"Egyptian Revolution - The Army is Still in Charge"
Sydney M. Williams
The overthrow of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, after eighteen days of civil unrest, has been welcomed in the West, as symbolic of freedom coursing through the developing world. While the Obama administration has not given kudos to President Bush for his advocacy of a Freedom Agenda, the administration’s attitude is far different than it was when President Obama’s benign neglect helped foredoom the Green Revolution, which threatened the Ahmadinejad regime in June 2009.
The problem with revolutions such as we have seen in Egypt is that, while the youth want change, the key reason they are demonstrating is that they are against the existing government, and only for some vague concept of democracy. It does seem, though, that the Muslim Brotherhood who was surely interested in a specific alternative – an Islamic state – will not get their wish. The secular Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is in charge. The question is will students and young people, like Wael Ghonim the Google executive who became the face of the protest movement, be satisfied with reform that keeps the army in charge? Will the army grant reforms that satisfy the demands of those seeking basic liberties? Or will their decision to suspend the constitution incite the type of resentment that rocked Algeria in 1992, which resulted in a decade-long war that left over 200,000 dead?
Over the past sixty years the one constant in Egypt has been the army. Ever since the summer of 1952 when King Farouk was overthrown, the army has been a critical presence. General Naguib served as the first President of the Republic of Egypt for a little more than a year before being arrested and imprisoned for eighteen years by his successor, Col. Gamal Nasser, who served from 1954 until his death in 1970. Anwar Sadat, a supporter of Nasser, served unti1 1981 when he was assassinated. It was the peace resolution Sadat negotiated with Israel that alienated much of the Arab world that likely led to his death. A Lieutenant Khalid Islambouli, after receiving approval for the assassination from Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” and a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, was accused and summarily executed. Hosni Mubarak and dozens of others were wounded in the attack.
In the wake of Mubarak’s resignation, the Supreme Council has assumed responsibility for running the country, promising to hold elections in about six months, roughly when they were scheduled anyway. The difference being that Mubarak’s son will not be a candidate. Whoever does, though, is likely to come from the military and certainly will be approved by them.
James D. Le Sueur, Professor of History at the University of Nebraska, points out in a recent article in Foreign Affairs that colonialism, or rather the end of it, was the determining factor in the lives of many leaders such as Hosni Mubarak in the last half century. Mr. Mubarak was 24 years old at the time Farouk was deposed and the British left. Many of these leaders felt they had fought so hard for liberation that only uncontested authority would prevent a return to the past. These leaders suffer from what Professor Le Sueur refers to as postcolonial time disorder (PTD), meaning that “they still subscribe to an out-of-date philosophy of governance…They have a Manichean inability to think outside the logic of totalizing state power.”
With the ubiquity of social networking, it is becoming virtually impossible for an autocratic ruler to suppress his people for any extended period of time. The Foreign Minister of Jordan, for example, claims that among his population of six million 25% are Facebook users. The Egyptians’ future depends on whether a Mandela appears, or whether the new leader will be another version of Mubarak. Nelson Mandela was a man who understood, as Professor Le Sueur points out, the dangers of PTD. However, given the years that have passed since colonialism, any new leader will be one whose philosophy and character were formed by the Republic of Egypt, without memory of the British. The people will vote when elections are called, but a question for Egyptians is will the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces submit or affirm the names of the candidates?
The United States has a lot riding on a stable Middle east; so presumably it would like to influence the outcome. Our $1.55 billion aid package – Egypt, after Israel, is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid – surely provides some leverage, but it will be the Egyptians’ and the army’s decision. The path to freedom is often bloody; it takes time and luck, and is never easy.
As investors, the situation adds to uncertainty at a time when markets have become increasingly complacent.
Thought of the Day
“Egyptian Revolution – The Army is Still in Charge”
February 15, 2011The overthrow of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, after eighteen days of civil unrest, has been welcomed in the West, as symbolic of freedom coursing through the developing world. While the Obama administration has not given kudos to President Bush for his advocacy of a Freedom Agenda, the administration’s attitude is far different than it was when President Obama’s benign neglect helped foredoom the Green Revolution, which threatened the Ahmadinejad regime in June 2009.
The problem with revolutions such as we have seen in Egypt is that, while the youth want change, the key reason they are demonstrating is that they are against the existing government, and only for some vague concept of democracy. It does seem, though, that the Muslim Brotherhood who was surely interested in a specific alternative – an Islamic state – will not get their wish. The secular Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is in charge. The question is will students and young people, like Wael Ghonim the Google executive who became the face of the protest movement, be satisfied with reform that keeps the army in charge? Will the army grant reforms that satisfy the demands of those seeking basic liberties? Or will their decision to suspend the constitution incite the type of resentment that rocked Algeria in 1992, which resulted in a decade-long war that left over 200,000 dead?
Over the past sixty years the one constant in Egypt has been the army. Ever since the summer of 1952 when King Farouk was overthrown, the army has been a critical presence. General Naguib served as the first President of the Republic of Egypt for a little more than a year before being arrested and imprisoned for eighteen years by his successor, Col. Gamal Nasser, who served from 1954 until his death in 1970. Anwar Sadat, a supporter of Nasser, served unti1 1981 when he was assassinated. It was the peace resolution Sadat negotiated with Israel that alienated much of the Arab world that likely led to his death. A Lieutenant Khalid Islambouli, after receiving approval for the assassination from Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” and a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, was accused and summarily executed. Hosni Mubarak and dozens of others were wounded in the attack.
In the wake of Mubarak’s resignation, the Supreme Council has assumed responsibility for running the country, promising to hold elections in about six months, roughly when they were scheduled anyway. The difference being that Mubarak’s son will not be a candidate. Whoever does, though, is likely to come from the military and certainly will be approved by them.
James D. Le Sueur, Professor of History at the University of Nebraska, points out in a recent article in Foreign Affairs that colonialism, or rather the end of it, was the determining factor in the lives of many leaders such as Hosni Mubarak in the last half century. Mr. Mubarak was 24 years old at the time Farouk was deposed and the British left. Many of these leaders felt they had fought so hard for liberation that only uncontested authority would prevent a return to the past. These leaders suffer from what Professor Le Sueur refers to as postcolonial time disorder (PTD), meaning that “they still subscribe to an out-of-date philosophy of governance…They have a Manichean inability to think outside the logic of totalizing state power.”
With the ubiquity of social networking, it is becoming virtually impossible for an autocratic ruler to suppress his people for any extended period of time. The Foreign Minister of Jordan, for example, claims that among his population of six million 25% are Facebook users. The Egyptians’ future depends on whether a Mandela appears, or whether the new leader will be another version of Mubarak. Nelson Mandela was a man who understood, as Professor Le Sueur points out, the dangers of PTD. However, given the years that have passed since colonialism, any new leader will be one whose philosophy and character were formed by the Republic of Egypt, without memory of the British. The people will vote when elections are called, but a question for Egyptians is will the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces submit or affirm the names of the candidates?
The United States has a lot riding on a stable Middle east; so presumably it would like to influence the outcome. Our $1.55 billion aid package – Egypt, after Israel, is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid – surely provides some leverage, but it will be the Egyptians’ and the army’s decision. The path to freedom is often bloody; it takes time and luck, and is never easy.
As investors, the situation adds to uncertainty at a time when markets have become increasingly complacent.
Labels: TOTD
posted by Thought of the Day @ 6:46 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home