Leipart's Decision...Egyptian Version

     

       The military coup that just took place in Egypt, ousting the democratically elected leader from his position in the name of democracy and protection of freedoms reminded me of a question raised by one of my professors in a course I was taking. His question went as follows:

At the end of 1932, the German President Von Hindenburg named General Von Schleicher the new Chancellor. At the time, the National Socialist Party of Germany and the German Communist Party represented the majority at the parliament, but the mutual hate and animosity between them both deemed an alliance or coalition impossible. The new Chancellor understood that little time was left to save the constitutional order in the country and decided to meet with Leipart, the Secretary General of socialist syndicates, and ask him to keep the syndicates' militants and organizations inactive for a few days whilst the army arrests Nazi leaders based on pending judicial orders. Both men understood that the attempt to detain Nazi leaders would be resisted with force and would result in blood spilling. The Chancellor was willing to take the risk in order to liquidate the National Socialist party that posed great danger on Germany, and save the democracy. Leipart, a religious and ethical man requested to be given a few days to think the plan over. A few days later, they met again, and Leipart explained that he understood the dangers posed by Hitler, but his conscience would not allow him to engage in an act that would lead to the death of Germans. Von Schleicher tried to convince him that the Nazis only understand one language, and if they get to power, that would be a tragedy for Germany and Europe. Leipart insisted on his position. Weeks later, on the 30^th of January 1933, Hitler became the new Chancellor and in 1934 after the death of President Von Hindenburg, a number of SS members arrived at the house of his enemy Von Schleicher and brutally assasinated him. Today, many debate the “Leipart decision” and whether it was a correct choice not to support the plan of Chancellor Von Schleicher. Was it?

    Impulsively, and in the excitement of engaging in a debate on an issue that was not quite well known or debated, and considering that the main theme of the subject of study was ethics and politics, I first attacked Leipart's passiveness. Thinking about it more and more, I started to defend his decision, and so did many of my colleagues. It goes without saying that Hilter and his party were one of the biggest disasters in modern history, and I am positive that all the colleagues that shared my vision also wish that Hilter never got to power and used it barbarically. Nonetheless, Leipart understood that as appealing as it would have been to take part in the arrest and liquidation of the party, what was being proposed was illegal and against democratic values and the rule of law. People voted for Hitler...people listened to his twisted logic and followed his rationalization of world and national realities and “how to solve the German problem”. They chose him. Millions did. And they kept on supporting him even during that atrocities he made during World War II. Even though a part of the population did not support Hitler and would have appreciated seeing him jailed or dead, Leipart - as well others I am positive - understood that resorting to illegal mechanisms to oust a democratically elected Hilter was not an ethical act, and hence Leipart's refusal to take part in the plot.

      What happened in Germany nearly 80 years ago reflects the current dilemma in Egypt. Morsi has his opponents, who are rightfully upset with his policies and ineffectiveness. But does the military have a right to intervene? Does it have a right to make a decision on the behalf of Egyptian citizens? Will the military have the upper hand in every political decision? Are elections, parties, the parliament and cabinet a facade and the military establishment  the sole actor?

      I strongly beleive that civilization has taught us how to resort to reason and rule-of-law when confronting our problems. Violence and coercion are cousins. As pacific as his ousting appeared, there is no doubt that the army would not have hestitated to use force should Morsi have decided to stand his ground...and a bloody coup could have taken place. We must all think of innovative and intelligent mechanisms to express our discontent and create change. My father always said “Dina, two wrongs never made a right”. Years later, his advice proved to be immaculately accurate and wise. Perhaps we should think ethically and then act politically...it would have avoided us much of the ugliness that happened.