Events in Tunisia and subsequent events in Egypt converge in that a popular revolt has swept both countries. However, the revolt in Tunisia succeeded because a military coup took place in conjunction with it, by supporting the people against the president. In Egypt, on the other hand, the army continues to support President Hosni Mubarak, who will remain in power as long as this support is present. President Mubarak appointed a military man as Vice President, and another as Prime Minister. Both decisions cannot be taken in isolation from the President's attempt to secure the military's loyalty, or from the fact that he places such loyalty above the popular revolt against his rule. Some of the president's problems are of his own making. He could have fought corruption, and even made fighting corruption a slogan that would have rallied people around him. The poor could plainly see extravagance around them, while not knowing when they will get their next meal, today or tomorrow. The president could have also unchained civil liberties, instead of continuing to impose emergency law since 1981, i.e. over three consecutive decades. As we say, “a mistake made by a shrewd man is worth a thousand mistakes”. President Mubarak's mistake was embodied in the last parliamentary elections. The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood did not win any seats can only mean that the elections were rigged. While I personally do not want to be ruled by the Sheikh of al-Azhar or the Pope of Alexandria, I was surprised by the outcome of the elections and wrote that it is not logical that the Muslim Brotherhood candidates failed to win many seats. This loss reminded me of a statement attributed to President Lyndon Johnson. He had confirmed J. Edgar Hoover as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), despite the latter's ill reputation and the legally questionable nature of some of his actions. Johnson said in response to critics, “It's probably better to have him (Hoover) inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in”. The Muslim Brotherhood accepted to run in the last elections which were boycotted by many parties. If they had won seats they would have been less antagonized as an opposition or less active in mobilizing the street against the president and the government. This government was successful in the task it was established to serve, which was to focus on the economy. However, it paid the price for the mistakes of the regime, and I now fear amid the current chaos, that the only achievements of the regime in recent years may be lost. Foreign capital may flee in fear, and expected foreign investments may be suspended if stability is not restored quickly. The stock market will lose, construction will suffer setbacks, and companies and individuals may go bankrupt. As if all the above is not enough, there is the blatant U.S. interference in the internal affairs of Egypt. Ever since the unrest began, there were statements coming from Washington telling the president what he should or should not do, with demands for reform as if it is an Egyptian voter calling for them, all while there was talk of reducing or cutting off annual aid to Egypt. First of all, this aid is not intended for Egypt, but for Israel, in order to keep Egypt committed to the peace process. Secondly, if Hosni Mubarak is facing these problems at all, it is because half of them at least are triggered by the fact that his people see him in an alliance with the United States, whose policies the people do not trust, even with a moderate president such as Barack Obama. Thirdly, American support for Mubarak hurts him in the eyes of the majority of his people for the reasons mentioned above. We read that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If the Americans forget the lesson of Iran in 1979, then they will face something similar in Egypt in 2011. Any regime that will succeed that of Hosni Mubarak will distance itself from U.S policy, if not become hostile to it. While I do not expect that clerics or Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood will rule Egypt next, I have been wrong in the past, and may be proven wrong again. If religious groups indeed rule Egypt, the country will become openly hostile to the United States and Israel. I note down this possibility without believing it likely to transpire. Instead, I believe that the key role in running the country with or without President Hosni Mubarak will be assumed by the Egyptian armed forces. The armed forces are the most capable, effective and coherent wing in the ruling establishment. As the head of Al-Hayat's bureau chief in Cairo and his aides were participating in the inauguration ceremony of the previous parliament, the president passed out for 20 minutes. They then saw with their own eyes how all external and incoming communications in those 20 minutes were made to Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, the Minister of Defense, and no one else. These armed forces continue to be the lynchpin of Egypt's present and future. [email protected]
