POMED Notes: The State of the Egyptian Revolution

On Wednesday, the Elliot School of International Affairs of George Washington University hosted an event titled “The State of the Egyptian Revolution” focusing on whether the revolution in Egypt is still on going, if it has been defeated and what the future of Egypt is in the new political climate. All of the panelists agreed that Egypt has been irreversibly changed by the recent events, but that the revolution is far from over.

For full event notes, continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Marc Lynch, director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University, offered a brief opening statement in which he addressed the fading excitement about the revolution compared to that of January, suggesting that revolution should be put in quotation marks.

Rabab El-Mahdi of the American University of Cairo started the discussion saying that it is far too early to put revolution in quotes. She added that one cannot assume the revolution was only 18 days long; Egypt is still in the midst of the revolution. She then went on to discuss three main internal challenges Egypt is facing, while noting the presence of many foreign counter-revolutionary forces as well. The first challenge is that many of Egypt’s institutions, governmental ministries, and NGOs, have become reliant on a very small number of specific people. Once these people are removed, the institutions have the potential to collapse. The second problem is that there is not currently a ruling elite to replace many of the figures who were close to Mubarak and that ought to be removed from power. The effect of this has been many of the names and figures in power have changed, but the actions have remained largely the same as they were before the January Revolution. Two “dangerous” consequences of this are a) political lines are still being drawn on a secular-religious basis, while ignoring many issues important to most Egyptians, and b) a lot of people have been alienated from politics as they do not believe their issues are being dealt with and so likely will not vote. The third and final problem is that political organizations have thus far not been able to innovate new tactics for voicing opinions. Protests in Tahrir Square were instrumental in ousting Mubarak, El-Mehdi argued, but the people now need a new medium to voice their complaints and opinions as the usefulness of protests diminishes.

Joshua Stacher of Kent State University quickly moved the discussion to focus on the current ruling power in Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and two “myths” surrounding this body. The first myth he mentioned was that SCAF should not be blamed for the way the transitions have unfolded thus far. He described a general perception in Egypt that SCAF is composed of clumsy and haphazard agents of Mubarak who do not know the subtleties of leadership. He continued that many talk about the SCAF as if it is not actually in charge, and that the members of the SCAF do not want to stay in power, just keep their privileges. However, Stacher “fails to see the difference”. According to his analysis, the SCAF is “disproportionately in charge, and therefore disproportionally to blame” for the current situation in Egypt. The council is a political elite intent on restructuring their power in a similar fashion to the way power worked under Mubarak; the longer they have been in power, the better they have become at maintaining it. He added that the SCAF does not deserve the benefit of the doubt as they have been in power for seven months and by this time know exactly what they are doing. He gave the recent attacks on the Israeli embassy as an example of how the SCAF exploited the situation to re-impose the emergency law on Egypt and reinforce the power of the executive. The second myth Stacher mentioned was that the revolution is over. He argued that while the uprising is experiencing a setback, people are still learning how to resist the ever-present hegemonic power.

Mona El-Ghobashy of Barnard College was the last speaker and changed the topic towards how the political scene in Egypt has changed compared to the way in which it changed in 1919 following the uprising against the British occupying forces. She described the political scene in 1919 as being completely dominated by the Wafd Party and contrasted that with the present scene in which there is an incredible diversity of political parties and discourse. According to El-Ghobashy, Egypt is currently witnessing its freest political moment in history, the reason for this being the defeat of the state security apparatus during the January Revolution. She claimed that one of the most important roles of the security forces under ousted president Hosni Mubarak was to clamp down on political and social diversity and subsequently keep political discourse outside of the ruling National Democratic Party hardline to a minimum. However, following the defeat of this apparatus, Egypt has been experiencing a huge blossoming of political discourse and channels of interest representation. She also argued that this political diversity is good for Egypt and that it will not end any time soon. El-Ghobashy listed the four primary channels of interest representation that are experiencing huge growth as: political parties, workers’ associations, independent trade unions and “street politics”, referring to small, frequent and local demonstrations in towns to air grievances. She ended her speech by saying, “it would be the height of folly to think this is the end of the revolution,” adding that Egyptians must have a responsive and representative government.

Lynch then proceeded to open the forum to questions, focusing on elections, optimism for the future and the current role of Islamists in Egypt.

El-Mahdi responded saying that there is no way to classify an entire group of people in Egypt as “Islamists”, adding that this class of people is highly diverse with a multitude of political opinions along three major trends: conservative, liberal and radical. After the “lid” of oppression was removed, people began to feel free and new splits became evident because of difference in opinion. Regarding elections, she emphasized that we cannot be complacent or allow the SCAF to stay in power and must hold elections soon to start the transition of power away from the military. Stacher re-emphasized that the SCAF knows exactly what it is doing and stated that elections will put it in a win-win situation. The elections will legitimize the SCAF if they are free and fair. Additionally, the SCAF will likely “step behind the curtain” but maintain its influence without public oversight, and may even field a presidential candidate from the military. El-Ghobashi answered that incumbents do not give up power unless they are forced to, and the class of “Islamists” is a current creation of the media as it was under the previous regime.

The forum then opened to questions from the audience. These questions mostly focused on the fragmentation of large political groups and whether we can call the events of January a revolution. The panelists all reaffirmed the freeing of political thought which has allowed for more political parties, and the fact that the revolution is still on going. Stacher characterized the January protests as an “uprising” rather than a revolution, saying it may unfold over the next 15-20 years. Lynch closed the session with a few comments about the SCAF, noting that it still enjoys a 90% approval rating, and will not leave power unless it is forced to do so.