I am pleasantly surprised to see that the Egyptian military (or at least its leadership) is committed to a secular government (and country). Is there any reason why the military holds such a position? Is it simply that they fear their power would be diminished in an “Islamic state” or are they sincerely committed to secularism?
Is there any particular reason that the Egyptian military despises Morsi and The Muslim Brotherhood?
Are they actually concerned that much about secularism?
It seems they’re more concerned about having a government that doesn’t induce massive violent protests in the streets and a more or less orderly citizenry (or at least one that is orderly without the threat of military action).
The Egyptian military’s leadership is stable, privileged, secular, pro-Western. When Mubarak’s rule became so shaky that the whole country would implode, they protected themselves by being on the side of stability and against the current government.
And now, there’s instability again and they’re siding against the government that can’t keep the masses placated.
So, they’re always on the side of stability because that keeps them in their power which is not ideological, religious, nor political. Simply martial. And they intend to keep it that way.
Given a choice between a secular pro-Western junta and another Islamist government, I believe the former is the lesser of two evils. If reports are accurate, the military has proposed a creation of a new constitution and free elections. I can only hope that the people of Egypt don’t have to suffer more than they already have. I am pleased and rather surprised that the US has chosen to stay (at least nominally) neutral in this conflict.
The Egyptian army, like so many such countries, is an enterprise unto itself. It has car factories, hotels, and other businesses. The one thing it demanded of whoever wanted to take on the task of running the country was - don’t pry into their business.
(The other thing obviously, was don’t stir up the population so badly it threatens their business, and don’t expect the army to be the goons to enforce some other group’s government.)
The theory of democracy is that when millions (seriously!) of people take to the streets in protest, the government should listen. Mubarak did not, and it eventually meant he fell. Morsi shows no attempt to compromise, to listen to the opposition, and to solve the problems that have riled them up. He ignored them and used only his own people to write the constitution, slanted to Islamic law. He ignored them when trying to shoehorn his own people into the judiciary, the police, and even the army.
There are soccer riots that killed dozens, followed by riots which made some areas like Port Said a no-go zone for police; there are lineups for bread; last April I saw massive lineups at most gas stations (the ones not already out of gas). The bribery situaton is getting worse; the cost of living is rising; the place is getting lawless (although for tourists, it’s still one of the safest and friendliest moslem countries). Moslem troublemakers riot against Christians. Foreign exchange reserves are getting lwo. The country goes to the Saudis, Libya, UAR for handouts to keep buying fuel. The bad news just means the tourists stay away, and tourism is the country’s biggest foreign exchange earner.
(I was in Valley of the Kings in 2012 and again this April - normally I’m told the line-ups for each tomb could be half an hour or more of crowds. Both times, we were often all alone in each tomb, maybe half a dozen other people in 200-foot tunnels. Hey! It’s a good time to visit once the army takes over!)
Basically, Morsi has made things worse, not better. The Brotherhood party line has not helped, but the basic problem is economic chaos so bad that everyone is protesting. The army is the only group with the power to step in, and they owe Morsi nothing. He’s had his shot at governing and apparently failed miserably.
“Time to die, Mister Deckard…”
Apparently Morsi had just appointed someone as the Governor of Luxor from the party that was responsible for the 1997 attacks that killed 60 tourists. Certainly, that didn’t send a welcoming message.
One thing I find very interesting about Egypt is that it seems a majority of the population trusts the military (or at least the army). In many countries, when the army holds a coup or takes power, that’s a bad thing and the army is usually brutal and corrupt. In Egypt, the tradition seems to be the Army protects the people, though if that were really true, they wouldn’t have let Mubarak stay in power for 30 years. But I guess if he didn’t rock the boat too much, then they were ok with it, until the people were close to rioting.
The people that precipitated the revolution wanted a democratic, progressive government. They got the Muslim brotherhood that was more interested in securing their power than in improving the country. Egypt has been a mess lately. They are broke, there are gas lines, tourism (the #3 revenue generator behind the Suez Canal and agriculture) is way down. There is a lot of desperation.
I was in Egypt in Feb. Had a Q&A with some educated, informed, middle aged Muslim males. In other words, not young radicals looking to make trouble. They said at that time there would be another revolution. They considered Morsi a buffoon. After listening to them none of what has transpired surprises me. One of these middle aged Muslim males even predicted that the revolution might be led by women. These were not stupid guys driven by Muslim fundamentalism.
As noted before, the military wants stability. They very well know that Morsi was making a mess of things and they want an end to it. In a sense, I admire the restraint. The military stepped in to quell a situation started by massive demonstrations of disenchanted citizens. They didn’t step in just to seize power. The military is the ultimate power.
Morsi tried to take the military’s power away from them. It’s personal. Cite. He did the same thing to the judges, it’s no surprise that the new “leader” is a judge.
Another thing to bear in mind: until the fall of Mubarak, all the leaders of Egypt after the fall of the Monarchy – Naguib, Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak – came from the military and their careers in uniform happened at least in part when that military was facing external enemies. So they commanded respect from the military class. (Mubarak just did not know when to say “enough” and quit and when they saw that he could no longer keep the street in peace, they shoved him.) Morsi commanded little or no trust even for an opposition civilian and yes, he tried to take down the Army’s and courts’ power rather than deal.
And progressive revolutionaries have a problem: on the one hand conservatives predominate in high posts across the military and judiciary; on the other, the Muslim Brotherhood seems far more unified and organized than the progressive revolutionary groups so in a clean election they *would *again perform very well, and as the longest-standing major opposition group you could hardly exclude them and call it a clean election.
Now everyone has a not so small tiger-by-the-tail problem: it’s pretty obvious that whoever’s in office, if he does not deliver jobs, services and justice within a very short time he’ll get thousands gathered in the square screaming for his head…
Yes, but I think it’s an important distinction that the military stepped in after there were massive public demonstrations against Morsi and after they burned the headquarter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yes, he fired two top military people but, as the article you cited states, that particular move was actually supported by the armed forces and its leadership (“it was said that even the Supreme Military Council had approved the move”). So, it doesn’t seem to support the assertion that “Morsi tried to take the military’s power away”.