Mohammed Morsi Removed From Power: Revolution 2.0?

Mohammed Morsi has become the second president of Egypt in as many years to have been forced out of power by popular protest.  Contradictory rumours have been flying about all day concerning the state of Egypt’s leadership but, just now, the army have announced Morsi’s removal and the suspension of his Islamic-tinted constitution.

Well, that’s twice now I’ve been wrong about Morsi.  It’s fair to say I did not see this coming.  But, in some ways, it should come as no surprise.  In the first round of the 2012 Presidential Election, only 24.78% of people voted for Morsi as their first choice.  It was only when he entered a run-off with former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, who served under Mubarak, that Morsi won the vote – and even then only with 51.73%.  While Morsi undoubtedly will have taken the Islamic vote in this election, I’m pretty certain he also relied on the liberal and secular vote to assure a victory.  It was Morsi’s hubris and his ignorance of this fact that led to his downfall.  By pursuing a broad Islamic agenda, despite declaring himself a moderate, he has alienated the section of society which got him into power.  That is how protests larger than those which deposed Mubarak rose up against him.

One thing that strikes me, as a statistics geek, is just how brief his leadership has been.  Egypt has a history of long-lasting strongmen – Nasser (1956 – 1970) served 14 years, Sadat (1970 – 1981) 11 years and Mubarak (1981 – 2011) a staggering 30 years.  Morsi’s solitary year is very feeble in comparison, making him certain to go down in history as one of Egypt’s most ineffectual presidents.  Well, alongside Muhammed Naguib – Egypt’s first President – who was kicked out by Nasser after a similar amount of time.

One issue being fiercely debated is whether this action by the army constitues a coup.  On one hand, the definition of ‘coup d’etat’ is: “A sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force”.  This is most definitely sudden and decisive, and Morsi’s government has been changed by force.  Therefore, it is a coup.  But does it deserve to be counted as one?  Coups typically unfold as the army, for its own ends or for its misguided view of the national interest, force the acting government out of power.  In this case the army has responded to an overwhelming outpouring of public opinion.  I’ve read one comment where someone ironically stated that Egypt is one of the few countries where the public are actually in control.  Let’s have no misunderstandings, the army has little interest in democracy.  What the army wants is stability and influence; it merely sees encouraging democracy as the means to achieve these goals.  But, really, the army had few options.  The anti-Morsi camp is significantly larger than the pro-Morsi camp, and Morsi is characteristically unwilling to negotiate his way through anything.  They could have tried to set up a unity government but, to be realistic, that would have been a guaranteed failure.  Removing Morsi must have been seen as a cleaner, easier option.

So where does Egypt go from here?  New elections for both the president and the parliament are due to be held, perhaps in 2014 – three whole years after the initial revolution.  In the meantime, the head of Egypt’s Constitutional Court, Adly al-Mansour, will be the interim president.  Hopefully Morsi’s supporters will choose to voice their opinions in the election rather than take more immediate, drastic action.  I fear Paul Mason has it right: “For everyone belatedly discovering Arab Spring has parallels with 1848, please note it is now 1851.”  It’s being argued that the army stepping in to depose Morsi will set a precedent for the army, much as has become the case with Pakistan’s modern history.  However, I have faith that these new elections will at least attempt to be free and fair and.  So long as the new President is careful not to disgruntle the army to a great extent (though bear in mind it will be unwilling to stage another coup), they’re probably safe.  But then, I now have a track record of being wrong!  So has everyone, in fairness.  This situation is completely unpredictable.

I wonder how the election will go.  While I doubt this is the end of the Muslim Brotherhood as a political force, their popularity has been dealt a severe blow and I find it unlikely that they’d dominate these elections as they did 2012.  Could secular coalitions, who have now had the time they need to organise and mobilise, grab a victory?  A moderate liberal actually willing to listen to people would be my preferred option.  But, lurking in the shadows, a third possibility lies in wait.  Remnants of Mubarak’s regime, which came so close to grabbing victory in 2012, may yet play a significant role.  With the ancien régime’s obvious alternative ending in such failure, will the Egyptian people now sacrifice some ideals of the revolution for stability?  Considering the uncontrollable force which has been awoken, an influential youth movement accustomed to its new freedoms and willing to defend them – as we’ve seen time and time again – I find this unlikely, but it’s not impossible to imagine Egypt may now take a step back.

