FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Post-Modern Coup d’Etat?

by BEHZAD YAGHMAIAN

The young Egyptians’ revolt for democracy achieved the seemingly unachievable result in short time. “The 18-day Revolution,” many proclaimed when Hosni Mubarak abandoned power on February 11th. There were, however, skeptics who saw a hijacking of the democracy movement by the military and its domestic and foreign backers. Recent developments in Egypt support the views of the skeptics. The youth revolt ended without a revolution. The dictator fell, while Egypt’s nascent democracy was aborted.

The protesters in Tahrir Square were young, courageous, and without much experience in politics and street protest. Their movement was spontaneous and impulsive, and their demands limited. They saw in the removal of Mubarak a chance for an Egypt that respected the political and cultural rights of its citizens. The protesters did not ask for a change in Egypt’s unequal distribution of wealth and income. They did not demand the eradication of poverty, and the restructuring of an economic and social apparatus created by Mubarak, his allies, and the military.

The departure of Mubarak from power did not even bring about the limited political demands the young protesters aspired to. With Mubarak out of office, the military ordered the protesters to return to their homes and workplaces, “resume normal life,” and end anti-government demonstrations. Soldiers evacuated Tahrir Square. Meanwhile, many protesters that were arrested in the days of rage remained in custody, and some beaten and tortured, human rights organizations reported. The violence against people continued.

A peaceful sit-in of 1000 youth in Tahrir Square was violently put down on March 9th. Protected by soldiers, thugs attacked the protesters. The 23-year-old Ramy Esam was among those arrested on March 9th. He was interrogated for four hours and beaten with sticks, metal rods, wires, ropes, hoses, and whips while an officer repeatedly jumping on his face, Ramy told Ivan Watson of CNN. Arrested female protested were forced to undress before male officers and subjected to a virginity test. Those not found to be virgins would be charged with prostitution, the authorities threatened the detailed women.

On March 24th, the Egyptian cabinet announced a new law that banned strikes and demonstrations which impeded the work of public institutions, Human Rights Watch reported. The law practically prohibits the types of peaceful activities which led to the fall of President Mubarak. A symbol of the revolt for democracy, gatherings in Tahrir Square are illegal in the post-Mubarak Egypt.

These and other alarming developments and practices indicate a concerted by the military to minimize the potential democratic gains of the fall of Hosni Mubarak. The rush to hold a referendum on the constitution, and the planned parliamentary elections in September will only guarantee the cling on power by Mubarak’s associates, and other organized political forces like The Muslim Brotherhood.

The Tahrir Square movement was a revolt of the restless and disenfranchised young Egyptians against the older generations and their entrenched power and control of the society. The proposed elections have little chance of changing that power structure. The hasty elections will exclude youth and the women who fought Mubarak and his regime from organizing effectively and partaking in the process with well-defined platforms and demands. For now, it seems unlikely that the Egyptian youth will benefit much from their heroism and sacrifices. The question remains: was this outcome inevitable?

Egypt’s strategic importance to the United States, and America’s financial backing of the military were among the factors that helped derail the outcome of the democracy movement. The Tahrir Square demonstration created the possibility of a civilian transitional government that included youth leaders, representatives of women groups, and labor unions. Soon after the protests began, Mohammad ElBaradei emerged as a representative of a broad coalition of civilian forces. Even Muslim Brotherhood accepted ElBaradei’s representation. But, a coalition of that nature was too open-ended and unpredictable for Washington, and the armed forces of Egypt. They would not have accepted a transitional government let by ElBaradei. ElBaradei, the winner of Nobel Peace, was quietly sidelined, and Omar Suleiman, a leading figure in Egypt’s intelligence apparatus, and the close ally of Mubarak became the head of the transitional government.

People’s protest shook the foundations of the government of Hosni Mubarak. The United States’ backroom deal makings with the military, however, guaranteed the survival of old order and its U.S. friendly policies without the discredited dictator. A postmodern coup d’etat replaced a potential revolution.

BEHZAD YAGHMAIAN is a professor of political economy at Ramapo College of New Jersey, and the author of Embracing the Infidel: Stories of Muslim Migrants on the Journey West and the forthcoming The Greatest Migration: a People’s Story of China’s March to Power. He can be reached at behzad.yaghmaian@gmail.com.

 

 

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail