An Arab winter

The paradox of the Egyptian revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak last February is that masses of Egyptians in Tahrir Square and in other cities are back demonstrating for their rights for the simple reason that the Army stole their revolution. The head was decapitated but little else changed, and the armed forces got down to a leisurely schedule of parliamentary and presidential elections while they ruled and planned to enshrine their traditional privileged position in a new Constitution.

Those in the rest of the world disheartened by the turn the famed Arab Spring has taken need not despair. It is always easier to start a revolution than to see it through to a successful conclusion. In Egypt’s case, the Army has been in the seat of power for a long time, since the overthrow of King Farouq. It was the sleight of hand of the Army Chief, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, Mubarak’s defence minister for two decades, that was responsible for his institution’s popularity by letting Mr Mubarak go when he felt he could not be saved.
As with most armies that have tasted political power, Egypt’s Army too succumbed to the temptation of building a lucrative economic empire and its budget was outside the scrutiny of the nominal Parliament, with the United States’ $1.3 billion annual aid directly going to the military’s coffers. Field Marshal Tantawi’s objective, therefore, was to embed these privileges in a nascent Constitution.
Where the Army tripped was ostentatiously to wear the cloak of untrammelled authority. Demonstrators were severely dealt with and hordes of transgressors were summarily sentenced in military courts. The Field Marshal seemed to believe that the Army, together with the Muslim Brotherhood under the rubric of the newly formed Freedom and Justice Party, would slice the political cake to mutual advantage.
The parliamentary election process, set to begin next Monday, is expected to register a strong showing for the Muslim Brotherhood and the happy marriage of the two institutions would prosper. The demonstrators who stormed the Tahrir Square again, day after day, braving baton charges, tear gas firings and rubber bullets — apart from those injured, the number of dead are in double figures — are crying out for justice and seeking an immediate end to Army rule.
In tardy concessions reminiscent of the Mubarak regime, the Army called for discussions with the political parties out of which only the Muslim Brotherhood among the major parties attended. The presidential election was moved ahead by one year, to the end of June 2012, with the Muslim Brotherhood hoping against hope that the parliamentary election process would not be disrupted. Significantly, the Brotherhood has been cool to the new wave of demonstrations on Tahrir Square although some of its younger members have disregarded their leaders’ edict to stay away.
Public anger and frustrations have built up to such an extent that it seems unlikely that cosmetic concessions can persuade the demonstrators to call off their new protests. Yet the Army refuses to forego its privileges, in particular the money-making enterprises and the ability to spend money without civilian scrutiny. But it has already lost a prized asset: the popular image it had cultivated in January and February as the friend of the people by siding with the people against President Mubarak.
Where does Egypt go from here? The opposition is diverse, with no recognised leader.
The former International Atomic Energy chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, an aspirant for the presidency, is respected but does not have mass appeal. Amr Moussa, the former Arab League chief, is waiting to see which way the wind will blow before throwing his hat in the presidential ring. The recognised secularists are too fragmented to give cogent leadership. On the other hand, the Brotherhood is the only truly organised party, despite it having been banned for long under President Mubarak, keeping itself alive through its continuing welfare work among the poor.
Two verities will influence future events: the irreversibility of the Arab Spring, however hard and long the road ahead will be, and the ability of the Egyptian people to forge a new path. Collectively, Egyptians are very conscious of the fact that they are the leaders of the Arab world and have set the course. Admittedly, Tunisians deserve kudos for lighting the match that spread to Tahrir Square. It was only after Tahrir Square that the flame of revolt spread to Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Bahrain and Syria. Tunisians have now set an example by electing a new Parliament.
Much is, therefore, riding on the future course of events in Egypt. The question is how the present crisis between the Army on the one hand and the mass of demonstrators and political parties on the other will be resolved.
The Army cannot fob off the people by offering token concessions. Nor can it find salvation in seeking to seal sweetheart deals with the Muslim Brotherhood. The very ferocity of the security forces’ treatment of demonstrators in Tahrir Square — described by many as being worse than during President Mubarak’s time — makes a quick resolution difficult.
Perhaps the Army has learned a few lessons from the series of grave blunders it has made since the end of the Mubarak era. A people who have suffered so much of blood and tears will not be easily frightened by new forms of punishments. Partly, it is a psychological problem for the leaders of the armed forces. They are so used to rule under an opaque dispensation that they cannot conceive of an Army playing by the rules.
Egypt’s salvation will lie in the armed forces being forced to recognise that with the advent of the Arab Spring, it is a new ball game.
It has taken its time in coming but the new renaissance in the Arab world was wafted by the Arab Spring. Winter has arrived but there is spring in the hearts of many — young and old — living through the heady days of a time people will recount to their children and grandchildren.

The writer can be contacted at snihalsingh@gmail.com