OK. Time for another post/thread on Egypt. The demonstrators are apparently going for a sleepover in Tahrir Square and a lot of the army has shot off towards the presidential palace. So a Tiananmen solution, which I thought was very likely earlier on, doesn’t look on the cards for now. Meanwhile, there are apparently military checkpoints across Cairo and the curfew has been extended. So it’s going to be made more difficult for people to assemble in the first place.
Maybe we can see an endgame emerging. I still don’t think Mubarrak is actually in charge (nor does Issandr El Amrani) but is fronting a seizure of the state by top level securocrats. Against them you have some emerging civil society elements that seem to have pushed El Baradei to the front, primarily I think on grounds of availability. I think that Mubarrak’s ouster will be the substance of the immediate victory that the latter will be allowed.
After that, I think the offer will be genuine elections and greater political pluralism (puls a whole load of food and fuel subsidies), probably inclusive of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the proviso that defense and foreign policy remains in the hands of the security establishment. By then, presumably, the people will be off the streets and maybe this is not such a bad deal that it would get them back out again. This is why El Baradei’s a useful compromise figure. He can’t tell the army what to do, and also he doesn’t have the public backing or demagogic talents to get people out on the streets. An excellent interim president, then, from the point of view of regional and western sponsors. Cometh the hour, cometh the bassett hound in a suit.
Brave man for taking a guess. I have no reason for believing I know any better, but I do wonder quite how compatible a seizure of the state by securicrats and 'free and fair' elections might be. I mean, democracy in that sense would seem to imply a kind of 'Russian' solution.& is Putinism on the Nile a plausibly stable outcome? (No, I don't know either)
Posted by: CharlieMcMenamin | January 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM
I also wonder in what sense it's possible for securocrats to seize the Egyptian state. They already had it.
Posted by: Alex | January 30, 2011 at 11:54 PM
If they already had it in the operational sense then there wouldn't have been an uprising of this magnitude. So a re-seizure, if you like.
On the other point, I think they have to have yer actual elections right now; so they just have to limit the things they will effect. They can claw back what they lost later.
Posted by: jamie | January 31, 2011 at 12:00 AM
The end result might very well be as you describe, but it's not going to be the result of a deal.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2011 at 12:20 AM
I mean to say that I find any scenario where someone from the opposition wins the presidential election but the military retains effective control. In the 60 days before the election, the generals will have to find a candidate or lose power. They could certainly regain that control within 18 months if the new government is divided and weak.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2011 at 12:37 AM
I see three scenarios. Either the regime prevails, maybe with a new guy at the top, or Egypt becomes Pakistan or it becomes the Phillipines.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM
We're ruling out its becoming Iran, then? Fair enough. The Muslim Brotherhood seems to have dropped the ball somewhat (although they're perking up a bit in Tunisia).
Posted by: ajay | January 31, 2011 at 09:12 AM
Or Turkey?
Posted by: Alex | January 31, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Turkey would be a very good outcome if the military would budge over.
Meanwhile more on Suleiman from 2009:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/17/egypts_next_strongman?page=0,1
In other words, most Suleiman supporters recognize that to gain the presidency he would most likely have to carry out a coup -- perhaps a soft, constitutional one, but a coup nonetheless. (It is possible, one analyst told me, that "the day Mubarak dies there will be tanks on the street.") Strange though it sounds, many Egyptians would find such a coup acceptable. The amendments to the Constitution were broadly viewed as illegitimate, and the regime's standing may be at an all-time low.
"Broadly accepted" doesn't seem right to say the least, but it may be what the regime are banking on.
Incidentally, Patrick Tyler's book on America in the ME says that Suleiman's party trick is an Arik Sharon impersonation.
Posted by: jamie | January 31, 2011 at 02:50 PM
Incidentally, Patrick Tyler's book on America in the ME says that Suleiman's party trick is an Arik Sharon impersonation.
Also known as a "nap".
Posted by: ajay | January 31, 2011 at 02:57 PM
i [guilty snigger].
I think I'm going to cautiously take Krugman's position on this - I don't know enough about Egypt to make even a sensible guess, beyond noting that there doesn't seem to be much momentum to the current situation.
Posted by: Richard J | January 31, 2011 at 03:10 PM
I don't think it will become Turkey in terms of governance or growth, at least not in this decade, but maybe in terms of foreign policy.
Iran '78 I think can alsmost be ruled out. Much more sharia and social conservatism a few years down the road is possible, tho I doubt the votes will be there.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2011 at 03:12 PM
More on Mr disappearing act:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/01/the-torture-career-of-egypts-new-vice-president-omar-suleiman-and-the-rendition-to-torture-program/
Posted by: jamie | January 31, 2011 at 04:24 PM