DE LA SALLE-COLLEGE OF SAINT BENILDE

Post Mubarak Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood President and Middle East Politics
Effects on Local Politics and wider International Issues
Patrick Agonias, Marielle Antonio and Paolo Valera
7/23/2012

This document discusses on Post-Mubarak Egypt and its consequences to the local region and to the international community. This is to be submitted to Prof. Stawinder S. Rehal, Consular and Diplomatic Affairs Program, in fulfillment for the requirements of International Economic, Social and Political Issues. First Term, School Year 2012-2013

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Country Profile of the Arab Republic of Egypt........................................................................................... 3 Early history .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Contemporary history ............................................................................................................................... 5 Wafd Party and Muslim Brotherhood....................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND TO THE TOPIC ................................................................................................................. 13 Middle Eastern Politics ............................................................................................................................ 13 In the context of Egypt, this is the organization of their society ............................................................. 14 Contemporary Leadership styles in the Middle East ............................................................................... 15 Democracy and Democratization............................................................................................................ 16 The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 ............................................................................................................ 17 Military Rule ............................................................................................................................................ 18 The Brotherhood and the Military in Conflict ......................................................................................... 18 2012 Egyptian Elections .......................................................................................................................... 19 PROBLEM ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 20 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC INTERVENTIONS ........................................................................ 22 SUMMARY CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 23 CRITIQUES ............................................................................................................................................... 23 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 25

INTRODUCTION Country Profile of the Arab Republic of Egypt

Area Population Capital City People

1,001,450 sq. km 83,688,164 (July 2011 est.) Cairo Eastern Hamitic (Egyptians, Bedouins, and

Berbers) (99%); Greek, Nubian, Armenian, other European (primarily Italian and French) (1%) Languages Arabic (official), English and French widely understood by educated classes Religions Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1% Currency Major Political Parties Egyptian pound Socialist Labour Party, Ghad El-Thawra Party, Liberal Party, Democratic Generation Party,

Egyptian Arab Socialist Party); Democratic Peace Party; Egyptian Bloc (includes Free Egyptians Party, Egyptian Social Democratic Party, National Progressive Unionist Party); Egyptian Citizen Party; Freedom Party; Islamic Bloc (includes Al Nour, Building and Development Party,

Authenticity Party); National Party of Egypt; New Wafd Party [Sayed EL-BEDAWY]; Reform and

Development Party; The Revolution Continues Alliance (includes Socialist Party, Egyptian

Alliance Party, Equality and Development Party, Coalition of the Youth of the Revolution) Government Chief of State Head of Government Republic President Mohammed Morsi (since 30 June 2012) Minister Kamal Ahmad el-Ganzouri (since 25 November 2011) International Organization Participation ABEDA, AfDB, AFESD, AMF, AU, BSEC (observer), CAEU, CICA, COMESA, D-8, EBRD, FAO, G-15, G-24, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, LAS, MIGA, MINURSO, MONUSCO, NAM, OAPEC, OAS (observer), OIC, OIF, OSCE (partner), PCA, UN, UNAMID, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNISFA, UNMIL, UNMISS, UNOCI, UNRWA, UNWTO, UPU, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO

Early history
The richness of the Nile River has given rise to the great civilization of Egypt. A unified kingdom arose around 3200 BC. It has ruled for a series of Dynasties for the next three millennia. The last of the native dynasties fell to the Persian in 341 BC. It was then replaced by other civilizations and empires such as the Greeks, Romans and Byzantines. In the 7th century the Arabs came and ruled Egypt for the next six centuries. It was during their stay they introduced Islam and the Arabic language. In 1250 the Mamluks took control of Egypt until it has conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1517. By the last decades of the 18th century, France saw Egypt with increased interest. They saw the region as strategic in projecting their influence in the Middle East and could provide a base to threaten the British in India. On July 1798, Napoleon invaded Egypt and remarkable destroyed the local Mameluk forces with ease that ruled Egypt under loose Ottoman control. After being
4

stopped by Ottoman forces in Palestine and Syria in 1799, Napoleon quit his campaign in August 1799 and the last of the French forces withdrew by 1801. Mehmet Ali assumed control of Egypt in 1805. He was officially confirmed as governor in 1806, and it was only when repulsing a half-hearted British invasion in 1807 and massacring the last Mameluk rivals, did he achieved secure hold of Egypt. He introduced many reforms particularly that of the military. Egypt under Mehmet grew increasingly independent of the Ottoman authorities. Egypt then began trading to the Europeans and in 1869 became an important transportation hub when the Suez Canal was completed; however, they fell heavily in debt. In the guise of protecting their investments and companies, because of a rebellion in the army; the British seized the whole country in 1882.

Contemporary history
British Colonialism Under British occupation, the consul general of Egypt, Lord Cromer, brought financial order and economic progress by establishing a highly effective administrative system and by making significant projects such as the first Aswan Dam. The Ottoman and local rulers of Egypt were under the mercy of the British. However, the British saw their occupation as temporary. In 1906 an incident occurred in Denshawai, which a British officer shot one villager and hanged three others have touched off deep nationalists feelings and anti-British feelings. In order to relieve the tension the British made limited concessions to nationalists whom they demanded for political participation and participation. Unfortunately, this ended when Egypt became a British protectorate in 1914. After World War I and the beginning of World War II After hostilities ended, Egyptian nationalist Saad Zaghul asked the British government for permission to circulate a petition for independence. When they refused, he organizes an independence movement; the Wafd Party. In retaliation, he was arrested and deported to the island of Malta in 1919. Riots ensued that led to the Egyptian Revolution if 1919 and the British,
5

after a time began to relent on some issues. Because of the considerable following of Zaghul and the ineffectiveness of the puppet government the British decided to negotiate with Zaghul personally. The concessions made by the British did not satisfy both Zaghul and other nationalists. After negotiations broke down, the British unilaterally declared the independence of Egypt in Feb. 28, 1922. Their independence was only partial since the declaration contained four absolutely reserved clauses in which the British retained control of some areas that they deemed are vital to their interests: 1. The Sudan and the Nile River 2. All minorities and foreigners in Egypt 3. The communications system 4. Egyptian defence After Zaghul returned from exile he saw his Wafd party win a sweeping victory in the parliament that had been recently declared by King Faud I. He was asked to ask to form a new government, however, knowing that the British would not withdrew their four conditions, and hence, he saw no point in organizing a government. Eventually, more riots followed. When the GovernorGeneral of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was assassinated in 1924 it prompted fierce British reprisals and the nationalists movement soon declined. By the late 1920s the movement was in disarray. In 1936, an Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was signed based on the 1922 declaration of independence and the revision of the four clauses: the British high commissioner would leave, British troops would be restricted to the Suez Canal Zone, and the capitulations or the special status of foreigners would eventually end. The agreement was initiated because of the fears of both Britain and Egypt arising from Mussolinis invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and the death of King Faud, the accession of King Farouk; who was a nationalist sympathizer at that time and the relatively quiescent states of the nationalist movement. With the onset of WWII, the British believed it necessary to reassert their control of Egypt because of its strategic location in the region. Eventually, Egypt became an Allied base for the duration of the war. Since many of the Egyptian political elites had pro-Axis leanings, the British intervened in their internal affairs, especially in the selection of political leaders. Local Egyptian
6

authorities and militias were reluctant to take up arms against the enemies of Britain. In the past, the British humiliated the Egyptian nationalists, whereas the Germans and Italians had not. By the end of WWII Egyptian nationalism grew with renewed vigour.

Egyptian politics as of 1882 The Egyptian political struggle since 1882 had been three-sided and unevenly unmatched. In short, the nationalists were strong enough not to be ignored but weak enough to be manipulated between the British and the Egyptian monarchy; Farouk I. The position of the monarchy was delicate and these factors was: to some degree he supported the nationalists and tried to convince the British that the ruling elite would maintain civil order if power devolved to it after independence. On the other hand he opposed the nationalists when he saw that the monarchy is being threatened. The British discouraged nationalists causes that the king advocated and approved the causes when the king seemed to being getting to many power. The nationalists made only modest gains for the following reasons: most of the members are from the middle class and various factions had been weakened by being played off against each other. The first modern nationalist movement were initially strong that resulted in the aftermath of the 1882 British invasion. The nationalists gathered strength in the following decades but their success were swept away when Egypt became a British protectorate. Although they gained partial independence but Egypt became victim again to imperialist power during WWII. The trauma of WWII alerted the nationalists the insufficiency of their past gains.

