First Tunisia, next Egypt? The scent of the jasmine revolution, as Tunisians are calling their national upheaval, has certainly spread. Satellite television, mobile telephones, the internet and Twitter continue to relay the giddy news across the Maghreb, along the Mediterranean’s southern coast, and on even through Saudi Arabia to the Gulf and Yemen. Plainly, the dictators are nervous. But that does not mean that they are about to fall like dominoes.
No one can be sure even how events in Tunisia will unfold. The country has a long way to go before calm can resume or a stable new order emerge. A unity government could take the country along an evolutionary path towards democracy, pluralism and tolerance. Or more radical elements, so far secular rather than Islamist, could drive it in a harsher direction, ridding it of every vestige of the old regime, including those of its number in the fragile new government (see article). Or the army might step in. The hope is that, with its educated people and its moderation, Tunisia could yet provide a hopeful beacon for Arabs looking for democracy.
But Egypt would be a far bigger prize. It is the most populous country in the Arab world, Cairo its biggest city. Egypt is a strategic pivot. America sees it as a vital ally in the war against international jihadism and in the search for peace between Arabs and Jews. Its 32-year-old peace treaty with Israel remains the main bulwark against a wider war between the Jewish state and the Arab world. Egypt’s leading Muslim institutions are generally a force for moderation.
Yet the country is also often considered a powder keg. Nearly half of its people live on less than $2 a day. Most of them are under 30. The mood is often resentful and sour. The ruling party is arrogant, nepotistic and corrupt. It allows other parties to exist only provided they do not pose a real threat. The press is afforded a measure of freedom, as a safety-valve, but is quickly choked off if it steps out of line. A general election late last year was blatantly rigged, even by the low standards of the past. Open politics is paralysed. Mr Mubarak’s son Gamal is often tipped as the old man’s successor.
The main opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood, lost all its seats in parliament in the general election. Hundreds of its members are in prison, detained under widely abused emergency laws that have been in force for more than 40 years. In the recent turmoil in the streets, the Brothers kept a noticeably low profile, perhaps waiting to see how things would unfold. If there were fair elections, they would probably do well, perhaps even win. Yet many secular-minded, democratic and liberal Egyptians feel queasy about letting the Brotherhood have its head, fearing that if it won power at the ballot box it would never let it go. Others worry that the Brothers would rescind the peace treaty with Israel. The fiercer of the Palestinian movements, Hamas, is an offshoot of the Brotherhood.
Jump before you are pushed
Mr Mubarak, like the rest of the Arab world’s autocrats, will be pondering the despot’s eternal dilemma. Is it better to loosen controls in order to satisfy their people with a whiff of freedom, or to tighten them in an effort to ensure their docility?
The fate of Tunisia’s strongman, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, suggests that an angry people will be satisfied with neither. If Mr Mubarak truly put his country’s interests first, he would immediately promise to retire before the next presidential election, due in September. At the very least he would ensure that the contest is a genuinely open one, not another farce.
The latest unrest may yet die down. The security services and police may manage to contain it. But it is sure to bubble up again before too long. And one day the powder keg may explode. In the long run, the real question for Mr Mubarak is whether he wants to leave his country with a chance of peaceful change, or to leave it ablaze.
No comments:
Post a Comment