Though its expressed interest in Egyptian democracy is flattering, the Washington Post — far from coming away impressed by events in Cairo that, fortitude of domestic opposition notwithstanding, would not have occurred without pressure from Washington — has forgotten the terms to which it previously held the president, and is today showing a sorry measure of ingratitude:
While aggressively campaigning for freedom in Lebanon, the Bush administration continues to gently prod Mr. Mubarak. In a speech last week devoted mostly to Lebanon, President Bush included one sentence saying that credible elections must include "freedom of assembly, multiple candidates, free access by those candidates to the media and the right to form political parties."
The Post should know by now that clarity and purpose alone can carry for this president a single sentence from word to policy to action: witness "the Taliban must act, and act immediately"; and "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself — or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." But critique seems the better part of the Post's valor. Just six weeks ago Ayman Nour was worth supporting because he "is no radical: He recently said he would support Mr. Mubarak for another term as president if he first agreed to constitutional reform." And now?
Though the platform calls for Mr. Mubarak to forgo another term, most of the opposition is prepared to accept a new mandate provided the president commits himself to genuine change. So far, however, Mr. Mubarak's concessions are limited to his election plan, which resembles the sham balloting familiar from other dictatorships.
The Post's new position — that an unyielding progressive, a "radical," is what Cairo needs — is my own, as Hosni Mubarak's perpetuation means nothing more than better bread and water during the Egyptian people's collective, open-ended prison sentence. But three weeks ago Ayman Nour was sitting in jail and Mubarak was conceding nothing to popular will. That Nour is free and Egyptian democrats have been offered one of their prime demands within two months of the twenty-fourth year of Mubarak's dictatorial rule — two months that brought triumphant Iraqi elections, President Bush's moral condemnation of tyranny three days later and two weeks after that, Lebanon finally stirring after a political murder to shake off Syria's yoke — is enough to conclude that the Cairo strongman wanted none of this. That in turn indicates Mubarak feels appropriately threatened, and will be, voluntarily or not, the most receptive to surrendering power for the first time in his life.
Which means "gentle prods" have indeed moved Cairo, will more likely continue to than not, and that the Post's editors should recognize good works when the one they asked for is before them now and in progress.