Well,  see you next time I find myself compelled to blog about Egypt.  This seems to be a regular occurrence.

Advertisements

Mohammed Morsi: One Year On

A year ago today, on the 30th June 2012, Mohammed Morsi* took office as the fifth President of Egypt.  This marked the rise of the once-banned Islamist Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt after former president Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution.  Morsi himself served time in prison during Mubarak’s administration.  He is significant for being the first president in Egypt’s history – all 7,000 years of it – to have been elected in what was generally recognised as a free and fair election.  That’s great, right?!  Finally, a leader who respects democracy?  Well……

Morsi never fails to pay lip service to his democratic ideals – more often than not to safeguard his legitimacy – but is he really interested in promoting the ideals of the revolution?  I had a positive opinion of him upon his first election.  Small things, such as not wearing a bulletproof vest during his inauguration speech and refusing to have presidential portraits of himself hung like Mubarak had convinced me he was, at least, different to what had come before.  By no means indications of the route his leadership would take but a good start.

Unfortunately, as the months dragged on it began to look as though his rule was becoming ever more authoritarian.  I uneasily read reports of journalists and presenters who had been arrested or threatened by the government and, although Egypt is nowhere near the level of a police state it was under Mubarak, these are not things which happen in a democratic country.  Then came that November decree where Morsi announced ‘temporary’ powers over the judiciary, effectively granting him more powers than even Mubarak had wielded.  In response to the mass unrest which occurred afterwards he did rescind the decree, and has gone on record since of saying the move was a ‘mistake’.  So, pretty mixed.  Economically, Egypt has continued to stagnate, and while the unrest caused by Morsi’s divisive policies are one factor of this I don’t think he can be solely blamed.  Egypt’s economic problems will take longer than a year to fix.

Internationally, Morsi hasn’t taken any dramatic routes.  Egypt’s partnership with the USA and ‘The West’ has continued, if perhaps in a more limited fashion.  He has made tentative moves to improve Egypt’s relationship with Iran and also seems committed to maintaining the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.  I would say his general policy is to keep as many potential allies abroad as possible, although he has appeared heavy-handed at times.  The most prominent example of this is his fierce opposition to Assad’s government in Syria, calling for direct support to the rebels fighting Assad and the imposition of a No-Fly Zone over the country.  He has also recently attacked Ethiopia’s planned project to dam the Nile, giving a veiled threat of war, though this is unlikely to happen.

Today, on the anniversary of his acquisition of power, mass protests have yet again broken out across the country.  As many as hundreds of thousands could be out, right now, protesting in Cairo, Alexandria and most other cities.  Many are calling for a ‘second revolution’, claiming they will not leave until Morsi resigns.  There are conflicting reports of how the army views the situation, with some claiming that the army, still recovering from its brief stint in power and keen to avoid more unrest, might play a more significant role than we have previously seen.

As I’m not Egyptian I don’t really have a right to comment, but I’m not entirely convinced Morsi should resign.  I oppose most of his policies I’m aware of, but there is the strong argument that he was democratically elected.  There’s also the strong argument that it would be a bad precedent of Egyptian presidents backing down from power at the first hint of trouble.  Also, quite simply, Morsi could have been a lot worse.  He does still permit protests and realises that he does rely on public consent to rule – a fact I don’t think he is ever allowed to forget.  He hasn’t yet set up a fundamentalist Islamic autocracy, as some feared this time last year.

It’s not unprecedented for popular protest to remove a democratically elected government from power, as we saw earlier this year with Bulgaria, and if the protests reach such an extent that the country becomes ungovernable then I do think Morsi will have to go.  There is the option open to him to hold a snap election and, in the presence of foreign observers, allow the will of the country to be properly tested.  I think that would be preferable to a direct resignation.  But I suspect, for now, he is here to stay.

*There are so many variations on how to spell his name – I’ve gone with the one I see most often.