Egypt in the Face of International Dictatorship by Hossam Badrawi

Egypt in the Face of International Dictatorship
By: Hossam Badrawi

These days, President Trump is threatening and dismantling everything we have believed in as values of Western civilization—human rights, equality among people, and the foundations of democracy built on institutional principles.

Even respecting treaties and international agreements is being evaded, and the U.S. is withdrawing from institutions that humanity has struggled to build over decades—institutions that safeguard the environment, health, cultural exchange, and global cooperation for the benefit of humanity.

President Trump represents a new kind of dictatorship that transcends national borders with unprecedented bluntness, showing no regard for history or conventions. He relies on massive military power and vast economic influence.

Every ruling system has its advantages and disadvantages. Local dictatorship (i.e., within a single country), though we do not endorse it, sometimes has benefits. Likewise, democracy, though we advocate for it, sometimes has drawbacks.

A dictatorship may lead a country out of backwardness through a shortcut, while democracy can sometimes allow the ignorant majority to choose the worst elements of society and prevent important decisions that might align with the majority’s short-term interests but not serve the country’s future.

However, international dictatorship is a new phenomenon we now witness. The Trump-era American model, driven by financial power, Zionist influence, military and intelligence institutions, and corporate interests, significantly manipulates American voters’ choices. The result is often a selection between the bad and the worse rather than the best option for the American people.

International dictatorship offers no benefits—only global oppression, imposed tributes, coercion, and exploitation of the world’s populations, even leading to mass genocide without conscience or respect for the human values accumulated over centuries.

Lessons from History

Looking at national-level governance, we see figures like Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, the rulers of China in its massive economic rise, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey, and Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia. Even Adolf Hitler in post-World War I Germany (before his descent into madness and the start of World War II) provides an example.

All dictatorships eventually ended in disaster, instability, or the collapse of their countries. I do not foresee a different fate for Trump’s dictatorship, except that its consequences will be even broader and more profound.

What protects both the people and the ruler from the intoxication of power, the influence of authority, and the flattery that surrounds it? The answer lies in a balance of powers—true parliamentary accountability, an independent and effective justice system, and, most importantly, a system of power rotation. When those around the leader know that authority is not permanent for any individual or group, the nation thrives.

It remains to be seen how American institutions will confront Trump’s internal dictatorial flood and how they will manage to restrain him.

The Chinese model, which relied on a one-party dictatorship to maximize the benefits of such a system, once practiced internal power rotation. However, even that is now eroding with recent constitutional amendments that allow the president to remain in office for life.

China, whose national income today exceeds that of the U.S., could not have achieved such growth and investment under a Western-style democracy that enforces rigid equality, leaving the entire nation impoverished and incapable of decisive action.

Dictatorship vs. Democracy: The Middle Ground Dilemma

I am not advocating for dictatorship—I am merely analyzing events.

There are times when dictatorship can be beneficial, especially in nations plagued by corruption, poverty, slums, and scientific backwardness. In such cases, the majority may vote against change, clinging to the status quo that benefits corruption, even as they complain about it, because they lack a vision for the future.

Conversely, democracy has its own flaws, particularly when the rule of law is absent, discussions lead nowhere, and decision-making stagnates. Governments may suppress all alternatives before the people, warning that chaos would ensue without their presence.

Egypt’s Crossroads: Choosing a Clear Path

Turning to Egypt, we find ourselves stuck in the middle ground. We have preserved loss-making public-sector enterprises, renaming them without changing the core philosophy. We claim to encourage investment while, in practice, deterring both domestic and foreign investors, failing to create real job opportunities. We dance halfway between democracy and social justice, pretending these goals are met simply by offering citizens rights rather than allowing the private sector to thrive without state competition.

The government says it supports the private sector, yet private businesses struggle with bureaucratic obstacles, excessive taxation, and the perception that profits equate to theft deserving punishment.

We have replaced the public sector with state-controlled institutions operating outside the national budget, yet the old mindset remains unchanged.

We have failed to reform education for the sake of our future or eradicate corruption in its administration without resorting to excuses. We proclaim education a priority while actively obstructing its development.

We have opted for half-democracy, making decision-making nearly impossible in a bid to please everyone, ultimately disappointing all.

As Khalil Gibran once said, with some modification:

“Do not dream half a dream, do not hold onto half a hope.
If you are satisfied, express your satisfaction—do not feign half-contentment.
If you refuse, express your refusal, for half-refusal is acceptance.
The middle ground is a life you never truly lived, a word left unspoken, a smile postponed, a love never fulfilled, a friendship left unknown.
The middle ground is what makes you a stranger to yourself.
It is arriving yet not arriving, working yet not working, being present yet absent.
The middle ground is you, when you are not truly yourself, because you do not know who you are.
Half a road will lead you nowhere.
Half an idea will yield no result.
The middle ground is a moment of weakness—yet you are not weak, for you are not half a human.
You were created to live fully, not to live half a life.”

Egypt is at a historical crossroads, facing immense international and regional pressure. But a strong Egypt can stand firm against these challenges only if it is internally strong and has real choices.

External pressures should not distract us from internal reforms under the pretext that “now is not the time.” We must answer crucial questions:

• Are we ready to choose?
• Are we prepared for decisive political actions that will benefit the economy?
• Do we want real economic openness or controlled stagnation?
• Do we want a robust private sector that creates jobs, or do we prefer an economy dominated by the state and its agencies—or a half-hearted mix of both?
• Do we truly want to eliminate poverty and become prosperous, or do we accept equal distribution of poverty by remaining in the middle ground?
• Do we want a strong civil society and sustainable NGOs, or will we continue strangling them with restrictive laws under the guise of security concerns?
• Are we a civil state or a religious one? Everything I see suggests we are neither—we have religion controlling society without officially declaring a theocracy, and we claim citizenship while allowing discriminatory practices.

When it comes to tourism, do we genuinely want to attract tourists with efficient services and respect at entry points, or do we expect them to tolerate poor treatment simply because we desire their money?

A country that holds the world’s treasures and whose history is studied by children across the globe should not leave itself at the mercy of beggars and exploiters at its tourist sites. Nor should it allow complexity and arrogance in its airports and customs offices. A country must make clear choices—not remain stuck in the middle.

The middle ground means weakness, fluidity, and lack of direction. It ultimately destroys everything, no matter how good the intentions or how patriotic the motives.

If we remain in the middle, we will gain neither the efficiency of dictatorship nor the advantages of democracy. Instead, we will suffer all their worst consequences—authoritarian excesses without strength and democratic paralysis without freedom.

Egypt needs strong governance, but within a framework of power rotation to ensure sustainable development. The balance between hesitation and certainty favors openness, freedom, participation, and learning from past mistakes, guided by justice, knowledge, and the belief in the resilience of the Egyptian people.

Egypt can stand against international dictatorship only when it is strong—through its people, its military, its active institutions, and its self-reliance.