Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 6:27 PM
As hundreds of thousands of angry protesters mobbed downtown Cairo to denounce his 30-year rule, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak delivered an utterly unapologetic speech Tuesday evening, vowing to safeguard his country's stability and security while announcing that he would not seek a 6th term.
Defending his record and saying he would "die on Egyptian soil," Mubarak indicated that he he had no intention of following the example of former Tunisian president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and fleeing ignominiously into exile.
Almost immediately, the demonstrators in Tahrir Square renewed their calls for his ouster, rejecting his bid to remain in office for another few months. It seems that Mubarak has made yet another mistake, one that may ultimately lead him to share Ben Ali's fate. So what were his biggest blunders?
1. Failing to spread the wealth. Egypt's economy as a whole has grown by a respectable amount, but most Egyptians don't feel they've gotten their fair share. Instead, they see wealthy businessman with ties to the ruling National Democratic Party stealing the country's riches.
2. Allowing corruption to pervade Egyptian life. If there's one thing Egyptians complain about, it's the grand and petty corruption that makes it nearly impossible for anyone in the country to make an honest living. Getting anything done requires a bribe (the infamous baksheesh) and/or connections (wasta), and high-level embezzlement is rampant.
3. The vision thing. Say what you want about Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, but Mubarak's two predecessors knew where they wanted to take the country and had a plan for getting there. Nasser wanted to create a pan-Arab union under the banner of socialism and non-alignment, while Sadat sought to regain Egypt's martial pride before making peace with Israel and joining the West. As for Mubarak, what does he offer Egyptians? Crumbling infrastructure, decaying socio-economic conditions, and utter fealty to the United States.
4. Half-hearted reforms. Egyptians have grown rightly cynical at their-government's on-again off-again reform efforts, characterized by unpersuasive propaganda or Orwellian doublespeak. When they hear the word "reform," Egyptians look for the catch, such as the constitutional amendment that more or less bars independent candidates from contesting the presidency.
5. Grooming Gamal. If there's one thing nearly all Egyptians agree on, it's that they don't want to be ruled by Mubarak's British-educated son. Over the last decade, Gamal played an increasingly visible role in setting domestic policy, tying his fortunes to unpopular liberal economic reforms and wealthy businessmen who are seen as corrupt and out of touch with ordinary Egyptians. Some of the most popular chants at demonstrations in recent years were variants of "No to inheritence!"
6. Underestimating the activists. Clearly, the Interior Ministry and the police were not prepared for the surge of protesters that first hit the streets on January 25. Accustomed to small demonstrations organized by Egypt's utterly inept, fractious opposition parties, the security forces clearly expected more of the same. But the organizers behind the current uprising are networked, tech-savvy young people who obviously know how to connect with their audience and get the word out. They're not from the political parties. The police were clearly rocked back on their heels, exhausted, and outmaneuvered last Friday -- and that's when the army had to step in.
7. Cheating too much. In most of the parliamentary contests during his 30 year reign, Mubarak has allowed a token number of seats to go to opposition parties. But in the 2010 elections, the NDP's rigging got out of control, leaving only a handful of seats for the coopted Wafd Party. The Muslim Brotherhood was shut out, leaving it with no stake in the government and the patronage opportunities that go along with representation in parliament.
8. Sending in the thugs. After the police forces mysteriously dissolved Friday, reports came streaming in of looters attacking people in the streets, breaking into shops and homes, and otherwise intimidating ordinary Egyptians. Many of these thugs were found to be carrying police or state security IDs. If Mubarak's hope was to drive the middle class back into the loving arms of the state, it seems he badly miscalculated -- the protests have only gotten bigger since then.
9. Bringing in his cronies. Despite his Friday speech vowing to enact various unspecified political and constitutional reforms, Mubarak named his spy chief Omar Suleiman his vice president, dumped his cabinet, and named a retired Air Force general as his prime minister. Opposition leaders and analysts rightly interpreted this as a sign of business as usual.
