All who know Haddara would tell you that he has not forgotten the country where he came from – Egypt. He has always had an unwavering love to the country for his extended family, for it history, its language and culture.

As the Arab Spring developed, Haddara was at the centre of discussions, whether it be coffee discussions, academic debates, or invited to speak on what was taking place in the Middle East, particularly Egypt. Haddara offered a Canadian perspective to the quickly changing events at the time.

Haddara comes from a very well-respected family in Egypt of academics, scientists, entrepreneurs and career civil servants.

In November 2011, Haddara travelled to Egypt to visit family and was introduced, via a family friend to Dr Esam ElHaddad, then head of the newly formed Freedom and Justice Party’s Foreign Relations Committee. As Egypt’s transition to democracy developed Dr. ElHaddad reached to Haddara for help.

“Most of us living in this part of the world felt there was so very little that we were doing to help Egypt in a time where really it needed a lot of help.”

“It was an opportunity to bridge my two identities,” says Haddara, of his decision to help the Brotherhood-backed Freedom and Justice Party after the 2011 Egyptian revolution.

“I see myself as someone who has a foot in both cultures. I value my Egyptian roots and values and I also know there are a lot of great things about Canada and the United States and other Western Nations. The opportunity to be that bridge builder seemed to be the reason why my life evolved the way it did.”

Throughout the presidential elections Haddara continued to advise the FJP candidate, Dr Morsi.

“It was surreal,” he says.

“To feel like you are part of a country’s first free, real, fairly-held elections that were actually competitive where the result was not pre-determined – and you have a ringside seat . . . you actually did something? You had a small part, but a part of it?”

“It felt like walking into the warm sunshine after a long cold winter. It was really like, ‘Wow, this country is finally going somewhere.”

The poll also asked respondents about the self-styled “National Salvation Front”. One third of respondents had not heard of the NSF. Of those that had, only 38% that it has performed average (27%) or well (11%).

Analysis

Methodology

Although the methodology is reasonably robust, there are a number of criticisms that may affect the validity of the data.

1. Complete reliance on telephone contact as opposed to face to face polling. Although mobile phone penetration in Egypt was pegged at 113% in 2012, it is unclear whether people in certain demographic bands are equally likely to respond to a cold call. Nevertheless, Baseera has adopted this methodology throughout all previous polls and therefore internal comparisons are valid.
2. The 73% response rate is acceptable, but it is unclear whether those are equally distributed demographically. More critically, there has been a significant decline in response rates over time. Polls conducted after 5 and 6 months in office both had response rates of 90%. At 7 months, the response rate plummeted to 76% and declining slightly to 74% at 8 months.
3. It is unclear whether the sample demographics reflect the makeup of Egyptian society with respect to age, economic status and level of education.

Implications

The most significant finding of the poll is a general disillusionment with the political class. The President’s approval rating has declined, but not as significantly as the approval rating of other ex-presidential candidates. All of the ex-presidential candidates included the poll have had extensive media exposure throughout the period following the election and have remained as active participants in the political scene. All, with the exception of A Shafiq lead political parties.

* Based on the second round results

** UPDATE – It was pointed out to me that the approval ratings for the various political figures were based on the 45% of people not planning to vote for the President. If so, the actual level of support in the total sample would be the number in brackets. The “decline” would be 2-fold worse.

The fact that 2/3rds of respondents cannot identify a suitable alternative for the Presidency despite the unprecedented proliferation of political leaders also supports the notion that there is a general disillusionment with politicians. The poll was not designed to explore the reasons for disapproving the performance of the President, but clues can be found in the trend over the past few months.

The largest decline in the approval rating of the President came in the aftermath of the November 2012 Constitutional Declaration. The President had an approval rating of 76-79% over the first 4 months. In one month, the approval rating plummeted 22 points (78% —>57%). Since then, the approval ratings have declined at a much slower rate (10 points over the subsequent 5 months). The last two approval ratings are within the margin of error.

Lastly, there was a significant uptick in support for the president at the 6 month point. Overall approval improved from 57% to 63% and re-voting intentions increased from 43% to 50%. The only significant event occurring between the 5 and 6 months marks was the conclusion of the referendum and the adoption of the Constitution. While the poll is not sufficiently granular to allow for firm conclusions, it would appear that completing the milestones of democratic transition enjoys wide-based support.

I recently came upon this speech by Dwight D Eisenhower before he became President. It was delivered at Columbia in 1950. I dont think Eisenhower is thought of by many as a great orator – I think most Americans (and non-Americans for that matter) think of JFK as the great orator of the 20th century Presidents, but I have to say I am beginning to think Eisenhower is up there…He coined the term “military industrial complex”– and apparently wanted to called it the “military-industrial-congress complex” but was persuaded to drop “congress” by fellow Republicans….

