Internal Problems in Egypt and its After-Effects - Research Paper Example

?Internal problems in Egypt and its after-effects Nowadays, military despotism, non-democratic rulers, and religious fundamentalism limit the scope of federal form of governance and democracy among the world nations. Within this scenario, the problems faced by the nations in the Arab world are noteworthy because fundamentalism based on a specific religious belief ignites hatred and fear among the people towards the Western nations. Still, some of the nations in this region are showing acceptance to federal form of governance and democracy. The Egyptian Revolution can be considered as a conscious effort from the people to introduce federal form of governance democracy among the Arab nations. Thesis statement: The after-effects of the ongoing uprising in Egypt prove that the best possible way to restore peace in this region is to introduce federal form of government in Egypt. Egyptian Revolution: The Egyptian Revolution proves that non-democratic rulers cannot survive in the modern world because dictatorship is an outdated political form. In the modern world, the dictators cannot suppress the people by implementing strict laws and regulations. For instance, Hosni Mubarak’s rule in Egypt crushed the positive initiatives undertaken by the former president, Anwar Sadat. One can see that Anwar Sadat undertook the responsibility to create co-operation with neighboring nations, especially with Israel. He was aware of the fact that co-operation can help Egypt to move towards development. But he totally ignored the growth of political Islam in Egypt. On the other side, Hosni Mubarak utilized his influence on the Egyptian military to implement non-democratic ideas. For instance, Mubarak made use of the Central Security Forces to suppress those who protested against him. Brownlee (2012) states that, “Under the aegis of antiterrorism, Mubarak consolidated his rule and blocked alternative movements from gaining control of government” (p.43). But Mubarak was aware of the fact the influence of religious fundamentalism among the people is an impending threat to his political career. So he decided to suppress the religious extremists in Egypt. One can see that Mubarak’s hatred towards the religious fundamentalists in Egypt is not based on his positive attitude towards the people. Instead, he considered the religious fundamentalists as an imminent threat to his regime. Darraj (2007) states that, “The problem for Mubarak of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism continued to intensify, as fundamentalists called for an Islamic government run by Islamic law” (p.66). During Mubarak’s regime, the governance was under the security chiefs because Mubarak did not give much importance to his ministers. This negative attitude towards ministers, transformed Mubarak to an autocrat. He did not try to solve the problems faced by the people. Instead, he extended his influence on the bureaucratic backbone of Egypt. This helped him to get re-elected more than twice as the president of Egypt. On the other side, the emergency laws implemented by Mubarak limited the individual freedom of the Egyptian citizens. The national political framework became a tool for corruption. Gradually, the people accepted corruption as an easy way to solve the bureaucratic problems. This helped most of the bureaucrats to enjoy their supremacy in the national politics. On the other side, the people were facing illiteracy and poverty. One can see that poverty is the grass root level reason behind almost all evils in a society. In Egypt, during Mubarak’s rule, illiteracy eventually led to unemployment. Besides, population explosion was another problem in Egypt. The Mubarak government was so interested to implement the Emergency Law because the president feared that the former president’s (say, Anwar Sadat’s) fate may follow him. Currivan (2011) makes clear that, “After vicious assaults by Mubarak loyalists, the army refused to fire on its own citizens and sided with the people against Mubarak, who eventually stood down on 11 February” (p.178). The Mubarak government ignored the constitutional rights of the people and it resulted in the uprising in Egypt. Tantawi government: As pointed out, the Mubarak regime in Egypt crushed the basic human rights, and the people were forced to protest against their despotic ruler. But Mubarak’s fall did not help the people to enjoy democracy. Instead, the military forces began to control the national politics of Egypt. To be specific, in the year 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces began to control Egypt. Baladi (2012) states that, “After President Mubarak stepped down in 2011, under pressure, and months after we had seen US political heads standing in Tahrir Square in the middle of riots and violence, in an act of unexplained and rather irrelevant solidarity to many, the violence continued” (p. 423). But the people suspected that Mubarak hijacked the military because the Field Marshal Tantawi did not try to amalgamate democracy to the national politics of Egypt. One can see that Tantawi’s rule in Egypt can be viewed as the continuation of the influence of military in national politics. But the protesters in Egypt were aware of the fact that Tantawi government cannot solve the problems faced by them. So, they demanded the resignation of military rule in Egypt. Within this context, the Muslim Brotherhood gained momentum in the society. To be specific, the Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt came to realize the fact that their political fraction can seize the ultimate authority. Besides, the Tantawi government promised the people that they will hand over the power to the elected government. One can see that military rule in Egypt was a temporary system to reduce the scope of further protest and blood-shed. The suspension of the parliament in Egypt did not satisfy the protesters. The protesters suspected that the interim government will try to influence the national politics and will reduce the possibility of an elected government in Egypt. Within this context, the Egyptian Cabinet under the military decided to suppress the revolutionary spirit of the people. So, the protesters and human rights activists decided to act against the military laws that violate human rights in Egypt. One can see that the people considered the Tahrir Square as the symbol of their protest against the non-democratic rule in Egypt. Within this context, social media played an important role by creating awareness on the drawbacks of military rule in Egypt. In April 2011, the military government decided to conduct an investigation to expose Mubarak’s responsibility in the murder of thousands of innocent protesters. The people were aware of the fact that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces cannot bring forth peace in the society. In November 2011, the protestors assembled at the Tahrir Square and the police forces tried to suppress the revolutionary spirit of the protestors. Tripp (2013) makes clear that, “The security forces, including the military, reacted with extreme violence, enlisting the support of dozens of armed thugs, portrayed by the state media as ‘concerned citizens’ ” (p.103). On the other side, the Tantawi government decided to conduct elections in Egypt. So, one can see that the revolutionary spirit of the people in Egypt was helpful to depose Hussein Tantawi from power. Morsi government: One can see that Morsi’s rule in Egypt is different because he tried to inculcate modernity to the socio-political context of Egypt. During the general election, the poor people in Egypt were not ready to support Islamic fundamentalism or dictatorship. Bayat (2013) makes clear that, “The fact that the residents of Imbaba overwhelmingly supported the secular leftist candidate, Hamdein Sabahi, against Islamist Mohamed Morsy of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2012 presidential elections testifies to the pragmatic approach the poor take toward Islamism” (p.197). But after the general election, Morsi tried his level best to control the military and the Judiciary in Egypt. For instance, Morsi attempted to go beyond the Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court by assigning special powers to the president. Besides, he was not in favor of the influence of Egyptian military in national politics. He considered that the responsibility of the military forces is to maintain peace. On the other side, the Egyptian assembly was under the direct control of the Freedom and Justice Party, and this reduced the scope of dictatorship in Egypt. But one can see that Egypt is deeply influenced by the ideology of political Islam. So, Morsi decided to keep away himself from the influence of Muslim Brotherhood. One can easily identify the fact that religious fundamentalism cannot solve the problems faced by the mass. On the other side, Morsi did not try to suppress the revolutionary spirit of the people in Egypt. For instance, he seized legislative powers and ordered to let the political prisoners free. Earlier, those who protested against the dictators were forced to face imprisonment. Morsi’s attempt to release the prisoners helped the government to gain the confidence of the people. But Morsi’s past relation with Muslim Brotherhood was a black mark on his political career. Stewart (2012) states that, “Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, are playing an increasing role in Egypt’s electoral politics” (p. 157). On the other side, the people suspected that Morsi is trying to create cordial relation with the religious groups. Earlier, internal conflicts reduced the scope of the development of industries in Egypt because the government did not try to invest in the public and private sectors. During Morsi’s rule, the workers of textile companies in Egypt decided to conduct strike. In addition, the textile workers demanded government investment in the textile companies in Egypt. One can easily identify that Morsi’s attempt to go beyond the boundaries of military, judiciary, and religion stimulated the mass. But Morsi’s decision to suppress the militant groups by conducting aerial strikes forced the Muslim Brotherhood to consider him as an enemy. Moreover, Morsi considered that an elected president has the right to concentrate power within the central authority. Besides, Morsi conducted unexpected operations to suppress the militant groups in the border areas of Egypt. In short, Morsi’s rule is not based on decentralization of power. Still, Morsi’s rule increases the scope of democratic system in Egypt because he represents the people. Political Islam: As pointed out, the fundamentalist groups in Egypt were in favor of the influence of religion on the political scenario. One can see that the religious fundamentalist groups like Muslim Brotherhood are affiliated to international terrorist groups. The religious groups can easily infiltrate into the political parties and can control their decisions. Besides, the religious leaders can easily influence the mass by pointing out the importance of religion in daily life. The history of modern Egypt proves that political Islam tried to influence the socio-political contexts. The problems faced by the people of Egypt prove that the influence of religion on politics limits the scope of democracy. The international terrorist organizations make use of the concept of political Islam to influence the innocent people. These international terrorist groups