Wafd Party and Muslim Brotherhood

There were various nationalists movements during the period between WWI and WWII. They both saw Britain as their common enemy. The two most prominent were the Wafd Party and the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the two parties have different distinct views. The Wafd party was secular reformist movement, it basically accepts British ideas of representative government and they accuse the British for perverting their own stated ideas. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Bana, on the other hand expressed its

hated of British domination and call for a return to Islamic fundamentalism and an Islamic government. It was estimated in the 1930s that the Muslim Brotherhood had around 1 million
7

members. Their main theme or messages were: the wretched condition of the masses, the venal behaviour of the elites, and the general degradation of their common heritage because of the acceptance of Western ways and ideas. Henceforth, the solution they propose was clear: Get rid of Westerners and their puppets in Egypt and establish an order that would make the Koran the basis for the constitution on the country.

Egypt after WWII After WWII, socialism gained widespread popularity in the Third World. The nationalists in Egypt were quick to adopt this ideology. However, the socialism they adhere to is not primarily based on Marxism or any other intellectual system. Rather, it was more of a reaction against Western private enterprises and commercial domination. Socialist programs that the nationalists call for is an end to the gross income disparity in the society. They blame the local elites, whom they see are allies of the imperialists. Soon the new generation of intellectuals absorbed these ideas and the nationalists began to gather momentum once again and began to draw the attention of the Egyptian people, especially the masses. These trends would influence Egyptian politics. When the British resisted the demand of the Egyptian government of the withdrawal of their troops, through the renegotiation of the 1936 treaty, riots erupted in Cairo. The situation was then complicated with the faltering economic conditions and the failure of the Egyptian army to prevent the formation of the state of Israel. Many Egyptians regarded the state of Israel as another western imperialist outpost. A series of riots broke out on January 1952, a month after when forty three Egyptian policemen had been killed by British troops in a pitched battle in Ismailia. The rampaging masses in the riots burned many Western-owned buildings in Cairo. Six months after the riots, a group of young army officers (The Free Officers Movement), including: Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Muhammad Neguib would stage a bloodless coup that would overthrow the monarchy. The revolution of June 1952 would signal the end of British rule in Egypt.

Gamal Abdel Nasser Gamal Abdel Nasser became the leader of Egypt after the Egyptian Revolution 1952. He was a charismatic leader and the first one to tapper or created the reservoir of sentiment that is now called Arab nationalism. Nasser appealed to the Arab community for an Arab unity and argued that the imperialists or colonizers have split the Arab people unnecessarily and unwisely into many competing camps and nations. He was antagonised mainly by the west when he nationalized the Suez Canal after Britain and the US refused to fund the creation of the Aswan Dam, also since Egypt has ties with the USSR and recognized the Peoples Republic of China. This manifested into the Suez Crisis in October 1956 in which Britain, France and Israel, their aim was to retake the canal and Nasser from power. France and Britain failed their objectives but Israel was able to open up the Straits of Tiran, the UN called for a ceasefire at the urgency of the US and deployed UN Emergency Forces and ended the conflict by November. In the aftermath of the crisis Nassers became a hero of the Arab world. However, his popularity waned in 1967 after the Egyptian army was defeated by Israeli forces in the Six Day War. As a result Egypt lost the Sainai peninsula and some territories of her allies; Jordan lost the West Bank and Syria lost the Golan Heights. It was crushing humiliation and Nasser offered his resignation, but the Egyptian people would not let him. His vision or concept for Arab socialism he advocated were not European or in a Marxist sense of a combination of politics and economics. Rather it was socialism of secular Islam. Its practical expression came in terms of the nationalization of basic industries; the elimination of foreign ownership; and the construction of hospitals, schools and mosques in as many villages as possible. There was no sophisticated economic formula for Nassers socialism. There was instead an interest in the common man concerns such as his or her basic needs. It was also during his reign the Muslim Brotherhood were branded as an illegal organization and was suppressed. The implementation of Nassers socialism was met with benign political effects: mass public participation in the Arab Socialist Union, a real improvement in Egypts international prestige, and the integration of political and professional classes with the military bureaucracy. But it nearly created an economic disaster: high inflation, low industrial productivity and high
9

unemployment. Nevertheless, he made a profound influence on Egyptian and Arab politics. His symbolic value to the emergence of an appropriate 20th century Arab identity is enormous since his sudden death in September 28, 1970.

