Now that the Mubarak era has come to an end in Egypt, western political experts will continue their race to guess which possible model Egypt might follow for its political future. Is it Iran, is it Pakistan or is it Turkey?
Looking at the limited choice above, western experts seem to believe that Egypt is not capable of a functioning western-style democracy; for them the decision is between dictators or Islamists or Islamist dictatorships.
Recently, quite a few opinions have been published on how the Turkish model is the one that will work best for Egypt. I could not disagree more.
First of all, we have to determine what we mean by the Turkish model. Are we talking about the republic established as a secular democratic state by Kemal Ataturk or are we talking about the current ruling AKP party's policies to turn it around and incorporate Islam into the country's political system? In the wake of the army's rise to power in Egypt, some people are focusing on the traditional leading role of the Turkish military, but most commentators seem to refer to the AKP's attempt at so-called moderate Islamism.
Indeed, the Turkish model is far from monolithic: on the one hand the Islamists in power are pulling the country away from universal values such as the rule of law, freedom of expression and of the press, and women's rights; on the other, liberal forces are seeking to be part of the west and its system of values.
Democracy is of course the least bad system of governance. However, democracy cannot and should not be defined only as the result of the polls without strong, secular and independent institutions where checks and balances are firmly in place. And those institutions are precisely what we are slowly losing in Turkey.
After President Hosni Mubarak's resignation President Obama called for a transition to 'genuine democracy.' Idealistic but vague. Is the U.S. really ready to push for democracy with uncertain outcomes?
For decades the US talked about the importance of democracy but failed to support liberal secular forces in Egypt at the expense of stability and its strategic interests. For Washington, Egypt is too important a country to go through political chaos or have an unfriendly government. While the US understands it has to listen to the voice of the Egyptian people, it also has to ensure that its interests in the region are undamaged. It's a tough balancing act.
But the difficulty of finding that balance means that easy answers are likely to be the wrong ones. So when the pundits come up with a 'Eureka' moment, suggesting that the Egyptians should follow the Turkish model, they are not only insulting liberals in Turkey by defining the country as an Islamic democracy -- Turkey is still a secular democracy -- but also giving a wrong example to Egyptians about fundamental values -- the values the Turkish government fails to safeguard.
If the West wants to set an example to Egyptians, it should point to the best working democracies in the world: countries like the U.S., the UK, France or Germany, not the problematic ones. If the U.S. is sincere in its call for a genuine democracy it should be the main supporter of the secular liberal forces in the region. Washington should have stopped coddling dictators and fostering Islamists long ago.
The Egyptians stood firm and got rid of a dictator. They certainly do not want another authoritarian regime and they do not deserve one. The model Egypt and the middle east need is strong liberal democracy and there is no better time to start building it.