitutional,” none of the top results are from mainstream English language media. Not the BBC. Not CNN, or Wall Street Journal or NYT. Or really anywhere else you would normally get your news from.

It’s actually still hard to find mainstream English language news on this, so I have to rely on the World Socialist Website, though its description matches what I was told by several Egyptian lawyers over the past month:

Before the June 2 rulings, the SCC had already declared the People's Assembly, the lower house of the Egyptian parliament, illegal in June 2012. In both cases, the SCC declared the two houses of parliament unconstitutional on the grounds that the election law under which the bodies were elected in February 2012 “violated articles 37 and 39 of the constitutional declaration.”The court stated that the electoral law discriminates “against independent candidates because it allowed political parties to compete for the one third of seats reserved for independents, while it stripped independents of the right to compete for the two third of seats reserved for party-based candidates.”

In most modern democracies, a ruling like this would result in an immediate call for new elections. The US is an anomaly in the sense that we have timed elections. Most Parliamentary systems have a more fluid election system in which elections must be held within a certain time period, but there can be an early call for elections for any number of reasons: a change in party leadership; a fall in general confidence; systematic problems with the elections; and sometimes just the strategic "we have great poll numbers - let's go a few months early!" The UK only moved away from this system in 2011 and people still haven’t gotten used to it.

Morsi, however, didn’t call for early elections. He indicated he was going to rule no matter what the people wanted.

So we in the US don’t realize or appreciate that a majority of Egyptians feel that the continued rule of the MB was illegitimate, undemocratic, and dangerous.  We missed the steady stream of changing public opinion against the MB, which is mostly the result of these developments. The change in opinion was a response to Morsi, who showed himself incompetent at leading a nation as diverse and as complex as Egypt. A country with a strong moderate and secular contingency, and one committed to ensuring a true democracy after years without it.

Instead of understanding that this didn't occur in a vacuum, we have Lindsey Graham childishly telling the new acting Prime Minister of Egypt, “Mr. Prime Minister, it’s pretty hard for you to lecture anyone on the rule of law. How many votes did you get? Oh, yeah, you didn’t have an election.” 

Conveniently, he forgets the number of times the US put people into power who had never won an election, including everyone associated with the initial state-building in Afghanistan post-2001.

Americans started paying attention to Egypt again when Morsi was removed in a coup. 

Yes, I’m using the word coup in a post in which I’m still arguing we’re wrong in our approach to what is going on in Egypt.  There is no other word for what happens when a democratically elected leader is removed by the military. 

My Egyptian friends hate when I call it a coup because they view the situation as more complex. The use of this word in this piece elicited strong reactions. In their view, the military was doing what was required by the people but what the government itself didn’t want to do.  The military was preventing electoral authoritarianism (yup, that’s a thing; nope, it doesn’t apply to the Obama administration; no, that’s not open for debate with me).

And the truth is, it's really not much different from what happened with Mubarak.  Mubarak's last election was a multi-party, contested, democratic election, monitored by Egyptian judges.  There were problems with it, but given the US's recent history with elections and the current situation in North Carolina, I think we should hold off on casting stones from our glass house by trying to suggest it was an illegitimate election. It was an imperfect one, but it was a transition to democracy.

Mubarak and Morsi both faced large protests, with the military siding with the protesters. The only difference is whether the leader was willing to resign.  Let's be honest: Morsi probably would've been stupid to resign after witnessing what happened to Mubarak. Morsi must have known that any complaints of corruption, cronyism and abuse would turn into an actual trial after his presidency.  

But he was also stupid not to resign. By failing to resign, he simply made it more clear that he felt himself above the will of the people.  And people in democratic states tend to resistance those who would make themselves kings or pharaohs. 

The MB is insisting they'll only participate in a peaceful way forward if Morsi is reinstalled.  But their actions subsequent to Morsi's removal make it impossible to return to a Morsi-led government.  Again, the US and western media has largely been absent from noting the atrocities:

We missed when bombs were set off on oil pipelines shortly after the coup. We missed the news that this was a tactic the MB had regularly employed when Mubarak was in power and that there were promises the bombings would stop if Morsi was returned to power. 

We missed learning that these bombings were part of a long conflict in the Sinai region that pitted jihadists against the Egyptian military; extremists against the more moderate state. We didn't understand that this constant barrage of attacks - and the MB's willingness to side with the jihadists - cost the Muslim Brotherhood support. And we don't understand that this continues to represent a threat to the Egyptian people.

We missed the intimidation the MB was meting out to those who opposed them, who sat in their houses as the MB staged their protests, unable to leave.



We missed the news that al Qaeda intends to use this as a moment to destabilize Egypt, siding with the MB in an attempt to install extreme forms of Islamic governance.

We missed the news that the MB is refusing to participate in the new Constitutional process, despite indications they were invited.

In a weekend where the international media concentrated on the breaking up of demonstrations, we missed the news that more than 40 churches and religious institutions were attacked. That Christians, Christian homes, and Christian businesses were systematically targeted. We missed the news that the Coptic Pope had to go into hiding for fear of his life and that of the congregations he serves. We missed the constant laying of blame by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians for what is a widespread, inter-faith rejection of their leadership, one in which the church remained largely quiet out of fear of such reprisals. 