manipulate the rulers and makes use of their charisma to extend their influence among the people. One can see that dictators are afraid of the revolutionary spirit of the people. So, they gradually become under the influence of religious leaders and terrorist groups. They consider that they can make use of the terrorist groups to negotiate with the international peace-keeping agencies. In Egypt, Morsi made use of his religious identity to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood. But later, he came to realize the fact that his identity as the member of Freedom and Justice Party is not helpful to inculcate modernity to the socio-political scenario of Egypt. At the same time, he was not ready to keep away himself from the non-democratic policies implemented by the former rulers in Egypt. Kirkpatrick (2013) states that, “By imposing a one-month state of emergency in Suez, Ismailia and here in Port Said, where the police have lost all control, Mr. Morsi’s declaration chose to use one of the most despised weapons of former President Hosni Mubarak’s autocracy” (p.A1). One can see that peaceful form of protest is one among the methods used by the people in democratic nations to express their views. But the rulers in Egypt did not provide ample importance to the basic rights of human beings. They considered protest as an imminent threat to their power. On the other side, the Muslim Brotherhood was aware of the fact that they need to create a separate political section to fulfill their motive. So, they created the Freedom and Justice Party to manipulate the people in Egypt. Within this context, the Muslim Brotherhood made use of Morsi as a tool to attain their aim. But Morsi was aware of this fact and turned against the militant groups in Egypt. As pointed out earlier, the people suspect that Morsi is under the influence of Muslim Brotherhood because he considers that the people are against him. Hubbard (2013) makes clear that, “Human rights groups have accused Mr. Morsi and his allies of targeting their critics in politically motivated prosecutions — a charge Mr. Morsi’s aides deny” (p. A8). In Egypt, even the human rights activists are not allowed to express their views in public places. So, one can see that the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to exert pressure on the government in Egypt because they are aware of the fact that democracy will limit their influence among the people. Solution: The world nations and the peacekeeping organizations must be aware of the importance of Egypt as the meeting point of Middle East and Africa. To be specific, Egypt acts an important place in the Arab world because Egypt is aware of the importance of co-operation with the neighboring nations. One can see that most of the Middle Eastern nations face the problem of religious fundamentalism. From a different angle of view, a federal government can easily accept democracy. If Egypt happens to be an easy prey to political Islam, other nations in this region will be forced to face the consequences. Tadros (2012) states that, “The Muslim Brotherhood continues to represent the strongest contender for leading on the fulfillment of the vision of the establishment of an Islamic state” (p.2). So, the best possible way to hinder the influence of religious fundamentalism among the Arab nations is to help the government in Egypt to adopt federal form of governance. Besides, the crisis in the Arab world, especially in Egypt, proves that the people are not ready to be under political Islam. Summing up, dictatorship, military rule, and religious fundamentalism cannot meet the basic needs of the people. The ongoing uprising in Egypt is symbolic of the protest of the mass against non-democratic laws implemented by the non-secular government. Besides, federalism and democracy cannot develop in a non-secular environment. On the other side, religious fundamentalism is totally against federalism and democracy. The happenings in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria, prove that the Arab world is undergoing socio-political change. Besides, the Middle Eastern nations and some parts of Africa are generally considered as the epicenter of terrorism and religious fundamentalism. Still, the terrorist groups like Muslim Brotherhood are trying to limit the scope of federalism and democracy in the Arab world, particularly in Egypt. So, the world nations must help the people of Egypt to fulfill their dreams because the influence of religion on politics will hinder the growth of federalism and democracy. References Baladi, R.G. (2012). Jasmines from Egypt Branches Forever: Eternal Egypt. US: Trafford Publishing. Bayat, A. (2013). Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East, Second Edition. California, CA: Stanford University Press. Brownlee, J. (2012). Democracy Prevention: The Politics of the U.S.-Egyptian Alliance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Currivan, J. (2011). Hope: Healing Our People & Earth. London, UK: Hay House. Darraj, S.M. (2007). Hosni Mubarak. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. Hubbard, B. (2013, May 2). Egypt: Anti-Islamist Activist, a Critic of Morsi, Is Jailed. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Kirkpatrick, D.D. (2013, January 28). MORSI DECLARES EMERGENCY RULE IN 3 EGYPT CITIES. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Stewart, D.J. (2012). The Middle East Today: Political, Geographical and Cultural Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Tadros, M. (2012). The Muslim Brotherhood in Contemporary Egypt: Democracy Redefined or Confined. New York, NY: Routledge. Tripp, C. (2013). The Power and the People: Paths of Resistance in the Middle East. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Read More