Anwar Sadat After the sudden death of Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat replaced him as President of Egypt. As a leader he was very different from his predecessor, despite that, he had his own unique brand of leadership which brought substantial changes to Egypt. He brought several broad changes to such as launching an ambitious program to create a parallel economic structure. He was attempting to create competitions amongst the parties within the Arab Socialist Union. These bold changes, very different from what Nasser envisioned has been met with opposition and did not come cheaply. His attempt to increase the artificially low price of bread in 1978 was met with widespread demonstration from the public, forcing the government to back down. Despite being constantly compared to Nasser he has still made his mark in the history of Egypt: the peace treaty with Israel known as the Camp David Accords in 1978 which brought him along with his Israeli counterpart the Nobel Peace Prize, the dramatic break with the Soviet Union and the entertaining of Western industries in Egypt. In his way he reversed Nassers economic policies because unlike Nasser he forged closer ties to the West especially to Western Europe and the United States. He also pursued a political solution to the Israeli question and Palestinian demands. Within Egypt, he allowed political parties to develop, one such example were the Muslim Brotherhood although they carefully controlled. He also subtly tried to demythologize Nasser however he was unsuccessful. He believed the reform he introduced had relieved much of Egypts economic and military burdens. Although there was some success, flaws still remained. The 1967 war had been devastating to the Egyptian military and economy, partly because of Nassers nationalization of many industries during the 1960s.There is also the high population growth rate which has strained the capacity of average Egyptians to endure hardship. He also broke ties with his former ally; the USSR after they reluctantly refused to aid the Egyptian army by supplying them weapons. Under the orders of Sadat, on July 1972, 40,000 Soviet military personnel and advisors
10

were expelled from Egypt. Israel. Seeing the plight of the Egyptians, offered stringent condition for peace and hoped Sadat would accede. However, Sadats situation was very delicate since he cannot afford to make peace with Israel at that time, since it may threaten the aid being provided by oil-rich states and the possibility that it might trigger a coup. In a last ditch effort, he embarked on a fruitless international diplomatic offensive. With no other way to break the statement war broke out on October, 1973 also known as the Yom Kippur War. Although the Israelis won a strategic victory, Sadats s gamble in initiating the war seemed to have paid off and became a hero of the Arab World at a time. The conflict has brought the attention of the international community and especially the two great powers, and hoped that it would break the statement with Israel. It was broken when the US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, took the lead in promoting a new settlement in what came to be known as shuttle diplomacy. In the months after the war, Kissinger made numerous other interested parties to fly repeatedly from one capital to another. Together with the efforts of Egypt, Israel and the US culminated into the Camp David talks and finally resulted into the formal peace treaty known as the Camp David Accords; This peaceful settlement of the conflict earned both leaders; Prime Minister Benign of Israel and President Sadat the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize. This normalized Egypt-Israel relations and also resulted in the withdrawal of Israeli forces in the Sinai Peninsula in April 1982. The peace treaty with Israel was not met with praise by the Arab World. His population in the region plummeted and led to the suspension of Egypt from the Arab League. His reign ended on October 1981 when he was assassinated by a fundamentalist cell within the Egyptian army.

Hosni Mubarak The transition of rule after the death of Sadat was smooth and Hosni Mubarak was made President of Egypt on October 14, 1981.Under his rule, Egypt recovered much of the prestige lost in the Arab world as a consequence of Sadats peacemaking with Israel. He also capitalized on Sadats close ties with the US by pursuing closer bilateral friendship.

11

It was also during his reign he supported the US led coalition that confronted Iraq in 1991. His key role in the coalition has contributed greatly to both his domestic and international prestige. However, political conflict within Egypt was not eliminated and it is clear that the government has strenuously suppressed extremist Islamist opposition groups. On the brighter side, political participation has widened since the administration of Sadat. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks of 2001, Mubarak was placed in a difficult position with his American allies especially during the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003.

Furthermore, there were internal and external complaints about the lack of democracy and corruption within Egypt and occurred simultaneously with an increase of jihadist militants which increased the number of bombing and assassinations. The presidential and parliamentary election of 2005 did little to quell his critics.

Having weathered an Islamist insurgency, economic upheavals and a host of other sociopolitical challenges for the past three decades of rule came to an abrupt end when demonstrations that was to be known to the world as the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 ousted him from power. This was partly due to the phenomena known as the Arab Spring or the democratization of the Middle East which started in Tunisia.