Another speech that carries the same passion and insight was the “Chance for Peace Speech” (“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed…..This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense….”) – watch here.

Here is an excerpt from World Peace – A Balance Sheet- Columbia University March 23. All emphasis is mine.

“As friends of free people everywhere in the world, we can by our own example – our conduct in every crisis, real or counterfeit; our resistance to propaganda and passion; our readiness to seek adjustments and compromise of difference – we can by our own example ceaselessly expand understanding among the nations. We must never forget that international friendship is achieved through rumors ignored, propaganda challenged and exposed; through patient loyalty to those who have proved themselves worthy of it;through help freely given, where help is needed and merited. In rights and in opportunity, in loyalty and in responsibility to ideals, we are and must remain equal. Peace is more the product of our day-to-day living than of a spectacular program intermittently executed.

The best foreign policy is to live our daily lives in honesty, decency and integrity; at home, making our own land a more fitting habitation for free men; and abroad, joining with those of like mind and heart, to make of the world a place where all men can dwell in peace. Neither palsied by fear nor duped by dreams but strong in the rightness of our purpose, we can then place out case and cause before the bar of world opinion – history’s final arbiter between nations.”

And yes, I’m well aware of the actual record of the Eisenhower presidency in Latin America and in Iran, but I would like to think that theses were due to forces larger than him. “Why We Fight” is a sympathetic portrayal of the man.

Our Foreign Policy needs serious overhaul. I believe the one big lesson that all countries should have learned from the Bush years is that no one nation, however powerful it may be, can  “go it alone” for any significant period of time. Nations cannot advance their position in the world by thumbing their noses at others, stating their demands and then staking a “take it or leave it” position.

Yet, we seem to be the in process of doing exactly that. This is most evident when it comes to the Middle East, but also on other files (climate being the most prominent recently). We have already destroyed our relationship with the United Arab Emirates seemingly over landing rights for an airline. They kicked us out of a base we had been using gratis for the past ten years. We then had to move at a cost estimated at several hundred million dollars. In a world where walls are coming down and international trade and business are depending on freedom of movement, Canadians are now one of the few Western nationals that require avisa obtained ahead of time to enter the Emirates. Prior to this fracas, Canadians simply obtained a visa at the airport.

We have now also taken an adversarial position vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. There is a campaign to label Saudi oil unethical (as opposed to our oil sands, which are trés ethical). Saudis believe the Canadian embassy in Riyadh is exceptionally obstructionist. From my own experience, it takes no less than 6 months for a physician to obtain the authorizations needed to begin residency training in Canada (for which the Saudi government pays us some $75,000 per year for each trainee).

The government of Saudi Arabia apparently feels that these are deliberate actions by the Canadian government and has instituted measures on the basis of reciprocity. It now takes some 45 days for Canadians to obtain a visa to enter Saudi Arabia.

Who the heck wants to go to Saudi Arabia or Dubai in the first place? Well, the government of Saudi Arabia just announced the budget for the previous year. Balance: Surplus of roughly $80 billion. (We have a deficit ~$30 billion).  How will that surplus be spent? Infrastructure, health and education. Are there any Canadian companies that should want in on this boom? Probably. They need to wait 45 days. In case you’re wondering, the United States now routinely grants Saudis multiple entry, 5 year visas and the Saudis are reciprocating. But of course the United States did not experience a traumatic terrorist attack and we did. Wait, did I get that right?

Early in the course of the Egyptian Revolution, our government sent signals that an end to the Mubarak regime might not be such a good thing. Recently, our PM reiterated this position, saying that a post-revolutionary regime may in fact be worse than the Mubarak regime.

Let’s dissect this one out more:

–       The previous regime was corrupt

–       The previous regime drove the Egyptian economy into the ground

–       The previous regime presided over a bankrupt educational system that saw Egyptian university delisted from world rankings.

–       The previous regime detained Egyptians illegally and tried civilians before military courts.

–       The previous regime tortured its citizens, in addition to other abuses.

–       The previous regime systematically plundered the country for the benefit of a few individuals.

–       The previous regime pitted one segment of society against the other.

–       The previous regime was implicated in attacks against Copts (Egyptian Christians).

–       The previous regime systematically extinguished the hopes, dreams and aspirations of an entire generation of Egyptians.

–       The previous regime was friendly to Israel, assisted in the starvation of Palestinians by assisting in the inhumane blockade of Gaza and subsidized the Government of Israel by selling it natural gas at obscenely low prices.

What about the post-revolutionary regime? While it remains unclear who that will be, it is now obvious that Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, will play a prominent role in it. The consensus in Egypt, even among the most skeptical, is that any post-revolutionary regime is most likely going to:

–       Fight corruption

–       Try to improve the economy

–       Try to improve education

–       Abolish military courts and illegal detention for civilians

–       Abolish torture

–       Try to improve the standard of living for average Egyptians

–       ..etc.

