There is no doubt that Dr. Hossam Badrawi is among the most prominent Egyptian intellectuals who deeply believe in democracy, its values, and its importance — not only for Egypt’s progress and its people, but for the advancement of humanity as a whole.
I am certain that his genuine commitment to this principle makes him open to any critical engagement with the ideas he presents in his various writings and theoretical contributions.
It is precisely this trait in his character that encouraged me to engage with what he expressed in the introduction of his accompanying article, published on Al-Hurriya’s website on Monday, concerning his sense of having been “personally betrayed” by the United States — or, more accurately, by the current U.S. administration — for abandoning the democratic values it once upheld, including respect for citizens’ rights and freedom of expression, to a degree that threatens its status as the ideal democratic state.
Personally, I do not understand why any state at all should deserve such a description — at least from the perspective of modern democratic theorists, who have rightly observed that democracy in any country experiences continuous ebbs and flows.
From comparative studies of democratic systems, these scholars concluded that democracy everywhere faces constant challenges from its opponents and skeptics, to the extent that a leading American thinker like Daniel Bell preferred the “Chinese model” — non-democratic — to the Western liberal democratic model (including the American one), arguing that practices in Western societies do not necessarily ensure that the most competent people reach the highest positions.
By contrast, he said, the Chinese Communist Party’s internal mechanisms of promotion achieve that meritocratic goal.
This, in fact, revives the ancient debate between the Greek philosopher Socrates, who believed firmly in democracy despite its flaws, and his students Plato and Aristotle (and those who followed them), who were less convinced by it — especially Plato, who in The Republic admired the Spartan system that triumphed over Athens.
Socrates’ trial and execution marked the beginning of a backlash against the idea of democracy in ancient Greece — a backlash that dominated Western and global thought for nearly two thousand years.
It took enormous societal effort to advance the democratic idea again, both in its direct form as practiced in ancient Greece, and in its constitutional and institutional applications through indirect or representative democracy, adopted by many modern states where direct democracy is impractical, particularly at the national level.
The rise of liberalism played a crucial role in solidifying democratic theory and developing the mechanisms and safeguards that prevent its deviation or abuse.
Although other democratic theories have emerged from different ideological or philosophical premises, most of their models and practices violate the core essence of democracy and turn them into forms of authoritarianism.
This reality compels us to define democracy precisely — what it truly means in practice — while also benefiting from existing theoretical literature on the subject.
On the Meaning and Concept of Democracy
Dr. Badrawi’s article invites an important public debate — at least among intellectual elites in Egypt and the Arab world — particularly given the crude examples we now see in public discourse concerning democracy and its value, in light of Western practices that contradict democratic principles and their universal values.
These include blatant double standards, the adoption of extremist and hateful policies against minorities and migrants, and the passing of laws based on racist concepts that favor U.S. and European citizens over the rest of humanity — a continuation of the colonial legacy and the “white man’s superiority doctrine.”
Such practices are increasingly adopted by conservative forces in American society — represented by the Republican Party and the conservative wing dominating the Democratic Party, despite its generally liberal orientation.
In the ongoing global discussion on the importance and viability of democracy — whether in the U.S., other Western societies, or our own — it is essential to identify who democracy’s enemies are, and who its allies are.
We must also note that some ideological positions inherently reject democracy, especially liberal democracy.
Personally, I am not convinced by what was once promoted in the U.S. and globally — the concept of “illiberal democracy” popularized by Indian-American scholar Fareed Zakaria.
Democracy, in my view, is necessarily rooted in liberal philosophy — which protects it from the “tyranny of the majority,” a notion articulated by English philosopher John Locke.
Any claim that democracy can exist without a liberal foundation ultimately leads to violations of its fundamental principles.
Yet democracy is not a purely theoretical matter.
Its endurance does not depend on how faithfully a given system adheres to democratic ideals, but rather on the deep conviction of broad segments of society that any coup against democracy threatens their direct interests — and on their ability to resist such attempts through available mechanisms and tools.
This happened during the George W. Bush administration, when Attorney General John Ashcroft (2001–2005) sought to exploit the September 11 attacks to push through laws restricting citizens’ freedoms under the banner of the “war on terror.”
These laws — including the Patriot Act — faced growing opposition from wide segments of American society, notably from civil society organizations such as Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, and hundreds of smaller local organizations.
American civil society succeeded in curbing many of these attempts, forcing Bush to retreat on several policies during his second term.
Indeed, their mobilization played a decisive role in Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 election.
Likewise, U.S. institutions — as guardians of democratic values — firmly confronted Donald Trump’s attempts to undermine democracy during his chaotic first term, and they decisively resisted the attack on the Capitol by his supporters who sought to obstruct Congress’s certification of the 2020 election results, which he lost.
The Danger Lies Within Democracy’s Own Mechanisms
There are inherent loopholes in democratic systems that democracy’s opponents can exploit to stage coups from within.
But the existence of such loopholes should never justify abandoning democracy.
Instead, it should sharpen our vigilance — especially regarding the very flaws that adversaries of democracy attempt to use.
These loopholes are precisely what enabled Trump’s return to the White House in the 2024 election, and what now allow him to pursue institutional changes aimed at undermining democracy from within — taking advantage of the broad powers granted by the U.S. Constitution to the executive branch.
