The contemporary state comprises structures of power in any given country. The massive Egyptian January 25th Revolution is a unique historical event not only in the history of Sunni Muslims, who never revolted as a whole (yet diverse) population group against their own rulers, but also in the history of mankind. Never before in human history has this overwhelming expression of collective will been exhibited in the way it appeared in Egypt (and Tunisia before). It will be a setback to human civilization if Egyptians fail to institutionalize the People Power that forced Mubarak to leave.
Mubarak, the tipping point of the power pyramid in the 1952 republic, has been scratched off, but his regime is still intact. When the protesters chanted “the army and the people are one hand” this meant that during a revolution all components of state and society must melt into one body to create the new order. Moreover, because the military’s job is to be the ultimate guarantor of people’s security, that institution had to step in when the Central Security Forces and Police turned against the people and abandoned their duty of maintaining domestic peace. But this is the reading of the role of the military by ordinary Egyptians; it may not be how the generals read the events since January 25, 2011.
Still, if People Power is the supreme political value in the new state, the military’s involvement in the transition should be temporary and very limited. Indeed, the Revolution will have only institutionalized oppression if it agreed to a military encroachment into civilian life. People Power means soldiers must act now on the expectation that they are going back to their barracks.
But there are threats facing the Revolution from the very people who stand to lose positions of privilege. Let’s face it: most of these people are current or former leaders in the military. This is what the 1952 regime did in Egypt. The generals who stepped in when ordinary Egyptians defeated the Mubarak security forces need to show that they are comfortable with submitting to the new reality of People Power. This reality will either be defeated or will successfully define the new Egyptian state. The generals have met some of the revolution’s demands but have not yet even released political prisoners or lifted the state of emergency. Some of the remnants of the Mubarak regime are acting as if all the people wanted was for Mubarak and his family to leave. The generals have not expressed commitment to the drastic change in the internal balance of power between civilians in the military—a change that was commanded by the revolution’s state of People Power. The generals will not lead a constructive transition before they realize that they will have no control over civilian life any more. This is the main challenge that now faces the Egyptian January 25th Revolution.
One of the tasks of the Revolution is to erase the gap between what the constitution says and what happens on the ground. Thus the writing of the new Constitution must proceed by acknowledging what the January 25th Revolution has already achieved: the dominance of the People. It is this power that deposed the ancient regime; it is this power that must be institutionalized. The new Constitution should be seen as only the formalization of this reality.
If People Power is to define the new state, then Egyptians are now in the middle of re-training the leaders of the military. This is evident in the revolutionaries’ reaction to the beating of protesters by the military police on Friday, February 25, 2011. Youth leaders reacted with an immediate call for mobilization to face-off the military in Tahrir Square. Leaders of the military exhibited shrewd skill by releasing a public statement apologizing for the incident and saying what happened was not sanctioned from above.
The military is an organization in which power is exercised though a chain of command. The military police officers who beat the protesters would not have acted without an order from above. Therefore, one should assume--until there is proof to the contrary--that the order came from the top, most likely from Tantawi himself. This is a turning point in the revolution’s history. If the military leaders do not come clean in their explanation of what happened, they will lose credibility and confrontation with the revolutionaries will become inevitable. People Power means that any leaders, military or civilian, must be capable and ready to withstand public scrutiny. A baltagiah (thuggish) mindset cannot rule free people.
But the core issues in the ongoing negotiation between society and military go beyond atmospherics. What role will the military have in Egyptian life? There are some arguments that civilians should surrender the national security file to the military in the new Egyptian state as way of placating them. This is a dangerous proposal, because it essentially nullifies People Power. The military should be seen as formations of functionaries with a certain job, as opposed to an institution relevant to the political system (for now it is the political system). In any functioning democratic state in the world, national security is one policy area. It is run through the procurement of funds and the mobilization of an organizational structure. Only in military regimes, the generals are allowed to exercise of power in ways that excludes civilians. This is the Mubarak regime that the people revolted against.
Some Egyptians look at state-society relations in Turkey as a model. But the Turkish civilians are not happy with what they have. Their military is still in control of all important aspects of state and civilian life. Even retired military leaders feel secure and resourceful enough to engage in conspiracies to topple civilian rule. Yet, never in Turkish life has the military exercised the dominant role that the Egyptian military has. But there is another model that many Egyptian protesters expressed support for in posters that read “civilian state” and “civilian rule.” Under this alternative, which is adopted in nearly all stable democratic states, the military submits to civilian control. Elected representatives decide military budget, declare war, and confirm military leaders. Under the current Egyptian system, the military is not only independent of the people and the state; it is fully in control of all aspects of Egyptian civilian life. This state of military dictatorship is what the revolution set out to change.
Military personnel are people like every other Egyptian citizen. But the institution of the military is exclusive and has allowed its leaders to oppress Egyptians for sixty years. If the January 25th Egyptian Revolution does not destroy this state of affair, Egyptians may likely end up with free elections and a parliament that on paper has power but in practice can do little to secure freedom and social justice—the two main values enunciated by the revolution and are key to reinforcing People Power.
People Power does not mean an empty respect for the people as the final arbiter of legitimacy. It means state power will have to be divided in an orderly fashion so that political power will never be allowed to fall into the hands of the few. In the Egyptian case, this entails the restructuring of military and security organizations so that they may never be able to abuse people again.
The enunciation of social justice does not mean a People Power system is a socialist state. In fact in a Muslim culture it requires the institutionalization of a free market system. Muslims should be free to earn and keep their earning unhampered by the corrupt practices of political parasites. Legal and constitutional protections should guarantee the sacredness of private property. Only such measures will prevent the sort of draconian asset sequestration campaigns that the 1952 state was famous for. But People Power means that corporate political power will be checked so as to prevent business people and their economic organizations from amassing political clout to enrich themselves—like they do in Arab feudalist regimes where the rich owns and rules. A People Power regime, then, is free and fair.
No comments:
Post a Comment