Kevin Marshall's America
Mubarak is Egypt's President no more. Image via Wikipedia
Embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has been the country’s autocratic leader for three decades, has resigned and handed power over to the Egyptian military after weeks of angry protests.
Protestors flooded the streets and chanted “the people have ousted Mubarak” and other slogans as the announcement was made on live television by Egypt‘s Vice-President, Omar Suleiman. Egypt will be under military rule until free elections can occur.
Well, that’s the assumption anyway.
See, it’s not as cut and dry as “the military’s good and Mubarak’s bad.” The mainstream media – not just in the United States but throughout the world – had been optimistic about military response due to soldiers in the street assuring protestors they wouldn’t be harmed and in some cases showing subtle signs of support such as hanging signs in support of the movement.
However, what a soldier does in the street and what military leaders do behind closed doors may not be the same thing.
(photo credit: Tara Todras-Whitehill, Associated Press)
To its credit, the military didn’t try to crush the uprising; that was the job of the State Police agency, which failed miserably in its efforts. The optimistic viewpoint is that the military’s neutral stance and attitude in the last eighteen days was due to a conflict over whether to follow the orders of its Chief (Mubarak) or bend to the will of its people. The more cynical outlook – and admittedly one I lean towards – is that the writing’s been on the wall for some time and the military engaged in smart politics by showing itself as the peace-loving troops who yearned for a new democratic government but whose hands were conveniently tied.
The bottom line is that the military can be commended for not taking part in the crackdown, but there is also no indication that it did so by refusing orders from Mubarak. The best we can do is hope for a good outcome and that the attitudes and intentions of the military are sincere and in the best interests of the people. I won’t say that we take them at their word, because nobody knows what that word is.
The news that broke today isn’t that Democracy has returned to Egypt, or that freedom reigns supreme. The news is, simply, that Mubarak is gone.
Whether that means a free Egypt is a complicated question for which we won’t have the answer for many, many months. We are eager to equate freedom from Mubarak’s autocratic rule as freedom in our Western understanding, along with social reforms. But that’s wishful thinking, and it’s not based on any of our understanding of the region.
So the question remains: how “free” does Egypt really want to be?
Only time will tell.
Share it!
11 Responses to Mubarak Pulls A Snagglepuss and Exits, Stage Left
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
Organizer said on CNN: I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg.
I think they should freeze the assets he aquired and find out if he’s embezzled the aid we’ve been giving to Egypt for his own use.
Kevin, I heartily agree with the basics of what you say. Best case scenario will be a long process of moving toward a society where the governing group comes close to reflecting what the majority of people want at any given time and one where social and financial advantages avoid extremes. Clearly women and religious minorities and the laboring classes have some rights…how rapidly or slowly will they gain the types of freedoms we have (and we are still having to work hard in that regard….just getting rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell so recently emphasizes that point.) We are a work in progress, too.
Egypt will take time as any place does in building the kinds of institutiona and attitudes that contribute to a largely democratic and repression free system.
Meanwhile, two question for our gun lovers. So far, the Egyptians have achieved a significant goal with regard to getting rid of a tyrant with almost no weapons in hands, certainly almost no firearms.
What does that tell us?
Hypothetically, if the army had cracked straight down on the protests or if they decide to in the next few weeks, would people be able to resist all the tanks and American supplied weaponry with the kind of personal firearms our gun advocates envision being in every American home?
It is at least interesting to speculate that simple force of numbers, the masses of people taking to the streets peacefully, may be more effective than violent efforts at revolution in the modern age.
And then there was Gandhi…
Linda – Complicated debate that’s dependent on too many different scenarios and dependent on context.
HOWEVER, I’m pretty confident in this instance that an armed uprising most surely would have failed. As you pointed out, it was through numbers, will, and sheer tenacity in the face of possible public execution (ie the protestors that were killed in the last 18 days) that this revolt was successful. If they had taken up arms, it would have been a long and arduous battle, and one that given the resources of both the military and Mubarak’s security forces the people could not have hoped to have won.
As far as Gandhi goes, it’s another testament (amongst many even in our own history) to the strength and effectiveness of non-violent protest. One could argue that this could indicate that with 21st century technology and communications, it’s more effective than ever.
If they had taken up arms they probably wouldn’t have enjoyed the backing of every free country on the planet. That being said, you’re missing the two main reasons behind “citizens with guns”.
1) It’s to protect the citizens from government takeover, NOT the other way around.
2) To defend our country against any outside aggression.
As the Chinese, Iranians, Somailians, etc etc etc what it’s like to be unarmed and stage protests.
I believe it’s no small coincidence that Mubarak didn’t use force to squash the revolution. It was because the world is watching.
I’m thrilled for the Egyptian people but I wonder WHAT NATO or anyone would’ve done if things got violent. It may have been over so quickly
nothing could’ve been done. I think that’s a testament to the men in charge of Egypt’s military.
We can only pray it’ll work out well… and they’ll be truely free.
Egypt has always been a little slow on the uptake..it took like 10 plagues before they let Israel go…..
Please Rev., enough of your idolatry of the CIA spy enabler and gossip king – Zuckerberg!
[It’s to protect the citizens from government takeover, NOT the other way around]
Where were you between 2000 and 2008?
I was deer hunting…
Mickey that’s rather hillarious since we’ve had more and bigger and more expensive government in the last two years complete with a campaign including redistribution of wealth. Good one though… right.
Jakester, regardless of arguments you or others may present regarding effectiveness, your reasons for wanting all of us to have guns do not make sense as stated.
Outside aggression will be handled by our gianormous military. If, in the extraordinarily unlike case some place thinks it can rule the US, citizens will be involved in all kinds of resistance…whether the military shares some of its weapons with civilian units at that point, the few hunters’ guns that logically would be legal, and all the other means of sabotage would be what wins the day (backing up the military defense).
As to government take over, the Egyptians were taken over by autoritarian regimes ages back….so taking their country back form the police state apparatus…without weapons and peacefully…that is the same..just a different stage of the same process. If actual unelected dictators tried to impose their will on the US…we could take to the streets. If we don’t like the way big money influences our actual elected folks…working against the needs and will of the people…we could take to the streets.
Two questions: one is whether the majority really do object to the sort of Republicrat or Democan policies we get enacted these days…health care reform that doesn’t serve the big companies perfectly but was a Republican idea the Dems preferred to a logical, single payer system, for example. New financial reform that helps just a little but did not actually prevent more too big to fail outfits from forming one more time…..
The second question is, if the majority are disgusted by all this superficial change….are they two distracted by Oscars and Super Bowls and the local watering hole to actually go out into the streets?