Only days before parliamentary elections, Egypt is in a huge crisis whose outcome will determine the future of almost 80 million people and perhaps the Arabic-speaking world’s fate for decades to come.
Will the army go ahead with elections that will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Salafist groups, thus producing an Islamist regime?
Or will it cancel elections, declare martial law in some form, and set off a passionate civil conflict?
Or will it find some compromise that quiets the disorder but doesn’t solve the problems (see below for the proposed new deal)?
That’s quite a difficult choice and not one the army prefers. Understandably, the military has a third alternative: set up some compromise rules for the new Egyptian state that leave it feeling secure even if this plan sacrifices a lot of other factors.
The nominal cause of this upheaval are the demonstrations in Tahrir square that have produced a bloodier tool than any single event in the entire Egyptian revolutionary process, with more than 30 people dead. But the real background is this:
Despite the persistent mocking of Western officials, media, and “experts” about the Muslim Brotherhood’s weakness and moderation, it has become increasingly apparent that a very radical Muslim Brotherhood will take power and fundamentally transform Egypt into something far worse than that which existed during the six-decades-long Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak regime.
The army’s compromise went along the following lines:
A parliament would be elected on November 28. In April 2012 it would choose a 100-member assembly to write a new constitution, a process that would take one year. After the constitution was written by April 2013 it would be ratified. Only then, in the second half of 2013, would a president be elected and the military junta stand aside and yield executive authority.
So much for the delaying aspects of the plan; there were also provisions for protecting the military’s interests. It would retain control of its own budget, which would remain secret; moreover the junta could veto the constitution entirely or in part. And finally, though vaguely, it wanted some provisions to protect rights including those of the Christian minority. The last item presumably was out of concern with the country’s international reputation.
The junta’s position is a combination of greed and its self-image as guardian of Egypt’s national interest. Officers enrich themselves by large-scale business enterprises.
At the same time, they are no doubt aware of the likelihood that an Islamist regime would eventually purge the army and arrest officers—as is happening in Turkey, the explicit model for the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy—and replace them with its ideological followers. They also might take into account that the Brotherhood is likely to get Egypt into a losing war with Israel and take steps that would cost the military hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid.
Now this clash in itself has added still another dimension. It is said that if you wound an elephant you have to kill it as otherwise the enraged leviathan will trample you. The Brotherhood now sees the military as an enemy and if it comes to power would have all the more incentive to crush that rival.
There are no good options. As the two sides maneuver here are the precedents that must affect their thinking:
Algeria: In 1991, the Islamists won the first round of elections and were headed for a landslide victory. The army declared a state of emergency and canceled the elections. A long and bloody civil war ensued in which to say that only 30,000 people were killed is an understatement. In the end, the military won.
Turkey: For almost a decade the army stood aside and let the Islamists win repeated elections and govern as they wished. The generals considered a coup attempt but never tried one as they knew there would be no external support and it might set off a civil war. In the end, the Islamists accused them of planning a coup anyway, broke the power of the military, and arrested dozens of current and former high-ranking officers.
Tunisia: The army stood aside and let the Islamists win an election. They will now govern in a coalition with the left. It is unclear what will happen and what the military thinks about the situation.
As you can see, the alternatives are unattractive and we don’t know what will happen. The West is siding with the civilians: democratic rule, elections, a military regime is bad. See for example the somewhat bizarre Washington Post editorial that attacks the Obama Administration for being too soft on the generals! It demands that Obama threaten to cut off military aid unless the junta gives in. This is a misreading of the White House stance that is critical of the junta but doesn’t want to get directly involved.
That makes sense in normal conditions but might be disastrous on a strategic level. We’ve been through this kind of thing before in which the supposed good becomes the worse of two evils.
The Bush Administration supported Hamas participating in the Palestinian election out of some sense of misguided fairness plus depending on fantasy-laden Fatah polls predicting that Hamas would lose. The Bush and Obama administrations stood by and cheered the “moderate Islamists” in Turkey as they moved step by step to install and strengthen an anti-American regime there.
In contrast, regarding Algeria the presidents at the time took a realpolitik view, arguably maintaining their distance and neutrality while in practice supporting the military’s victory. France did the dirty work, something that doesn’t apply to these contemporary situations.
The attitude of the moderate Egyptian parties is interesting. On one hand, they are totally against the military retaining power or even a lot of power; on the other hand, they are starting to get real scared about what it would be like to live in an Egypt governed by the Muslim Brotherhood and even more violent Islamists. They are pulling back a bit from taking sides in this struggle.
After meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups (but not the liberals who were left out, an indication of how insignificant they are becoming politically!), the junta has a new proposal: The new constitution is set to be finished by June 2012 (not April 2013) and the presidential election will be held no later than June 2012 (instead of June 2013). The parliamentary elections will happen as scheduled.
If this is so and it is implemented, it means that the Islamists have forced the military to back down completely, a victory that will add to their confidence that they will get everything they want. Arguably, Egypt is even worse off now than it was a week ago. Perhaps, though, there are other aspects to the deal we haven’t heard about yet.
Having cut its own deal, the Brotherhood stopped participating in anti-government demonstrations. “The Brotherhood refused to join the protests, saying that the parliamentary election due to start Nov. 28 is the way to transfer power.” Right, transfer it to them.
Mr Rubin, I’m currently an undergraduate student in Penn State majoring in History. I plan on going to graduate school and focusing on the Middle East. I enjoy reading your news reports regarding the region very much. I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and I was wondering is there any internships/jobs I could get with any organizations that you are associated with in the city.If not, I’m sorry I wasted your time. The reason I’m asking you a personal question on the comment section is because I don’t know of any other way of getting in contact with you. If you want to give me a response,I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Go to his blog- rubinreports.blogspot.com…
I believe you wrote in an earlier article how some things are so bad the only option is to laugh at the stupidity of it all. It is rather amusing in that the Arab world is going so much trouble simply to regress. One wonders how far back in time they would like to recede? I too wonder if the Brotherhood will instigate a war with Israel just to eliminate the traditional officer corp.
But we really shouldn’t worry because one Obama’s intelligence chiefs, Clapper, says the Brotherhood is nothing to worry about.
Rather than reside in what-if land or fantasy land let’s look at the worst scenario, which is the most likely. When the MB (Islamists) gains power and it will a fairly immediate purge of the military is likely to occur. When that happens, the attention will be turned on Israel. At the risk of sounding careless, this would be a plus. Without military leadership, an attack on Israel would be disastrous for Egypt. BUT! it would also be disastrous for the Brotherhood.
A civil war would be likely but this is what we’re hoping occurs in Iran. Another country with the potential to explode. There is a risk that these two would align and join forces with other Islamist led states such as Libya and perhaps Turkey and other players (Palestinians, Syrians, etc.) but let’s be honest. The ability of Israel to defend itself against Egypt is well accepted. Only two other countries in the region are organized enough to challenge Israel – Iran and Turkey. The Turks will weigh their desire for acceptance in the EU against its’ involvement and currently Iran can only bluster and/or fund Hamas and Hezbollah.
What is the likely outcome? Egypt’s military ability is destroyed and civil war erupts AGAINST the MB. Iran’s nuclear installations are attacked and destroyed with not a peep out of the civilian population as it would most certainly be a defensive maneuver by Israel. In all likelihood, Iran’s government would fall. As would Egypt’s, Syria’s, Lebanon’s and perhaps even Turkey’s. The Palestinian issue would be solved by default.
Of course, oil is the joker in the deck. But it need not be. The PROVEN reserves in the US not to speak of the proven reserves in North America would be key. But ONLY if we’re willing to exploit them. Israel has large gas reserves off shore and could fend for itself. ALL of the oil producing states in the middle east would be ramping up their efforts to defend their oil fields and would not get involved. Am I missing anything?
Islam cannot develop stable, reasonably humane societies because Islam consists of crushing everything but itself. From the beginning, the victory of Islam has meant the suppression of the culture, ethnicity, religion, and all other traditions of the Islamized country. The whole Islamic world thus consists of suppressed cultures/peoples/groups struggling to live within the stranglehold of Islam. The only way this will-to-life can express itself is through eternal civil war against other cultures/peoples/groups. Whichever group emerges victorious becomes the oppressor, using the fist of Islam to keep down all other groups.
We are currently in another wave of this eternal Muslim civil war, going on in several countries simultaneously. The West mistakes this Muslim civil war for a struggle for freedom. In reality it’s only a struggle for freedom by some Muslim groups against other Muslim groups that are currently dominating them, a struggle that can only end with a new oppression, until it is overthrown in its turn. That is the only “politics” that exists in the Muslim world. That is the only “politics” that will ever exist in the Muslim world.
The modern West cannot face this truth about Islam, because it would mean that not all cultures, peoples, and religions are equally capable of self-government. And that discovery would mean in turn (a) that not all peoples and cultures are equal, period, and (b) that a universal liberal order embracing all mankind is not possible. And those two discoveries would in turn delegitimize the liberal global project, along with its variant, the neoconservative global project. Therefore Western intellectuals must go on telling themselves that the difficulties Muslim countries face in attaining self-government are due to some secondary factor, such as the tendency of recent Arab rulers to rule by co-opting and dividing their people, rather than to factors that are inherent in all Arab and Muslim societies.
This is very insightful. Thank you.
You 100% right and history have proved that the Islam is religion of destruction and holding the nations in to stone edge, there is more than 50 Islamic nations and entirely living in stone edge and unfortunately the world depend on their sources and for this reason supporting them and had have trying to sacrifice State of Israel for their interest in Islamic nations.
There is not an ounce of nuance, insight or sourcing in this article. Saying the MB will take over Egypt 100 times won’t make it any more true.
But what else can you expect from an author not in Egypt and who has a cynical disdain for the inhabitants that literally drips off the screen?
What in the world does Tunisia, Algeria and Turkey have to do with Egypt? Do they all have each other’s phone numbers or use the same playbook? Name the vast accomplishments of the vaunted MB in over 80 years. If they were a baseball team they’d be the Cubs.
There is no doubt the Egyptians have a great many problems right now and their culture is a long way from a paradigm of success. That does not give one the right to simply make up stuff and count on failure of some kind to follow, the specifics in the end unimportant.
Nuance, shmuance. Egypt is circling the toilet bowl. The only question is whether it will take 5 weeks or 5 months before she turns into a complete sh**-hole.
And, frankly, as long as she is non-belligerent to her neighbors, particularly the one to the northeast, I am content to let her work out her own problems, in her own sweet time.
How’s that for nuance?
In my silly world you wait til people are dead before you bury them.
5 weeks or 5 months: and this is based on what? A nuanced grasp on internal Egyptian politics or wishful thinking? Even a vulture has more evidence for circling than your portrayal of the premature death of Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood head of the Freedom And Justice Party was kicked out of Tahrir Square 2 days ago; you might advise them to at least be able to enter a protest before you declare them the rulers of Egypt.
From where I’m sitting the MB don’t rule squat and aren’t likely to.
And how do you define belligerent? If you define it by invading sovereign territory that would be zero for Egypt and 2 for Israel.
@Mannie Mughal
Let me remind you have 1 million new citizens to feed each year !
Egypt has money enough to buy much needed food overseas for only TWO months !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you expect ????
You think that by waging war ,you will resolve your economy woes….
How will your army be supplied with US spare parts ?
You hope to vanquish Tsahal ?You will be crushed !
Islam is clearly not the solution,it is the main culprit of your problems.
Who in the world in Egypt is talking about waging war? Nobody.
Generally speaking, no one in Egypt wants to vanquish anyone.
Hard to be wrong when you make up stuff that would indeed be bad; the problem is that it is all in your head.
We all know and affirm that Egypt is in serious economic trouble. Regardless of the Brotherhood taking complete control now or later; is not so relevant. The Egyptian economy has for a long time been sinking deeper and deeper. It is to the point of no return….unless they declare war on somebody, lose the war, then reap the financial windfalls to rebuild their sick society…The Mouse (read Elephant) That Roared. Egypt is now experiencing the rebirth of the 10 Plagues upon themselves, caused by their own neglect, beliefs, and hatred. The 10 Plagues are not lice and locust, but diseases of the mind which rot and corrode the soul.
A lot of countries in Europe are in financial trouble; does the fact secularists ran them into the ground make it any better than if it had been Christians? Well, technically speaking, they were Christians.
How do you know when that same paradigm applies or does not apply in Egypt – beards? Muslims but not particularly practising ones? I am amazed at how many people want to make authoritative comments about a country they clearly know next to nothing about instead of asking questions.
Bob, Obama’s mouthpiece, Clapper, head of national intelligence [or some such title], lied about the MB. He said that it was “largely secular.” And he insinuated that since it was “largely secular,” we need not worry about it, as you pointed out. But he must have known that he was lying.
Amir Galt, fact is that Egypt invaded Israel in May 1948, albeit with British help and cooperation. A leading Egyptian of the time, Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, then secretary-general of the Arab League. warned/threatened in an interview with Akhbar al-Yom [October 1947] that the coming war with Israel would be like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades. He added that if the Arabs could not handle Israel on their own, they would call on Muslims from throughout the world to volunteer to fight Israel for them.
You’re right: I’m afraid my memory failed me when it came to the aerial and ground incursions by Egyptian forces in the summer of ’48. It WAS sovereign Israeli territory, no matter how new.
Thank you for all of your effort on this web page. Kate loves participating in investigation and it’s simple to grasp why. I know all about the dynamic means you convey important items via your web blog and as well improve response from others about this subject matter then my girl is now learning a great deal. Have fun with the rest of the year. You have been performing a useful job.
Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear concept