12

BACKGROUND TO THE TOPIC

Middle Eastern Politics

Middle Eastern politics are characterized by: colonial legacies left by western imperialists, the influence of Islam, an authoritarian or Kemalist system legitimatized by an emphasis on both security and development, which through this would open space for some freedom and even oppositional groups. Other political systems were developed and shaped by a combination of great wealth and family rule. These characteristics can be divided into three particular systems within Middle Eastern politics. The First, are the traditional system an example of such is the state of Kuwait. This system asserts the right to govern because of historical forces, which came from a clear and logical line of leaders which stretches back in time that is legitimatized by practice. The other is the transitional or modernizing system. This system mainly came from traditional foundations but is disrupted to give way for modernization. States like Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Omar, Qatar, Libya (under Gaddafi), Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the U.A.E. has this kind of system. Oil has been a major factor in the system and in combination of these states, they account for the bulk of oil production and reserves in the Middle East and the world. These states also exhibit radically different political styles: modernizing monarchies like that of Saudi Arabia, and two variants of the Islamic Republic states like; Libya and Iran. Finally the last is the modern bureaucratic system. It is characterized on the promise of adequate short-term performance in government. It emphasizes more on modern organization of the state and the dismantling of the older and traditional means of governance. This system promises to transform society through the application of management skills, more political participation and within publically accountable systems while others within an authoritarian system. These states include: Egypt, Iraq (occupied 2003), Israel, Lebanon (until 1974), Syria and Turkey.

13

In the context of Egypt, this is the organization of their society

Lower Class

Ruling Class

Professional Elites Wealthy merchant and Landowners

Party Heads

Head of state; govt ministers

Senior officer corps

The Ulema

Upper and mid level bureaucrats

The Lower class include: The mass publics Urban worker Bedouins (settled and unsettled) Poor tradesmen Soldiers Small landowners Peasants Tenant farmers Artisans 14

In addition to the systems, they are also seen with prominent leader with their own unique characteristics. One is the traditional leader, basically coming from the line of the monarchy in the Middle East like the ousted the Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran and the last king of Egypt; King Farouk. Next are the strong and charismatic leaders, who possesses intense leadership style and their actions are legitimized by references to some transcendent source-religious, historical, natural or even mystical. These charismatic leaders in the Middle East include: Muammar Gaddafi, Ayatollah Rudollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein and Gamel Abdel Nasser. Last are the modern bureaucratic leaders. Most of these leaders are Authoritarian or Kemalist. They reject the regular review of their right to rule, they argue instead that no one has the ability to judge their leadership or its performance. Most of the authoritarian leaders often conceive their political rule as a period of political trust and tutelage during which the society learns and practices the skills and procedures that will lead to genuine publically accountable politics. In most cases these authoritarian modern bureaucratic leaders are military and nature and usually emerged from a political party background. This can be an explanation on why there are a lot of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, since most of the states that emerged achieved modernization among the military first. Examples of these leaders include: Muhammad Ahmadinejad of Iran, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.

Contemporary Leadership styles in the Middle East

TRADITIONAL Bahrain Egypt under Farouk Iran under Shah Pahlavi MODERN BUREAUCRATIC Egypt under Mubarak (K) Iran CHARISMATIC Egypt under Nasser Iran under Khomeini

Iraq under US occupation 2003 Libya under Gaddafi (K)

Jordan Kuwait Oman Qatar

Israel Lebanon Syria under Al-Assad (K) Turkey

15

Saudi Arabia UAE *K=Kemalist or Authoritarian

Yemen (K) Palestinian Authority

In the context of contemporary Egypt under the regime of Mubarak from 1981 to 2011, it has a modern bureaucratic governance under a modern bureaucratic and authoritarian or Kemalist leadership.

Democracy and Democratization

It has long been noted that the Middle East is inhospitable to democracy. These autocratic regimes in the region responded with only cosmetic reforms and democracy was limited and nominal. There had been only two states have a successful democracy: Iran and Turkey. However, majority of these regimes suppress the foundations of democracy. Furthermore external powers have tolerated these regimes for a number of decades because of their natural resources such as oil. It is very ironic; since they criticize these regimes yet they tolerate it according to (Andersen, R. R., Seibert, R. F., & Wagner, J. G., 2007) In addition the idea of (Okar, 2001) explains that during the fall of the USSR, the Middle East and North Africa remain extra ordinary opposing to democracy wherein the region stands alone as the only area outside of Western Europe not to see the emergence of any new, liberal democracies in the past three decades. More importantly, with the exception of Israel, the region does not contain any liberal, democratic regimes. The regions resistance to democratization is important for several reasons; lack of democracy is highly politicized. Those intent on defending much of US foreign policy argue that the authoritarianism of the region demands strong-arm tactics. In contrast, others argue that it is precisely because of existing US foreign policy aimed at securing the State of Israel and controlling the regions oil that we see the persistence of authoritarianism in the region. Understanding the validity of these positions rests on understanding the reasons that MENA states have failed to democratize. Political scientists have long been interested in determining the conditions for democracy, and understanding the absence of democracy in the MENA is, in effect, one step toward answering this question. In the MENA,
16