This is hardly an exhaustive list, and I imagine Mubarak will make a few more major mistakes in the days ahead. What do you all think he got wrong? Please weigh in below.
To start I'd be cautious in assuming that the looting was totally done by agents intending to discredit the protesters. That's a quick call to make considering the chaos.
As for his biggest mistake, it was probably not using force to clear out the protesters. Perhaps he thought it would peter out, maybe he didn't think the average soldier was trustworthy enough or maybe the ruling NDP was too fractured to unite behind him in his time of need but his failure to use force is probably what's pushed him into this corner. I'm not getting into debates about morality, what's acceptable or the nature of the protests. I'm simply stating a fairly evident fact that authoritarian regimes that do use force to crush protests seem to have a better chance of surviving.
I don't think that Mubarak made a mistake by not using force to clear out the protesters. I think that was probably one of the few things he did correctly. Had he used force he would have quite possibly a civil war. The army while remaining neutral for the most part seemed also to be wavering to the side of the protesters and Mubarak's show of force would have effectively been his signature on his death warrant.
The major mistake that he did make however was not opening a dialogue. Had he been receptive to the protesters he could have possibly been influential in creating a new regime. By not doing that he has still left the possibility for a power vacuum to be created which also leaves the delicate balance of the Israel peace treaty in a precarious spot. There are many groups that could take power who don't want Israel to survive. Not to mention Egypt also needs the money from the use of the Suez Canal. If that is closed because of a civil war, or an unfavorable regime their economy will suffer and quite possibly perpetuate a bad situation.
Personally I disagree. Events in Iran* show that you can indeed use force to crush popular protests, and indeed I would say that the past few decades show that authoritarian regimes that do so are more durable.
Additionally we've heard more than once that such a tactic might lead to civil war and I consider it to be less likely than you might think. Up until the protests started the state hadn't ceded control of any part of Egypt to another group and I can't think of any organization in Egypt that had the popular support and military power to realistically challenge the government. I'll admit that I haven't had any opportunities to interview the Egyptian police and military (something I very much wish to do) but usually there are signs such as mutinies and breakdowns of authority beforehand.
*And remember in Iran there were two insurgencies going on (one Kurdish and one Baloch), a poor economy, fairly clear evidence that Ahmadinejad had stolen the election and some strong indicators that Ahmadinejad was subverting the power of Khamenei.
The looting and the use of force
I agree, of course, not all the looting was totally done by state security agents but it was initiated by them and it is documented. The goal was not only to discredit the protesters but also to raise chaos so the people would call on the police to come back and appreciate Mubarak's security.
As for the use of force; It was the first strategy and the security forces (anti-riots police) used force to the limit of using snipers to kill some protesters (also documented by video on youtube) and by medical reports by hospitals.
The decision by a suppressive regime on the level of force to use is very tricky and depends on the situation. Too little force will raise the anger and not demolish it. A high level of force that can not eliminate the situation will result in a high level of rage and violent reactions in both short and long-terms and new sympathizers joining in. (perfect for terrorism breeding)
I think not using forcw was one of the things Hosni did right. the scale of the protests and their support was now too great, it would have just sparked off more discontent and possibly violence escalating into a civil war. i live in a repressive gvt and the truth is if we could master a protest half the size of the Egyptian one that would be a revolution. The people are beyond the point of being sick and tired of being sick and tired and Hosni was wise enough to realise that. I must say i respect at least that he recognised that he had lost grip on the power and i just hope he leaves graciously.
Forcing your will on people can only work for so long, at some point people become resistant, or they just stop caring and hence someone started a whole revolution with a can of gasoline and a matchstick. He was beyond the point of caring, and now it seems the Egyptian Army has also come to the point where they don't want to inflict violence and also want change for their own sakes.
