[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]
George Santayana, the Spanish philosopher and Harvard professor once trenchantly said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. More often than not, that has proved to be true.
With all the excitement and promise of recent events in Egypt, what do most Americans know about that country’s past? Probably precious little.
Evidence of early civilization in Egypt goes back to the tenth millennium BC. The first formal system of governance in Egypt was a kingdom dating to about 3150 BC. From then until the fourth century BC, Egypt was ruled by a series of home grown kingdoms. Subsequently, Egypt was ruled by Greek, Roman, Persian, Ottoman, French and British occupiers, well into the 20th Century.
Modern Egyptian nationalism began in the early 20th century. Having become a British Protectorate in 1914, they got a new king in 1917, revolted against British rule in 1919, were presented with “independence” by the British in 1922, got a constitution and a parliamentary system in 1923 and overthrew their king in a 1952 coup d’etat which led to the creation of the “Egyptian Republic”.
The Egyptian Republic of 1953 remained until President Mubarak resigned on February 11, 2011. During that period, Egypt was tightly and repressively controlled by a series of military officers: Generals Naguib, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. This period was punctuated by a number of significant events that further molded the country: The nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956, the 1967 and 1973 Wars with Israel, the 1979 peace treaty with Israel and the assassination of Sadat in 1981 which led to the accession of Mubarak.
Egypt was under military, political, or economic pressure during that entire period. Stability, such as it was, was maintained through the military control and repression of the population. Further, the military is still in control after all the events that have just played out in Egypt. The Sadat assassination in 1981 resulted in the declaration of Martial law, which is still in effect thirty years later.
The exposure of Egyptian citizens over the centuries to the ideals of liberal democracy has been minimal. The preconditions for liberal democracy – fully protected individual rights and rules for lawmaking and elections, all in a framework of checks and balances – have never been enjoyed by the Egyptian people.
Egyptian military officers can be broadly classified into two groupings: (1) Those who were trained in or by the USSR before 1970 and subsequent officers who matured under them and (2) those who were trained in or by the US and were largely uninfluenced by senior, Soviet-trained officers.
This makes it likely that, in general, younger officers would be more understanding of and interested in the ideas of western Democracy, an understanding that, given the earlier Soviet influence, would be greatly diminished in the older officer corps. In addition, since public media are a phenomenon of the past decade, it is also likely that younger Egyptians are equally so disposed, however alien those ideas might be to their elders. And the elders still run the country!
In addition, it is estimated that the Egyptian military is involved in between 5% and 40% of the economic activity of the country. They are said to be involved in construction, appliance manufacture, the food industry, automobile assembly, clothing, pots and pans and tourism. How else would Mubarak have managed to amass a personal fortune estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars?
The senior officers who are now control of the military establishment were beholden for their jobs to Mubarak. Additionally, they are heavily involved in the economic life of their country through business ventures that make billions and billions of dollars a year.
Despite its ethnic, linguistic and religious homogeneity, Egypt is a country that has its divisions. The country is now, for the moment, at least, in the hands of a military establishment that has a vested interest in the maintenance of much of the status quo. Economically and politically, there isn’t much they are likely to want to change, whereas recent events indicate clearly that change is the driving force for Egypt’s youth.
With luck, patience and time, Egypt may make it through what is very clearly going to be a difficult transition. In the meantime, our administration and our politicians might better tout “self-determination” for the Egyptians, rather than pushing our ethnocentric, exceptionalist version of “democracy”.
Only real self-determination, whatever that may bring, has the potential to result in any lasting stability for Egypt.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe, the Middle East and as chief of the counter- terrorism staff
