Egypt: The Modified Script

The contagion of protests spreading from one country to another in the Arab world has made the ruling dispensations edgy and nervous. In India and many other parts of the world, it is being generally felt that the region is headed for a paradigm shift in political discourse, paving the way for multi-party democracy. It has caught the romantic imagination of certain people in India.

The protests on the streets of the Arab world, particularly Egypt is not about dictatorship versus democracy or totalitarian versus liberal regimes. It cannot be ignored that the Islamist parties and groups backing the movement, have been rabidly against any liberal policy in the political and social discourse.

The Western world, particularly, the US is seen to be supporting the agitation, which has turned violent on the streets of Cairo. The press in the West has been equally strident in its support for the removal of the existing dispensation in Egypt. It may be reiterated that USA has critical leverages in Egypt and in other parts of the Arab world.  One of the largest American embassies in the world is in Egypt. In terms of US aid, Egypt is the fourth largest recipient. Every year, Egypt receives $ 1.3 billion worth of military aid from the US.

The so called dictators in the eyes of the Western World were certainly not despots. The same rulers have so far ensured stability in an extremely volatile region since the 1973 Arab-Israel war. Hosni Mubarak pursued vigorously peace with Israel. He is progressive in his thinking and is not bigoted. He has kept religious fundamentalists under check. This has been in consonance with the geo-strategic sensitivities and imperatives of the West.

Nevertheless, it is these very policies that have made these rulers unpopular at home. They are seen as pro-US and pro-Israel. It resulted in Islamic outfits taking recourse to terrorism. It accentuated the religious factor in the geopolitical discourse of the region.

It appears that the time had come for the US to accept that these leaders had served their utility and purpose, and in the current geopolitical environment their continuation would be counter-productive to its strategic interests. Most of these leaders are in their late 70s and early 80s. When consumed by natural death, the transfer of power can be most disorderly, as these leaders have neither created political institutions nor a second-rung to fill the void. Some of these rulers find their sons or son-in-laws as the most suitable heir. The void could be well filled by unknown forces, which includes Islamic fundamentalists, thus plunging the entire region into a security nightmare.

Amongst these concerned countries, Egypt serves as the pivot for the strategic and geopolitical engineering of the region by the US, given the sensitivity of Arab-Israel relations, the nuclear overhang, the Suez Canal, and of course oil. It is for this reason, that there is so much of accent on replacement of Hosni Mubarak in an orderly manner.

Since Egypt is the pivot, whatever happens there, is bound to have a cascading effect in other countries of the region.

Possibly, in the reckoning of the US and its western allies, the replacement of these leaders, who are seen as protégés of the US, will alleviate a great deal of anti-Americanism that prevails in that region. In effect, it also brings the fundamentalist forces from the underground to the mainstream, having a salutary impact on terrorism.

Given the stranglehold over power by virtue of having ruled for so many years, these leaders could not have been removed except by extraordinary measures. It may be reiterated that Hosni Mubarak has been at the helm for three decades. Similarly, Yemen is being ruled by Ali Abdullah Saleh since 1978. Unnerved by the developments in Tunisia and Egypt, President Ali Abdullah has announced that he will step down in 2013, and he or any of his family members would not run for the office of the President in future. The ousted President of Tunisia Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ruled the country for more than two decades.

The moot point is that if western countries wanted democracy, they could have encouraged it 20 years back. Some European powers, particularly, France has such leverage in Tunisia that it could have ensured exit of Ben Ali in the 80s itself. The imprint of France in the ongoing agitation in the region is discernable. Allegedly, the left wing students, who were an important component in the agitation in Tunisia, had their education in France. The key people in the Tunisian administration dealing with the situation had also spent some time in France. Incidentally, the Chief of Staff of Egyptian Armed Forces is a graduate of the French Inter Services War College.

The agents of this change are the dissidents, the intellectuals, the fundamentalist parties/groups, and the military. Some of these dissidents as per various newspaper reports did visit the US. The western countries have given the direction and tools to build and channelise people’s discontent. It is clear from US diplomatic messages revealed by WikiLeaks that the movement was put on course in the year 2007/2008. A secret diplomatic despatch sent on 30 December 2008 by US Ambassador to Egypt, hints at secret plans for regime change before elections in September 2011. It is also clear that there were extensive preparations by the April 6 Youth Movement in creating and mobilising 70,000 members of the social network. WikiLeaks also indicates that US officials pressurised the Egyptian government to release a large number of dissidents.

The script as it appears: Engineer demonstrations by organisations and groups to mobilise the masses, the most suitable groups being Islamic fundamentalist groups and dissidents; the military then refuses to intervene; and then leaving the ruler with no choice but to abdicate. It may be mentioned that Ben Ali abdicated only when the military refused to back him. The same military had earlier advised him to act strongly against the protestors. The same military ensured that he gets a safe, honourable and remunerative  passage out of the country. This may replicate in other countries in the region as well. It is also not mere coincidence that General Sami Hafez Enan, the Chief of Staff of Egyptian Armed Forces was in the US when the protests in Egypt came into the streets.

The Islamic groups are willing actors in this script as it gives them a chance to come overground, and establish their legitimacy. Going by the Islamic precepts, they do countenance the takeover of Egypt by the military. The Islamist cleric Kamal El-Helbawy, the exiled member of Muslim Brotherhood has supported General Enan, as the successor to Mubarak. Islam does not distinguish between military power and civil power.

The countries in question, therefore, will indeed undergo regime change. The military will takeover or the ruler will be backed by the military. Multiparty democracy in the Arab World is merely an interesting thought. Nothing, except for the ruler, is going to change.

The US nevertheless must be credited for its strategic dynamism and perspicacity. The only danger is about events not being faithful to the script.
 

RSN Singh is Associate Editor, Indian Defence Review

(The views expressed in the article are that of the author and do not represent the views of the editorial committee or the centre for land warfare studies).