A point I forgot to make earlier: attempting to calm the protesters by making halfway pledges. That doesn't seem to work, it appears to be forced, the protesters are never certain of sincerity and it suggests that you aren't confident in your security forces.
If Mubarak had been willing to talk with the opposition and try some minor reforms he would have been hailed across the West as a benevolent leader, now he's just a man who increasingly looks like he can't hold onto power.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of the protesters. However the point of this is to look at the mistakes Mubarak made and I would say not using a degree of force and appearing to give into demands are probably the two worst that he made*.
* Of the past few weeks that is. The mistakes that he made that led up to this have been pointed out fairly well in the main article.
While there have been many comparisons between the past situation in Iran that was sparked by the claims Ahmadinejad bought the election in 2009 there are in fact many key differences. Firstly the Egyptians are simply protesting a ruler who has stayed in power too long, not immediately after an election, they are demanding change, rather than a fair election. Secondly there are no insurgency groups vying for control. The young population in Egypt simply wants a voice. A population with enough support as the Egyptians could have erupted into civil war with the use of violence as a means to silence them. Mubarak absolutely made the right call in not using force. It was a delicate dance but ultimately he calculated correctly and chose the route that was safest for his country. Mind you, he is not oppressive in his ruling, the reason he needs to leave and that the people want him to leave is that he is not willing to guarantee a young population modern rights that guarantee the citizens equal rights.
The word "mistake" is a bit ambiguous. If the objective is solely to retain power, then extermination not only of enemies, but of their families -- or even entire villages -- is the way. If Mubarak and his circle simply want to retain power, another method would be to set up a gulag Stalin-style. (Remember that Stalin retained power until his -- peaceful -- death.) "Mistake" can be defined in ways other than "retention of power": increase of national wealth, expansion of military power, development of educational attainment, and so on. Another issue is that of time-frames. If ruthlessness insures one's own survival (and prosperity), but insures long-term decline and fall of national power, a distinction needs to be made. The long and the short: Without knowing what Mubarak's objectives are it is impossible to know if he's making mistakes or not.
The biggest mistakes of Mubarak
1- He (his consultants) reacts two slow
2- Lack of credibility by promising too much and giving too little, if any.
3- Arrogance that lead to over estimation of his stability.
4- Having a too high and level provocative of corruption.
5- Too high level of poverty. When the poor can not afford to feed their kids, they have nothing more to lose.
As one looks at the "revolution" in Egypt and compares it to its neighborers one has to take in to consideration the element of emigration. The Egyptian authorizes and civil society have successfully promoted a brighter outlook at the future then the Theocratic society of Iran. The educated youth of Egypt has had an centive to stay rather then to emigrate elsewhere. This notion however seems to have been stirred up significantly during the last few years.
So, the academic unemployed protest in unrest to an extent which Iran just couldn't do- due to the large number of emigrated potential protesters.
And so why doesn't Mubarak strike down hard at hes fellow citizens? For starters, the Egyptian president has been around for ages. I believe that with the amount of experience he possess he finds it irrational to succumb to such means. Maybe I'm naive, but nevertheless this seems to be the case. And if he would come to stay in power however unlikely it would be a diplomatic disaster.
Last I hope that the Israeli interest of "stability" in the region don't work as a blockade for boarder-crossing reforms. Or / and that intelligence services keep destabilizing the area in the interest of no letting any nation of Islam grow strong.
Pardon my poor English.
Mubarak's what now, 82? 83? and in poor health. During the past decade, he collapsed during a speech to Egypt's parliment, he left the country last year for major surgery.
He's not making the best decisions now because he's not functioning the best now.
The people know this. Personal physical weakness leads to the perception that his rule is weak. In dictatorships, this is not a good thing.
It would have been best to keep all of your list in a single post.
Also I would be very cautious in assuming his decisions were made because of his age. My grandmother is nearly 90 and still can discuss society and politics without trouble.
I forgot which poster several weeks ago pointed out that Egyptians want to be fed. He was right.