as we shall see, incumbents were able to use the experiences with political Islam in the 1970s and the institutional structures created in this period to exacerbate splits between secularist and Islamist opponents. The level of fear between Islamists and secularists often fostered by the state made it difficult to sustain broad-based opposition coalitions. Thus, MENA states did not stay in power so much because the incumbent regimes were so strong, but rather they stayed in power because their opposition remained weak and fragmented.

The Egyptian Revolution of 2011

Courtesy to the (Global Voice), they discussed that Egyptian Revolution is a major political transition of the nation of Egypt, which involved a series of street demonstrations, marches, rallies, and acts of civil disobedience, labor strikes, and some violent clashes. Egyptians calling for an end to President Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule captured the world's attention with mass protests from January 25, 2011, across the country, especially in Cairo's central Tahrir Square which citizens occupied for more than two weeks. Originally inspired by the Tunisian uprisings that began in December 2010, the Egyptian protests now in turn inspire additional hope for change in the abroad. Initially, the government blocked the Internet and mobile phone communication, but news of arrests and police repression still circulated online. According to Human Rights Watch, police violence against protesters (especially tear gas canisters and rubber bullets fired at people's heads) led to the deaths of at least 300 people. Victory finally came on 11 February, when Hosni Mubarak, president for 30 years, stepped down. Since the fall of the old regime, Egyptians have been struggling to build a new democratic one. For the first time in Egypts modern history millions of citizens participated in a referendum to put an end to the constitution they had during Mubaraks era. There have been multiple protests and sit-ins even after Mubaraks departure to ensure the remaining demands of the revolution are fulfilled, one of which is the trial of Mubarak and the pillars of his regime, which began in August 2011. Some Egyptians believe the revolution is over, some want to continue the struggle for democracy, whilst others believe demonstrators should be forcibly stopped for the sake of the countrys economy and stability.
17

Military Rule
Egypt is the most populous country in the Arab world, and its revolution in February 2011 was the capstone event of the Arab Spring, inspiring demonstrators in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. But in June 2012, a series of events threw the countrys troubled transition to democracy deeper into confusion as Egypts two most powerful forces the military establishment and the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group moved toward a showdown. A swift series of steps by the military and its allies in the judiciary left many observers in Egypt and the West wondering if they were witnessing a subtle military coup, or even a counterrevolution. For decades the Brotherhood had been the primary opposition to the military dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. When the unrest of the Arab Spring came to Egypt in January 2011, it was young liberal activists who ignited the protests, but it was the Brotherhoods decision to join that gave them critical mass. Yet it was the military that ousted Mr. Mubarak the following month and took direct control. The generals were hailed initially as the nations heroes, a feeling that gradually t urned to dismay as questions arose over whether they truly intended to hand over power.

The Brotherhood and the Military in Conflict

The Brotherhood was the clear winner in the parliamentary elections that ended in January 2012, holding roughly half of the seats. In March, the Brotherhood reneged on a promise not to seek the presidency. Its initial candidate was rejected by the courts on the basis of a Mubarak-era conviction, and the partys back-up candidate, Mohamed Morsi, took his place. In a first round of voting in May, the winners were Mr. Morsi and Ahmed Shafik, a retired Air Force general who had been Mr. Mubaraks final prime minister. Mr. Shafik campaigned on promises to bring back law and order and to rein in dark forces,' a reference to Islamists. Liberals and secular activists, who had split their votes among two failed candidates, despaired at finding themselves caught between the military and religious conservatives.

