Can the Egyptian revolution be counted a success while the Armed Forces remain in power?

One of the West’s gravest weaknesses, at a time of transition and turmoil, is its tendency to view the world through the prism of highly abbreviated timelines that correspond neither to what’s realistic in other countries nor even our own long history of turbulent transformation. Democracy was born in the West over two hundred years of wars and setback; yet we want to see post-conflict states that have emerged from thirty or more years of bloody civil wars establish democracies within the five year lifespan of donor projects and international peacekeeping operations. This creates totally false expectations, deters genuine progress, and leaves the field open to other actors more tolerant of longer transitions – for example, China. Nine months into the Arab Spring we’re repeating this mistake, looking for outcomes and successes within a revolutionary year. Everything that we know about revolution and political transition tells us that the timeframe in which to judge success or failure in various Arab Spring transitions is a decade or more. Short term markers along the way are important, of course, and so long as the Armed Forces remain in power in Egypt the deeper democratic transition that Tahrir Square demanded remains unfulfilled. But strategic patience, not a rush to judgment, is the order of the day. 

Email

Share

No.

The terminology here is important. The Egyptian uprising early this year succeeded in the removal the president and a few of his ministers, but it was a far cry from revolution. The underlying political, economic and social order remains in place. One has only to compare the results in Egypt to the events which transformed  Russia in 1917, China in 1949, or  Cuba in 1959 to appreciate the distinction.  

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, chaired by Field Marshall Tantawi, a Mubarek appointee, effectively co-opted the process in a palace coup. They have suspended parliament  and the constitution, but have largely failed to deliver on a comprehensive package of promised reforms. 

Unless and until the junta cedes power through the conduct of free and fair elections, the hopes and dreams of the Egyptian people will remain unrealized. 

Email

Share

It is too early to say the Egyptian revolution can be counted a success. It did succeed in ousting Mubarak; that is important. But there is no real sign that the military will give up the reins of power after the elections have taken place. Only if they do can the Egyptian revolution be truly counted as a success. Right now the best one can say is that it is a work in progress

Email

Share

No way. Military subordination to civilian authority is a sine qua non of democratic governance. Tahrir Square wasn’t only about electoral democracy but it certainly was and is a cardinal goal. The successful opposition to Mubarak didn’t do it just to help the military dump an elderly leader who had become a loser.

But lasting arrangements need some time and preparation. Successful transitions to democracy from military-security rule have been “pacted” between old and new orders – Spain, Turkey, Greece, Chile. The Egyptian military is waiting until a Constitution is adopted and a President (with whom they can pact) emerges.

The military has serious institutional stakes in the Egyptian economy but more important, is a generally trusted guarantor of overall security at an unsteady time. So, the jury judging success should stay out, watch the military carefully, and wait until all the evidence is in.

Email

Share

No. In the euphoria following the fall of Hosni Mubarak, many analysts made the mistake of speaking about the fall of the regime. The Egyptian regime came to power in 1952 when the Free Officers deposed king Farouk. Since then, military men have served as Presidents. Beyond all differences in style and policies, that is what united Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. Since then as well, the army has been involved in politics and given preferential treatment in accessing lucrative opportunities. Today, the army is a key actor in Egypt’s economy. When the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces moved to take over from Mubarak and spearhead the ‘transition’, protecting the army’s role and interests in Egyptian society were foremost in their minds. While what happened in Egypt is indeed a revolution and while it has changed the rules of the game in the country, nevertheless, as long as the principle of civilian control of the military is not enshrined in theory and in practice, it would be a mistake to glibly speak about the events of 2011 as a success.

Email

Share

There are numerous signs emanating out of Egypt that cause me to view the outcome of the revolution as being cosmetic and not worth cheering for. Yes, the people did get rid of Mubarak but is the country in a better position that it was before? The military is firmly in power but yet the tourism industry has not yet regained its pre-revolutionary numbers of visitors thereby putting a major strain on the country’s economy. Attacks against Egypt’s Christian minority, the Copts, have continued rather than diminish. Many among them are now worried about their future (especially should the Muslim Brotherhood take power) and are openly considering leaving the country. Important energy infrastructure, especially the natural gas pipelines destined for Israel and Jordan, have been sabotaged many times over the past few months. These three developments are not exactly how I would define success.

Email

Share