Egypt, for those that may have forgotten, faced serious bread riots during the past two years. In a poor country, not being able to feed one's family builds courage, for if you can't eat, you can't survive, and if you're going to go down to hunger, than there's little left to lose.
3. He lost the "Mandate of Heaven"
As the Chinese like to say. If you lose the love of the people, than when you are in your twilight years, they will turn on you.
Or, as Calvin put it to his father when arguing over bedtime "either exile or a coup are my only choices for political change in this non-democratic regime).
4. He lost the iron fist behind the velvet glove
Forget love, dictators these days don't know how to repress their populations.
Look at Syria back in the 1980's. When Hafez al-Assad faced rioters in the city of Hama, he levelled it. No worries about human rights groups or who saw what. He meant business and wanted his opponents to know that if they were going to get into a fight with him, they were going to pull back a bloody stump.
China used similar tactics during the Tiennman Square face off, and two years ago when it throttled a political uprising in Tibet.
Russia did the same in Chechnya when it razed Grozny to the ground.
And North Korea's leadership turned this into a high art, by slaughtering millions of its people to keep its rulers in power.
Iran too showed that it doesn't matter how pretty one's velvet glove is, if you're not willing to use the iron fist to show the people who's boss.
A good dictator acknowleges Machievelli rule of fear.
Mubarak Need to Open a Dialog ASAP
To prevent this from escalating further he has to make genuine movement to involve those who feel disenfranchised from Egyptian government. He should hold talks and discuss reforms , jointly publicize them and set a schedule for their timely implementation.
He should also guarantee free elections, monitored by an independent group, and show he has a plan to move his country forward.
Unfortunately business as usual will not help his country, his status with the people or the Middle East as a whole. What is needed is a transition to a government that respects individual human rights, a woman's equal status, freedom of religion and a fair representative government as Abraham Lincoln stated, of the people, by the people and for the people..
What is good for Israel is no longer good for America!
What is good for Israel is no longer good for America!
Israeli politicians are now openly critical of their principal funder and arms supplier, the United States, by alleging that President Obama should be supporting the failed dictatorship of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak – and that calling for human rights and democracy, in Egypt, is a grave error!
That stance is not unexpected considering Israel’s continued contempt for the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. What is surprising, however, is the willingness to criticize America openly, presumably in the perceived knowledge that, in reality, it is the American Israel Lobby that formulates and implements US foreign policy in the Middle East, not President Obama.
And that brings the problem into stark relief. Israel does not believe in the legitimacy of the current US administration and desperately wants a right-wing, Republican government, which, it believes, will be more sympathetic to Israeli demands for a ‘Greater Israel’ that includes the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The popular, civilian uprising in Egypt is, unfortunately, deeply unpopular in Israel where they prefer Mubarak’s often brutal regime, as the status quo ante suited the Israeli agenda very well. Without Mubarak, Israel would not have been able to mount the siege of Gaza in which 1.6 million are still denied the free movement of people and goods, including essential food and medical supplies. Mubarak has colluded in this illegal restriction by keeping closed the border crossing at Rafah, to meet Israeli demands. That was a huge mistake.
Clearly, what is good for Israel is no longer good for America, and that lesson now needs to be learned.
________________________________________
the most important for me as an egyptian
he never cares he believed him self out of touch
his reply on the "parallel parliament "that the opposition had held as a protest on the election rigging "khalehom ytsalo " it's uncaring word which means let them have fun. he also mocked people died in Illegal immigration boats instead of find solution he mocked his people suffering.
few years ago in an interview with Emad Eldin Adep who asked him what he think history will tell about him
his answer was" i didn't care about history or geography " so it's obvious he didn't care about Egypt
he turned to be pharaoh and we can't stand another pharaoh
and it was very obvious when he let his police felt away with his crimes with no
punishment
police turned from protecting people to protect his regime
so we didn't want this regime any more
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(19)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE