The Plagues of Egypt

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 131, February 21, 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In Egypt, there is almost no social contract to govern
the conduct of its citizens – as there is in democratic societies. The norm,
then, is to behave without inhibition, and violent confrontation is usually
the standard response to conflict. With Mubarak out of the picture, and with
the behavior of democratic society not yet learned, it seems likely that in
the near term Egypt will be a society plagued by political intrigue and
instability – providing alarming headlines almost daily. The governments of
the world must be alert and vigilant for developments that could threaten
the Suez Canal, the peace with Israel and regional stability.

I was once told by an Egyptian friend – a wise diplomat who served at the
Egyptian embassy in Israel for several years – that democracy is in fact a
strict dictatorship, since each citizen is his own dictator. The citizen in
a democracy imposes upon himself a strict etiquette: not to push; not to
steal; not to harass women and girls; not to harm or insult others; to stop
at a red light, even if it is three o'clock in the morning; not to cheat in
business; to hold the door open for the person behind you; to stand in line;
not to behave in a socially unacceptable manner; and other such dos and
don'ts which the citizen in a democratic society feels obligated to abide by
at every moment. He upholds these rules not out of fear of the regime (which
is in no way intimidating), but out of self-discipline and conviction that
only thus can a society run smoothly.

Thus, a democratic society is one that is based upon the self-restraint of
its citizens, and this self-restraint allows society to live a life of
freedom and comfort. In Israel, said my Egyptian friend, there exists an
unwritten "contract" between all citizens, which sets the rules of conduct
in all areas of life: in the street, on the road, in economics, in politics
and in the family.

In Egypt, however, he said that there is no such social contract – no rules,
no laws, no restraints and no self-dictatorship. Each person does as he
chooses at any given moment with no self-restraint or consideration for
others, unguided by even the most basic rules of conduct. A red traffic
light is a mere recommendation; bribery is the norm; anyone can build what
he wants where he wants; any manager can appoint his sons, daughters and
brothers-in-law to any position under him, irrespective of their
qualifications; and resorting to violence against the weak is widely
prevalent. The individual feels free to act on his impulses and is not
required to answer for his actions and misdemeanors.

And so, after completing many years of service at the Egyptian embassy in
Israel, this friend felt that he was “leaving an orderly democracy and
returning to a country of confusion and chaos.”

All this was when Hosni Mubarak was still in power, which goes to show that
his influence over Egyptian societal conduct was minimal. Egyptian society
operated all these years by rules of its own, without the self-restraint
that is the basis of conduct in democratic societies. The reasons for this
are clear: When the individual lives under the pressure of a dictatorial
regime, he seeks any outlet – legitimate or otherwise – to act as a free
person, unlimited and uninhibited. An individual living in a free state,
however, does not have a similar urge to break free from the pressure of the
regime. Therefore, he develops a system of self-restraints that allow
citizens to live side by side, taking care not to step on one another’s
toes.

The same is also true of group behavior. In democratic societies, groups
develop codes of conflict management through legitimate means such as
debate, public organization and peaceful demonstration. Everyone abides by
the same "rules of the game" which enable all groups, even if they differ in
worldview and agenda, to coexist and conduct open, fair and non-violent
public debate among themselves. In contrast, in a society lacking democratic
experience there are no political rules, no limitations, no restraints or
constraints. Groups tend to enter into violent confrontation on every issue.
In fact, the Egyptian regime executed heads of the Muslim Brotherhood, while
the Brotherhood and other organizations assassinated President Sadat,
ministers of the Interior and police officers.

Egyptian society has just been released from the grip of Mubarak's regime.
The current situation in Egypt resembles a pressure cooker whose lid has
been suddenly removed. The general population's awareness of legitimate
tools for conflict management have yet to form, and each group sets demands,
develops expectations and is prepared to launch a struggle – sometimes
violent – to realize its aspirations.

Instances of assault on police stations, looting of museums, government
offices and supermarkets and even sexual assault (as CBS's Lara Logan
experienced) are the result of such lawlessness, and such behavior may
prevail in Egypt for some time. This is similar to what we witnessed in Iraq
after the ousting of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Terrorist attacks by Islamic
groups should not be ruled out either.

The army has now suspended the constitution for six months in order to
impose order; in other words, to put the lid back on the pressure cooker.
Nevertheless, Mubarak's National Democratic Party, the Wafd party, the
Nasserites, the Socialists, the Communists, the extremist religious groups,
of course, and the various "Muslim Brotherhood" Islamists will all attempt
to pull in their own direction. Street clashes between the rival groups are
likely. Such internal struggles could create a political vacuum, drawing in
foreign interference. Iran, Hamas, Hizballah and al-Qaeda are all waiting to
be “called-in” for assistance by one or another Egyptian faction. Much the
same happened in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam's regime in April 2003,
and to this day the Iraqi domestic political system has not yet stabilized.

The army will endeavor to lower the flames, or smother them, should they get
too high. While the army has thus far not expressed any desire to take power
into its hands permanently, it is certainly possible that after whetting its
appetite the army will "discover" a taste for ruling, and Egypt will revert
to the rule of generals.

The Muslim Brotherhood have now demanded a repeat of the elections for the
Legislative Council (Majlis a-Sha'b), held last November, whose results were
clearly "fixed" by Mubarak's regime. The Brotherhood won only one seat out
of 454, when their electoral strength might have earned them over half the
seats. If the army responds to their demands and holds fair elections, we
might see an Egyptian parliament with an Islamic majority, such as in
Turkey, which will appoint a government with an Islamist agenda. An Islamist
president elected in fair elections together with an Islamist parliament
might change the constitution to prevent the passing of the country into
secular hands, as was done in Iran after the 1979 Islamist revolution.

The coming period could indeed be one of social and political unrest in
Egypt, with governments rising and falling, an elected parliament unable to
function, a military refraining from taking power despite its authority to
do so and politicians forming and rapidly changing allies within a short
period. We may also witness a series of political assassinations, as the
quarreling camps seek ascendancy.

This situation of unrest could awaken within many Egyptians the wish to
bring to Egypt a strong and dependable figure, with a clear, unwavering
agenda. The choice will probably be one of the leaders of the Muslim
Brotherhood, such as Sheikh Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Al-Qaradawi is a
celebrated Egyptian in the Arab and Muslim world, an eloquent speaker,
well-read and knowledgeable, and a practically-permanent guest on the
"Shari'a and Life" program on Aljazeera TV. Already this past weekend, he
was back preaching in Cairo, and could yet be called upon to rescue Egypt
from chaos, leading the country in the Islamist direction.

In the near term, then, Egypt will likely be a society plagued by a
whirlpool of political intrigue and instability – providing alarming
headlines almost daily. The governments of the world must be alert and
vigilant for developments that could threaten the Suez Canal, the peace with
Israel and regional stability.

Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar, a 25-year veteran of Israeli military
intelligence, is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies.

BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg
Rosshandler Family