As President Hosni Mubarak fights for his political survival in an atmosphere singed by the flames lit in Tunisia last month, we have moved beyond the fate of one individual. His effort to dig in after offering a symbolic sacrifice of his next term in September after 30 years in power appears to be a footnote in history even as it is capable of prolonging the Egyptian misery. It was par for course that President Mubarak should first offer palliatives to win over protesting masses in Tahrir Square and then send in thugs to break protesters’ heads, a familiar pattern of intimidating voters or stubborn protesters. The question is: What comes next?
With Egyptians continuing to demonstrate their fury, some aspects of the dramatic developments are clear in an otherwise murky scenario. Tunisians proved the unlikely heroes in what could be a new Arab renaissance but people in one Arab country after another were so totally frustrated with their lot that it needed a mere match to set off the conflagration. A predominantly young population is facing poverty, unemployment and large doses of repression, refined with national characteristics. Second, the Arab world is in the process of losing its distinction as being the only region seemingly unaffected by the winds of change sweeping every other nook and corner of the planet. The Yemeni leader, Ali Abdullah Saleh, a ruler of 32 years’ standing, has sought to buy time by promising his people that neither he nor his son would contest the next election. Third, the dramatic role of the Al Jazeera satellite Arabic television channel, which has also spawned a sophisticated English language cousin, in energising the Arab street has been remarkable.
Undoubtedly, a combination of circumstances was responsible for the Arab phenomenon of autocrats ruling their peoples through emergency degrees for decades: American and Western interests (also Soviet interests during the Cold War) in the oil and gas riches and Washington’s supreme interest in preserving Israel even as it is squatting on occupied Palestinian land since 1967 and absorbing more and more of it.
No wonder that Egypt receives some $1.3 billion of US military aid every year, next only to Israel’s, for helping promote a phoney peace process and bottling up the Gaza Strip under Israeli blockade.
Egypt and Jordan are the only Arab countries with peace treaties and full diplomatic relations with Israel. Egypt, as the most populous Arab country and the traditional heart of the region, despite its somewhat diminished status, holds the key to the building of a Greater Israel. Despite periodic American lectures on democracy, in particular from President George W. Bush, Washington was quite content to rely on the seemingly permanent President Mubarak to guard the Israeli flank.
Among the most nervous over the prevailing Egyptian unrest is Israel, which would gladly give him asylum if he asks for it. But he has said he would prefer to remain and die in his home country.
The WikiLeaks revelations of the Israeli and Arab worlds were the most stunning of the lot, but whether the tsunami that has hit Egypt and the region can be described as the WikiLeaks Revolution, as it has been dubbed by some, or not, the scale of Palestinian concessions to Tel Aviv and Israeli disdain have come as a psychological shock to the common man in the entire Arab world. Perhaps it was a contributory factor to the Tunisian awakening and its knock-on effect on a range of countries, including Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and, most important of all, Egypt.
How the script will run from this moment — Friday (February 4) was dubbed (Mubrarak’s) Day of Departure — is not entirely clear. As US President Barack Obama’s comments on Egypt have got blunter each day, one scenario being promoted by Washington is for President Mubarak to step aside and his newly-minted vice-president Omar Suleiman, an old confidant and handyman appointed for the first time in 30 years for precisely such a contingency, to prepare for constitutional and other changes in consultation with Opposition leaders leading to a presidential election in September. In his first interview during the crisis, to Christiane Amanpour, Mr Mubarak said he was tired of his onerous burden and wanted to leave but only after ensuring that there was no chaos, not unexpectedly highlighting fears of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. He was justifying his announced decision to stay till September.
There are particular circumstances of each Arab country infected by the freedom virus but they share many problems. Indeed, if Nasser was the leader of the pan-Arab movement that once galvanised the entire region, Al Jazeera is now playing this role. Amid the Arabs’ many problems is the sense of hurt, seldom publicly expressed before in quite this fashion, to their dignity, which has been trampled upon by one ruler after another. Freedom is being doled out in small, often microscopic, doses in an often-arbitrary system of injustice. They are now being empowered by Al Jazeera.
There will doubtless be many twists and turns to this story of Arab empowerment. Every regime has built its own elite of vested interests who would hate to lose their power and pelf. In Egypt’s case, the role of the Army needs to be redefined. Somewhat incongruously, it has a good equation with the people, perhaps because the conscripts come from villages and the Army compares favourably with the enormous security apparatus consisting of secret agents in plain clothes and vicious thugs. Whether a new era can be born in Egypt under the wings of the Army has still to be demonstrated.