Last week, when the Egyptian army ousted the duly elected government of President Morsi, who was just one year in office, the world was astounded. The army was careful not to join the political fray directly. It appointed the Chief Judge of the Constitutional Court, Adly Mansour, to hold power on its behalf and draft a new constitution so that free and fair elections can take place. No time limit was set to turn things round, but the Egyptian people are impatient and want to see change take place at the earliest. The clock, therefore, has started ticking.
Why did President Morsi have to go only a year after his inauguration? The answer they gave from the revolutionary Tahrir Square this time was ‘everything.’ His predecessor, Hosni Mubarak, who was eased out in 2011 by the army, had given them subsidised bread, cheap petrol and personal security. It was hoped that after Mubarak’s departure the people would get more than what they had, and not less. Morsi would the harbinger of change and would provide them what they were shouting for from Tahrir. They expected that at last their voices would be heard, their democratic rights restored and human rights honoured. However, under Morsi things worsened on all fronts.
Let us begin with personal security. The police were suspect because Morsi’s government thought that they remained loyal to President Mobarak. They were therefore sidelined, their privileges curtailed. So they hardly attended to their duties. Street robberies, criminal activities became rampant. The people became less secure and were hesitant to go out freely.
Next, prices of essentials shot up during Morsi’s presidency. There were fuel shortages, inefficiency in administration and a severe scarcity of foreign currency. The value of the Egyptian currency also fell dramatically. So, with the Egyptian economy on the slide, confidence in Morsi’s government fell.
Morsi and his party were confident that as they had won the national elections, they could do whatever they felt right. It was incomprehensible to them that under democracy they are accountable for their actions to the people who voted for them. In the initial days, he had taken the bold step of dismissing many senior army officers who he thought were the hard core and would not allow him to operate freely. By doing so, he had alienated himself from the main power in the country. Then he took the foolish step of making a constitutional provision to be able to act above the law. When the people in general protested he replaced it with another provision.
Thus, he was seen to be doing ‘illegal things’ on his own behalf instead of looking after the crying needs of the people. The people also discovered that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood displayed a dictatorial streak when taking major decisions. The people of Egypt came to believe that Morsi governed for the good of Muslim Brotherhood party only and not for the general good of the people and the country.
Unfortunately, because of Morsi’s partisan approach in politics, the Egyptians soon became a people divided. He could not gain the confidence of the liberals and the secularists as well as the Coptic Christians and the intellectuals aligned to the highest seat of Islamic teaching, the Al Azhar University. He stood alone on the political platform with only his Muslim Brotherhood party. So when the Egyptian army, being already alienated, gave him an ultimatum to change things or be ousted Morsi had few options left. He and his followers could only describe his ouster by the army as a ‘bad coup.’
The secularists and others, however, think otherwise. Since Morsi’s politics was not an inclusive one, the army noticed that Egyptian society was being increasingly polarised. A civil-war-like condition was prevailing. 14 million people had gathered on the streets of Egypt and 50 people were killed in the ensuing troubles. These people did not consider it as a ‘coup’ or even an ‘intervention.’ It was just an ‘action at the request of the people.’
So, can this changeover in Egypt be labeled as a ‘good coup?’ By calling it a benign one is it suggested that politicians of different hues can join hands and help the army restore civilian rule again as per their political road map? Egypt has not only to have fresh elections but it also has to build democratic institutions, democratic habits and representative bodies of civil societies. It may, therefore, be appropriate to describe it as ‘atypical coup’ that will put Egypt on the path to inclusive democracy.
An important question is, how are the Arab countries and big powers like the US, Russia and the European countries viewing this change-over?
The US, a longtime friend of Egypt, is in a dilemma. President Obama has expressed his “deep concern” about the Egyptian army action. But US has not dubbed it a military coup. The US has been training Egyptian soldiers and providing them with equipment for a long time now. It even has $1.5 billion lined up this year as aid for the Egyptian military. The US had been worried about the Muslim Brotherhood coming into power last year, so it could be just good riddance as far as the US is concerned.
Saudi Arabia has formally welcomed the changeover. Embattled Assad of Syria has also done so. The UK is questioning the legitimacy of the takeover.
We can only hope that Egypt returns to the path of democracy soon. It is important that the Muslim Brotherhood do not feel that their army has ‘robbed’ them of power. This time round the political dispensation has to be an inclusive one, which incorporates all views and politics in Egypt. Anything short of that is not deserving of this great country in the Middle East.
The writer is a former ambassador and commentator on current affairs.
E-mail: ashfaque303@gmail.com
Source: The Daily Star