These powers were intended to ensure national stability during conflicts between Congress and the presidency, but the Constitution provided no sufficient safeguards against their abuse.
It is now clear that these powers could threaten the American political system itself if Trump successfully manipulates the electoral system — as happened in the 2000 election, which brought George W. Bush to power.
Thus, relying solely on good intentions or the constitutional balance of powers is no longer enough.
The real safeguard lies once again in public awareness and mobilization — as seen in the massive protests across major U.S. cities in recent months, under the slogan “No Kings.”
An estimated seven million people participated across more than ten states.
Dr. Badrawi rightly saw in this movement a glimmer of hope for the future of American democracy.
Yet the danger remains unless this popular awakening translates into institutional reform and legislative action to counter Trump’s agenda — particularly since he, too, commands a vast loyal base ready to rally behind him.
No doubt, the “No Kings” protests draw upon the deep republican tradition that rejects monarchy — but those traditions alone cannot safeguard democracy.
After all, a republic is not necessarily democratic, just as many constitutional monarchies (like the Westminster model in Britain or the Nordic kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, and in Belgium and the Netherlands) have achieved exemplary democratic experiences.
The core idea behind the American protest movement is a rejection of Trump’s central premise — that American society is in crisis — a claim that echoes the rhetoric of right-wing and populist parties in Western Europe, and that once fueled Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy following the Great Depression of 1929.
When institutions fail to solve pressing public problems, people lose faith in democracy and turn toward alternative systems they imagine to be more effective — even though history and experience consistently show that such “strong leader” or “savior” models ultimately lead to crisis, stagnation, and often disaster.
The deeper issue, however, is that the concept of democracy itself remains misunderstood — both among the general public and, likely, among elites.
In our societies, democracy is often reduced to “the ballot box” — a misconception born of separating democracy from its philosophical foundation, liberalism.
Even in many Western democracies, including the U.S., practice has often narrowed democracy to elections alone, while eroding other vital components such as legislative and judicial oversight, and public accountability.
As a result, when one faction dominates all three branches of government, the separation of powers principle collapses.
The recent U.S. protests may mark an awakening to this problem.
The young protesters have declared clearly that democracy is not a ritual or a political “festival.”
The great challenge now is how to translate this awakening into institutional reform that strengthens American democracy, corrects its flaws, and preserves its social contract — ensuring that the state remains, as Dr. Badrawi put it, “a living social contract, not a golden cage in which citizens are imprisoned in the name of patriotism.”
This concept is highly relevant to Egypt’s current discourse on democracy, nationalism, and the threats facing the nation.
Key Points for Discussion on Democracy
The core principle of any democratic system is popular sovereignty — the idea that the people are independent and decide their own best interests through institutional mechanisms.
No democratic theorist claims that democracy is an absolute or perfect system; rather, it is the best available system for organizing public life.
This conclusion is not theoretical but derived from comparative and empirical studies of governance systems.
They acknowledge its flaws and gaps, but insist that democracy must be continuously improved without undermining its essential foundations.
Before outlining these foundations as discussion points for our own democratic future, it is worth noting the Arab rulers’ admiration for Trump — and his indulgence toward them.
No U.S. president has ever enjoyed such open support from Arab leaders who rule nations whose peoples have no voice, even over decisions that directly affect their daily lives.
1. Free, Fair, and Transparent Elections
The first cornerstone of democracy is the free and transparent election, ensuring that the candidate or party with the most votes governs for a defined term and implements the program presented to the voters.
The elected government must remain subject to continuous oversight to prevent abuse of power or authoritarian practices targeting political or social minorities.
Yet serious challenges persist — most notably the assumption of the “rational voter”, which is undermined when voters are manipulated through religious or nationalist sentiment to vote against their own interests.
But this assumption becomes irrelevant once democracy is no longer reduced to elections alone, and once the “tyranny of the majority” is rejected as a form of absolute rule.
2. Merit and Competence in Democratic Systems
The second point concerns meritocracy — the question of whether democratic systems ensure that only the most competent individuals hold public office.
This issue is often raised in reference to Trump’s suitability for the presidency.
However, this should not be used as a pretext to reject democracy in favor of non-democratic systems.
Rather, it underscores the need for institutional and legal arrangements that guarantee merit-based appointments and protect public servants from political interference — ensuring that the most qualified individuals occupy the right positions.
3. The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism
The third point — closely related to the second — is adherence to the constitution and the rule of law, meaning that laws are applied equally to all.
This requires citizens’ belief in the legitimacy of laws — that they serve the collective interest rather than privilege the powerful or wealthy.
Otherwise, citizens will evade laws they perceive as unjust.
Hence, many legal frameworks must be revised to restore trust and ensure equality before the law.
4. The Democratic Culture
Finally, democracy cannot survive without a democratic culture — tied to education, awareness, and social and political upbringing.
Yet democracy does not require that everyone, or even every social group, believe in it.
What it requires is the existence of binding institutional arrangements that ensure all comply with democratic norms.
A democratic culture emerges when the elite in power consciously choose democracy as the system best able to ensure long-term societal stability, even if it entails short-term risks during transitions.
