Welcome to Part I in my (currently planned for) two part series of reaction to the events in Egypt. This will mainly be a take on what’s happened, while part II will be more about next steps and where Egypt can go from here.
First, the basics. As I reported yesterday, along with the rest of the intertubes, the military overthrew President Morsi, the only popularly elected president in Egyptian history, yesterday. The move followed several days of massive protesting against Morsi’s leadership, which has been regarded by Egyptians as heavy handed and broadly ineffectual. President Morsi, for those unaware, is a former member of Egypt’s main Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, and of their political party, the Freedom and Justice Party, though he officially cut ties to both after becoming President.
We now have a few more details about just what the sudden change of regime involved. We know that several leading MB figures were barred from leaving the country in advance of the takeover. We know that the television station of the Muslim Brotherhood was taken off air, as well as several other major Islamist stations, immediately after the military action.
After a brief period of confusion where it was not clear what Morsi’s own status was, and during which he refused to accept the military’s decision and declared he was still President, it has since become apparent that he is being held under house arrest. There are contrasting reports as to whether that “house” is the Presidential Palace.
Adly Mansour, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, has taken office as interim President, and announced that legislative and presidential elections will happen this year. The new constitution, declared last year, has been suspended and it remains unclear what will become of it. The leadership of the Muslim Brothers has been arrested, and a full-throated repression of the group appears to be occurring. A coalition of pro-Morsi groups have declared a day of protest for tomorrow, but we’ll have to wait to see how that goes.
All of which has cast some opprobrium over the initial ecstatic public reaction to Morsi’s fall. A lot of observers are now asking the question: Was this a revolution? Or a coup?
It’s not the first time the matter has troubled Egypt. Old Man Mubarak’s own ouster was eerily unclear on this point. And of course the 1952 Free Officer’s Rebellion that established Egypt as a Republic was very clear about being a coup and revolution.
I don’t find the debate very convincing. The fact is all revolutions are messy, complicated, multi-faceted affairs.
For one thing, consider how revolutions actually take power. In some revolutions, the violent ones, the revolutionary movement builds up its own independent military force outside the state, takes on the state in an armed confrontation, and wins the day. I write this on the Fourth of July, and so the American Revolution is probably the most obvious example. The Second (November) Russian Revolution was similar, though not the earlier (March) Revolution.
But that kind of armed action is inimical to the kind of peaceful, “People Power” movements that have sought revolutionary change in recent decades. So we have a second model for revolutionary change: Massive social disruption so severe that the government either turns tail and flees (as Ben Ali did in Tunisia), or some actor/faction within the state forces them out. The key part about this is that if a revolutionary movement is not willing to actually fight the state, and impose its own leadership militarily, then it is impossible for the revolution to win entirely on its own. There must always be some part of the ancien regime that sides with the revolution. At the very least, you need an apathetic military (Like the Shah of Iran’s, which more or less sat around while the boss was packing his bags). All revolutions create temporary vacuums of legitimacy, and if you dont have a pre-made revolutionary government ready to step into that vacuum (and People Power revolutions almost never do), then the role usually ends up getting filled by some part of the establishment. Judges. Officers. Elder Statesmen pulled out of the retirement home. Violent revolutions bring with them an easy clean break, a simple schema for understanding what now has legitimacy and what no longer does. The Supreme Court? We blew them up last week!
Non-violent revolutions are tricky. Since they always end up relying in part on sections of the ancien regime, there’s all sorts of lingering questions: Is the constitution still operable? What authority to the dictator’s judges have? What laws are still valid? etc…
It’s a thorny problem. One Egypt made sadly little attempt to solve after the 2011 Revolution.
But the one thing that doesn’t matter is the debate about Revolution Vs Coup.
A President has been dethroned by an army that had no right to do so. The government has been tossed out on the backs of massive public action, in direct reaction to that action. The chains of legitimacy have been shattered and it is no longer clear by whose rules anyone is or should be playing.
Its a revolution and a coup.
Again.
The Viking Dutchman 