Oh yes – I neglected to say that any post-revolutionary regime, Islamist or not, is unlikely to be friendly to Israel, to assist in the starvation of Palestinians or to subsidize the government of Israel.

When our PM makes the claim that the post-revolutionary regime is likely to be worse than the Mubarak regime, he is exclusively referring to that last point. For ordinary Egyptians, or for that matter, for Egyptian officials reading these statements, PM Harper’s priorities are painfully obvious. Canada prefers a regime that extinguishes any semblance of dignity and hope for Egyptians so long as it is a regime that protects the interests of Israel. When our PM prefaces these views by saying he has spoken to the PM of Israel and “we both agree…”, it leave little room for another interpretation.

Which leaves us with a simple question: If foreign policy is based on reciprocity, how should we expect the Government of Egypt to reciprocate?

2011 has been a remarkable year. For far too long, the Arab world seemed immune to the changes sweeping the rest of the world. This year, finally, the peoples of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt managed to throw off the yokes of oppressive regimes. For those in other countries, the struggle continues.

The “Arab Spring” also showed that, despite years of suppression and oppression, these countries continue to have a strong and vibrant Islamic identity. In the two countries that have had free and fair elections, Islamic movements garnered a greater share of the vote than, say, our present elected government. In both Egypt and Tunisia, the Islamist parties have won more votes than the next three or four parties put together. Libya is unlikely to prove any different.

Both Ennahda in Tunisia and the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt have stated very clearly that their priorities are to improve the economic lot of their respective peoples and establish the rule of law. For others, however, who are coming into the world of governance with an Islamic ideology, the priority seems to be to ensure the proper practice of Islam in their respective societies.

So, what should it be? In others words, from an authentic Islamic understanding, what should the priority be for those who, at long last, seem to be in a position to influence the ship of government?

I feel very strongly about this one. As a young person growing up, one of the most important lessons I was taught was that the world moves according to certain basic principles. If you want to succeed, you have to work hard; if you want to pass an examination, you must study. In short, if you want a result, you must understand what it is that can help bring about this result. Merely wishing something to be does not make it so. Doing the “wrong thing” does not help bring about the desired result anymore than doing nothing at all.

So, what is the right thing today? I would argue that there are three essential priorities for any Islamic movement in the Arab world today: Establish a society based on the rule of law and respect for institutions of governance; enshrine personal and societal freedoms and improve the participation in society of all segments of society but more so the dispossessed and underprivileged.

In his reading of the life of the Prophet peace be upon him, Dr Al-Buti reflects on the Divine wisdom of the message of Islam being revealed to Arabs. He concludes that Arabs at the time were free of oppressive rule, unlike the Romans, Byzantines and Persians. He extrapolates from the wandering of the Jews in the Sinai after the exodus to make the same point. The generation of Israelites that grew up in the shadow of the Pharaoh could not build a nation – and hence it was necessary for a free people to grow up in the wandering. Similarly, the Arabs, free, though unruly, were more likely to shoulder the responsibility of the new message.

Mandela expressed a similar idea eloquently a few decades a go: Only free men can negotiate. Similarly, only free people (men and women) can believe. Only a free people can build civilisations. And so, if the Islamic movements are to make a long lasting contribution today, it will be to restore societies in which people are free. Like the pre-Islamic Arab society, freedom can be associated with unruliness. Yet the price of restricting freedom in order to achieve order is a slide back into the authoritarianism that has been emblematic of Muslim societies for far too long in the recent past.

On the second issue – the rule of law and respect for institutions of governance: Many Islamist leaders seem to suggest that there is a magic formula that will evolve on its own once an Islamic “state” is established. This simplistic approach tends to be more common in the so-called salafi camp, but it is not entirely absent from mainstream groups either. This simplistic view ignores the wealth of human experiences to date that tell us that men and power, once joined, are hard to separate.

A new culture of respect for institutions that operationalize effective checks and balances must be a priority. Appealing to people’s religious faith and sense of justice and fairness is simply not enough. Reliance on “wise leadership” is not enough. Although it has not always resulted in the best government, the framers of the American Constitution understood this point well. Checks and balances must be instituted to ensure that good government continues.

Finally, for far too long, leaders in the Middle East have conditioned people to take a back seat and simply passively follow. Changing this requires a monumental effort. An active citizenry makes the job of a government much harder and it is tempting to try to quell dissent. That would be a mistake even if dissent is quelled using entirely legal means.  I was heartened by a recent interview with the General Guide of the Egyptian MB in which he stressed that, in the process of framing the new Egyptian Constitution, the framers must tour the entire country and consult widely.

Today, the Arab world needs freedom, rule of law and engagement. The Islamic movement can and should champion these three goals explicitly