by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*
The recent wave of violence in Egypt is new evidence that
the Arab peoples want real changes, not cosmetic ones. The military leaders in
Tunisia acted professionally and within the mandate of any professional
military. They acted to protect the people, not a regime or a constitution that
was written by an illegitimate regime. The Tunisian military stood on the side
of the people and did not involve itself in politics. That institution now
stands admired and respected by all Tunisians. The Tunisian people then elected
a new body to lead the transition from authoritarian rule to a pluralistic
representative one.
In contrast, during the Egyptian uprising, the Egyptian military
stood in the middle. It did not shoot at demonstrators but it also treated Mubarak
and his regime with deference. Consequently, the ouster of Mubarak did not delegitimize
the institutions of the regime. Moreover, the military leaders acted in manner
that preserved their privileged status. It was unwilling to transfer power to
civilian authorities unless pressured to do so. The pattern of preserving
privilege and power has been undeniable. So no one should be surprised today, when
the people came back to the streets to demand the one thing they should have
asked for the first time they rose up: the election of constituency assembly
that will write a new constitution and establish an interim government.
But the post-Mubarak era is being founded on the
institutions of an illegitimate regime. That is the fatal contradiction that is
preventing Egypt from moving beyond its past. In a sense, the Egyptian
revolution was aborted the minute the military assumed power. There is mounting
evidence that the military leaders were not truly interested in keeping the peace
while politicians tried to chart a new path to representative government.
Instead, the military leaders created committees and commissions to amend the
corrupt constitution and issue new ordinances and legal instruments that would
limit the power and authority of future elected bodies and individuals.
The military leaders need to realize that credibility of their
institution depends on their willingness to operate within the limits of the
military proper mandate. Civilian rule, not military rule, is the only way forward.
A military government cannot gain legitimacy merely by the consent of political
parties, whatever their popularity.
In a reaction to the recent wave of protests, the leader of
the High Military Council announced that the military could speed up the
transfer of power to civilians if the people demand it in a referendum that the
military states it is willing to facilitate. This very statement shows that the
military leaders are disingenuous. If they have the time and resources to
organize a referendum on staying in power, why not organize an election to
elect a body that will govern and decide on the transition to representative
governance instead? Moreover, if the military thinks that it is possible to
hold one round of elections on November 28, why delay other rounds of elections
to weeks later? The military leaders do not seem to understand that they lack
legitimacy since they inherited power from a deposed ruler. Many Egyptians are
now realizing this and they are not willing to allow the status quo to stand.
______________
*
Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. He is the author of Politics
of Appearances. Opinions expressed herein are the author’s, speaking as a
citizen on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any
other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...