Egypt Events Show Drawbacks of Political Purity

In Egypt, the army toppled a democratically elected government.

In a country like the United States, it may be shocking that, no matter what a government’s policies, the vote of a majority of the people should be overturned by force.

President Obama seemed to say that the military coup was acceptable, because of the way the Muslim Brotherhood government was running the country.

“Democracy is about more than elections,” Obama said.

A year ago, the Brotherhood had won elections for the Egyptian presidency and parliament. Based on its religious beliefs, it used its new-found power to change the nature of the country itself.

Obama said earlier that if he wanted government to ban some action, “I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why [it] violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

That was not the view of the Egyptian government, which seemed to believe that its political victory gave it a blank check to make fundamental changes.

Minority religious groups, including the Coptic Christians and Shia Muslims, and women found their rights were being reduced. President Mohammed Morsi declared himself above the law and rushed through a new constitution imposing the Brotherhood’s theology.

Of course, in a democracy, the majority rules, but there are acknowledged limits on what it can do with the power gained through elections. And a government should not be able to easily change a constitution.

In short, the limit on democracy is that it cannot be used to abolish itself. That’s what seemed to be happening in Egypt.

The American government tried to help Morsi stay in power by urging him to demand less political purity and to include in his government a variety of groups and interests. Morsi refused, apparently believing that his electoral victory constituted all the democracy his country needed.

Should that matter to Americans? In this country, we have repeatedly shown, sometimes under great stress, that our democratic system, with each person having an equal vote and the majority controlling, is remarkably strong.

While that’s certainly true, the American system is experiencing something similar to what happened in Egypt. Parties have become inflexible and unwilling to compromise.

The result of such rigidity was disastrous in Egypt, and it is causing problems here as well.

Formerly, the two major parties could compromise on policy questions. The result reflected mainly, but not exclusively, the views of the majority party.

For example, the Republicans might believe that competition among businesses offers sufficient consumer protection, while Democrats might argue for more regulation. The result could be a compromise law, leaning one way or the other, depending on which party is in the majority.

Now, many Republicans insist they will support only a pure version of their policies. For example, despite a strongly bipartisan Senate vote on immigration policy, the GOP Speaker of the House says his chamber will not even consider the Senate bill, seeking instead a purely Republican alternative.

In an extreme case, Wyoming GOP Sen. Mike Enzi, who has never supported any Obama proposal, is under attack and may be challenged in next year’s party primary simply because he was too polite and not stridently personal enough in his anti-Obama rhetoric.

In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage has attacked the character and intelligence of Democrats who oppose him, apparently because he believes his 2010 electoral victory meant that the Legislature should simply fall in line behind his policies.

Insistence on political purity and the related rejection or condemnation of opponents has produced undesirable results.

The parties are unable to find compromises, at least at the federal level, and policy-making has ground to a halt. There is no federal budget, and gridlock is the usual result of any attempt to pass needed legislation.

The Maine Legislature can still compromise, though the GOP members feel it necessary frequently to support their governor’s vetoes, even if they disagree with him.

And the reputations of both the United States and the State of Maine are tarnished.

Because of the inability of our federal government to function, the United States is losing respect elsewhere.

The loss of respect translates easily into a loss of influence in the world. People abroad may wonder if the United States is even capable of acting, when it is so deadlocked at home.

And when relations between Maine’s Republican governor and Democratic Legislature have reached the low point of name-calling, the sour political atmosphere may make the state look less attractive to out-of-state business.