18

An article from (The New York Times) explains that in June, days before the presidential runoff, the military and its allies on the judiciary took steps that critics charged amounted to a coup. The military council ordered Parliament dissolved after the court ruled that the law under which it had been elected was partly unconstitutional. In the same stroke, the military assumed legislative power and severely limited the authority of the presidency. The charter the generals issued gives them control of all laws and the national budget, immunity from any oversight and the power to veto a declaration of war. The generals also seized control of the process of writing a permanent constitution. When the polls closed on June 17, independent observers said that Mr. Morsi had narrowly won. But it was not until June 24 that the nations election commission confirmed that he was the official winner, handing the Brotherhood a symbolic triumph and a new weapon in its struggle for power with the ruling military council. According to the commission, Mr. Morsi won 51.7 percent of the runoff vote and Mr. Shafik won 48.3 percent. On July 8, Mr. Morsi unexpectedly ordered that Parliament reconvene, in a direct challenge to the military and to the courts, which the next day both reaffirmed their actions in dissolving the body. But the authorities made no move to prevent the legislators from gathering for a brief session on July 10.

2012 Egyptian Elections

Being discussed by (Hashash, 2012) regarding the Egyptian Election, it was held in Egypt on 23 and 24 May 2012. The main election was held on 16 and 17 June. The Muslim Brotherhood declared early 18 June 2012, that its candidate, Mohammed Morsi, won Egypt's presidential election, which would be the first victory of an Islamist as head of state in the Arab world. It was the second presidential election in Egypt's history with more than one candidate, following the 2005 election, and the first presidential election after the 2011 Egyptian revolution during the Arab Spring. On 24 June 2012, Egypt's election commission announced that Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi has won Egypt's presidential runoff. Morsi won by a narrow margin over Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister under deposed leader Hosni Mubarak

19

PROBLEM ANALYSIS
Problem Tree

Egypt might became a theocratic state

Might harbour terrorists and extremists

Influence other Middle Eastern states to democratize

Threaten Israel and the Middle East itself

Future of Egypt with a Muslim Brotherhood as President

Globalization and role of ICTs

The Arab Spring

Rise of fundamentalism once again

Problem: Future of a Post-Mubarak Egypt and the consequences of having a Muslim Brotherhood as President Causes: One of the causes on why President Mubarak was ousted was because of globalization. The autocratic regime cannot handle the growing the demands of its population especially the youth politically and economically. Egypt under the administration of Mubarak was failed to keep up with the competition in the global arena and its competitiveness has eroded over the past years, this was further aggravated by the Global Financial Crisis that occurred in 2007. Complaints such as limited political participation; corruption and high unemployment have contributed to the
20

grievances of the revolution that erupted in 2011. It also showed ICTs role to further the cause of the revolution and the democratization of the Middle East. The Arab Spring is also one of the factors on why Hosni Mubaraks regime was toppled.This is because of the democratization of the Middle East popularly known as the Arab Spring. This is partly due to the rapid pace of globalization; not just in terms of economics but also in ideas. The idea of democracy has lagged in the Middle East for some time because of the autocratic regimes that remained in power over the past decades, who heavily suppress the foundations of democracy in the state. This notion was finally broken when the Tunisian Uprising occurred in 2010. The uprising led to a regime change in Tunisia and this event inspired nearby states, like Egypt and later Libya and right now; Syria. Rise of fundamentalism once again is the notable cause on why the Muslim Brotherhoods candidate; Dr. Muhammad Morsi won the Egyptian Presidential Elections of 2012. The Muslim Brotherhood was a major supporter of the Egyptian Revolution in 2011. During those times it was only the youth and the unemployed who protested against the regime of Mubarak, but it was not until the Brotherhood that made the revolution reach its critical mass; which almost every Egyptian called for a regime change. In addition because of their popularity they have won the majority of seats in the Egyptian Parliament following the transition of power from the Military back to the civilians. Effects: Many Western states fear Egypts new fundamentalist President. They see that the effect of having that kind of leader would turn Egypt into a theocratic state, just like that of Iran. Also, that policies Egypt would set forth in the future is more conservative and Anti-western in particular. In addition to the fears that they may become a theocratic state, it may become a breeding ground for extremists and terrorism. The West fears that Egypt in the future would sponsor these fundamentalist and extremists terrorist groups or cells that would sabotage the Wests assets in the region but for their security as well. Might harbour terrorists and extremists

21

To expound on the threat on Western interest would be the safety of the state of Israel. Because majority of the Islamic and specifically fundamentalists states do not recognize the Israel and might come under siege and further destabilize the Middle East itself. Within Egypt, minorities like the Coptic Christians are in danger of being repressed or persecution even and since the Muslim Brotherhood is fundamentalist; they are against the non-believers of Islam or the infidels. On a positive aspect, this change of autocratic regimes may influence other Middle Eastern states to democratize. States like Libya after a bloody civil war has able to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and recently Syria which is right now also in a state of civil war in which Basahar Al-Assad is still clinging from power.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC INTERVENTIONS

Marxism The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and the eventual transition of power can be viewed through the theoretical lens of Marxism. Marxism is founded on the principal idea of change in the society through a revolt or revolution particularly coming from the lower classes of the society against the oppressive ruling class. In the context of the revolution of 201, it can be seen as in the larger picture known as the Arab Spring in which most of the people or the proletariat; are calling for a change of regime held by the bourgeoisies or the Autocrats in power.

Strategic Intervention As for strategic intervention in the situation, there is nothing much that can be done except cooperation with the new regime. Hopefully through cooperation; such as politically and economically it may dispel the worries or concerns of other states; particularly the west of the consequences of Egypt having a Muslim Brotherhood as their President
22

SUMMARY CONCLUSION
These elections are historic and will have historic consequences in Egypt and the Middle East. They represent the first free presidential election in a country that has previously been ruled by men from the armed forces since it overthrew of the monarchy 60 years ago. The elections will also put in office the Muslim Brotherhood, a pan-Arab group that has 84 years of experience in grassroots activism. According to (Roxanne Bauer, 2012) the elections in Egypt will also have demonstrative effects in the broader Middle East. The convergence of political Islam and secular democracy will be played out in Egypt and may impact the outcome of other contests. The success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt may inspire the transnational organization to rally even greater support in other countries like Syria where it has been an active force in the uprising, and it may affect elections in Libya that are scheduled for July 7. The revolution and the eventual transition of the government also showed the power of ICTs in the globalized world which in a sense have spread throughout the region and have been witnessed by the whole world.

CRITIQUES
The previous group who has reported greatly divided their parts well. They provided enough visual aids to support their topics and ideas discussed in class. The group provided too much words and script while reporting making resistant to pressure on understanding what is being forwarded to the audience. Although, the PowerPoint they have prepared gave enough background and information to illustrate the issues being tackled by the group and followed by a great synchronicity of presentation. The report only lacked in the aspect of mastery, which they could work on the deliberation of speech that aggravated the chance for them to have an outstanding performance. They absence on confidence level in creating persuasion with their report about facts and details that had made the class dull and lack of the potentiality to learn.

23

They committed minor mistakes on presenting their report. They were able to adjust their time to an hour that provided enough background of the study of the issue. Overall, we personally believe that they have given great effort in achieving the presentation and deserve an adequate grade for their hard work. (Macatangay, Leilani, & Mendoza, 2012)

24

REFERENCES
Andersen, R. R., Seibert, R. F., & Wagner, J. G. (2007). Politics and Change in the Middle East: Sources of COnflict and Accomodation (8th ed.). United States of America: Prentice Hall. R. Bauer., June 26, 2012. (Embracing Political Islam: Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood). (Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy). Retrieved on July 14, 2012 from (http://www.exchangediplomacy.com/embracing-political-islam-egypt-and-the-muslimbrotherhood) S. Foust., Jun 28, 2012. (Egyptian Muslim President Mohamed Morsi To Choose Woman and Christian as VP). (DCX). Retrieved on July 14, 2012 from

(http://dcxposed.com/2012/06/28/egypt-muslim-president-to-choose-woman-and-christian-asvp/) Global Voices. Egypt Revolution 2011 retrieved from

http://globalvoicesonline.org/specialcoverage/2011-special-coverage/egypt-protests-2011/

Goldschmidt Jr., A. (2008). A Breif History of Egypt. New York: Facts On File, Inc.

Hashash, Sara. Egyptian generals stage coup as Islamists claim poll victory 2012 retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161036/Egypt-elections-2012-Muslim-

Brotherhood-wins-3-killed-gunfight-Israeli-Egyptian-border.html

Macatangay, M., Leilani, N., & Mendoza, N. (2012). Critique on: Post-Mubarak Egypt. Manila.

Mumtaz, K. The fall of Mubarak: the failure of survival strategies. Islamabad: Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad. Owen, R. (1992). State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

25

M. Shukri., June 25, 2012. (The challenges facing Egypt's new president). (BBC NEWS). Retrieved on July 14, 2012 from (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18582746) New York Times. Egypt News-Revolution and Aftermath retrieved

fromhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/egypt/index.html Okar, Ellen Lust. Why the failure of Democratization? Explaining Middle East exceptionalism. 2001 retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/seminars/lustokar.pdf

26