Prince Tadros Coptic Church
From AFP / Getty Images

Bon Pasteur Catholic Church & Monastery in Suez
Source: Dina Nazmy

Once again, it must be noted that there are many Muslims risking their security and lives for the protection of Christians in Egypt. It is also worth noting that the Egyptian military has said it will pay to rebuild all the damaged churches.

From Twitter, reposted at examiner.com

We missed the news that the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has called for the persecution of Christians, and supporters have indicated they intend to wipe out all Christians in Egypt. We missed a threat of genocide against Christians. This isn’t particularly shocking considering how little the church in the US speaks out on behalf of Palestinian Christians, too. But it’s still pretty abhorrent.

Seriously, if we're going to pick the underdogs of Egypt, it's the Christians.

But it's not just the Christians.  There are calls against Shia Muslims as well.

Thankfully, most of the Muslims in Egypt are also picking the Christians to side with and they are refusing to engage in a Sunni-Shia division.

It is clear to those in Egypt that the MB is using this tactic to make it a religious conflict. It is also clear to those present that this won't work. In response to this post, my friends kept saying how there are "just Egyptians," not Christian and Muslim, not Sunni and Shia; just Egyptians. And they refusing to allow the MB to win in a war of propaganda on religious grounds.

But it needs to also be clear to those of us on the outside.  Because this isn't a call for intervention. It's a call to respect the process in Egypt.  It's a complicated process and we keep missing the whole story.

Americans came in at game 15 of the season and decided we were going to root for the underdogs, even though at game 6 we were rooting against them and at the start of the season we didn't even know they were a team. Lots of things changed in the middle, but we apparently don't feel the need to understand those things. 

The situation of Egypt is complex. The rule of law there is absolutely threatened. It’s threatened by the coup but it is also threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead of discussing these complexities, we concentrate on a small piece of the picture: the removal of peaceful MB demonstrators, the resulting deaths, and their systematic arrests. The Egyptian military’s use of force is at times unnecessary, illegal and wrong.

But the protests weren't always peaceful, and there was a lot of reports of abuse associated with them. To suggest the military had no right to intervene at all is to ignore that reality. To suggest it had a right to disperse all the protesters is to ignore the right of an important voice in Egyptian politics to protest.

There is a significant size of the MB that intends to wreak havoc in Egypt unless they get their way. This doesn't mean they should have their human rights violated but it does mean that the government has a duty to respond where their abuses infringe on the rights of others.

Where we’re failing is when we confuse the injustices perpetrated against the MB with them being the “good guys,” the “legitimate leadership” or the people we should be supporting. 

The main question that Egyptians have to face is this:  does the MB have legitimacy to continue to rule in Egypt? 

No. They don’t.  

But they won’t participate in a new system unless Morsi is put back in power. And Morsi can’t be put back in power without setting off large protests by the millions who protested his rule in the first place.  The current situation cannot continue, but the old situation cannot be reinstated. So a third way is needed.

Currently, there is an ongoing process to create a new Constitution for Egypt. This process is not perfect, but then again Constitutional processes rarely are. The one the US celebrates most frequently excluded women and resulted in a determination that most of the black people in our country only count for 3/5 of a person.

Egypt has the chance to fix a broken system with a new Constitutional process. If it’s done well, an inclusive process in the current situation could finally set Egypt up for long term success. It could place the military in the position the military is supposed to have in a democracy: subservient to a civilian government which is in turn subservient to the will of the people. It could create space for the Christian community – which is the largest religious minority and represents 10% of the Egyptian population – to participate in government and society with more freedom and less fear.

I don’t know if that will happen or not. But I know that my friends in Egypt are looking for a better solution than what they have. I know that my Christian brothers and sisters there deserve more support from the US than a simply kneejerk reaction of support for the MB because they happen to be on the losing side right now. I know that ignoring the complex situation in Egypt is short sighted and inappropriate.

It’s inappropriate because it degrades the voices of the millions of Egyptians who now have to fear the MB’s systematic assaults on Christians. It ignores the voices of the millions of Egyptians who have sought the protection of the military. It ignores the reality of the millions of Egyptians who are staying indoors these days simply because of fear over being attack, and it misses the reality that that fear is not simply directed at the government but is also a result of Muslim Brotherhood attacks.

And it is short sighted because it ignores the abuses of democracy by the Muslim Brotherhood, which precipitated the coup. The question of democracy in Egypt didn’t start with the removal of Morsi. Even the recent history of Egypt's struggle for democracy started before that. It started with Mubarak’s rule. It continued with illegitimate elections and processes and declarations that the President is above the rule of law. It continued with the coup. We don't know where it's going next, but we need to start paying better attention.

We need to stop running our foreign policy like we choose who to root for in the Superbowl. Egypt is a good lesson on why.


[PS. After I wrote this, but before I posted it, I found this interview by the BBC of actor and activist Khalid Abdalla. A friend, who will remain nameless here to protect her as she is in Egypt now, posted it on facebook and it is such an important interview. It really needs greater publicity: