It may be difficult for Egypt's military to return to the role it played before the 1952 Revolution, but it is its duty to do so, writes Ahmad Naguib Roushdy* I was not surprised when I read in the New York Times on 17 and 19 July that the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had moved to retain its grip on the Egyptian civilian government that will be formed after the present transitional period ends. This was according to interviews by the Times with various law professors and legal experts assigned by the military to be members of a committee to draft what has been called a "declaration of basic principles" to be included in the draft of a new constitution for Egypt. Some of those legal experts, the Times said, had agreed that the basic draft of these principles would give the military "a broad mandate to intercede in Egyptian politics to protect national unity and the secular character of the state". The Times said that the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm had also published a report last month, saying that a top general had suggested such a role for the military. The principles, the legal experts said, would also shield the country's defence budget from public or parliamentary scrutiny and protect the military's vast economic interests, only referring to the revenues the military earns from the activities of its economic foundation that deals in commercial businesses like consumer electronics, bakeries, hotels, wedding halls, car manufacturing and bottled water. According to a statement by the military on its Facebook page, the Times reported, trials before military courts would be limited to cases involving guns or knives or assaults on security officials. Frankly speaking, I did not expect the military to do otherwise. That would have been unnatural for any military ruling any country, even after the continuing sufferings of the Egyptian people over the past 60 years under three military governments since former president Gamal Abdel-Nasser led a military coup that forced the abdication of King Farouk on 26 July 1952. Millions of Egyptians, born during an era of democracy that started after the enactment of the 1923 constitution, were constrained to live under autocratic regimes that abolished political parties and muzzled freedom of expression and of the press. Such people recognise democracy when they see it. The present generation, which has only lived under former president Hosni Mubarak's autocratic regime, does not know about democracy except from friends or relatives, or when a book was banned or a writer or journalist arrested for his or her criticism of the ruling dictator. It would have been very difficult for the leaders of the Egyptian army to go back to the democratic era before Nasser's rule and let a civilian government give them their orders. But the new social media, international television networks and newspapers, books and poems published before 1952, and travel abroad by many of those who participated in the January Revolution, have opened people's eyes to the fact that they have been treated by their military governments as animate things and not as full human beings. The new move by the Egyptian army to continue to influence the forthcoming civilian government is not unique: it has been the fashion in all military ruled countries. But the move is also a breach of promise by the SCAF to the Egyptian revolutionaries, who gave their lives to get rid of the autocratic government of former president Mubarak and have demanded freedom and social justice. According to the New York Times, the new military plan was welcomed by the legal experts assigned by the military to write the declaration of principles, saying that this would make the role to be played by the military in the civilian government expected to be formed later on clearer. Some of the legal experts, the Times said, had called for a limited role to be reserved to the military in the political system as the guardian of national sovereignty, while others were in favour of giving sweeping authority to the military with the right to intercede in civilian politics and to protect civil liberties. It was reported that the first group was in favour of a Turkish model of governance, such as the one that was included in the Turkish constitution and aimed to reduce the role of the military in Turkish politics, expanded after the 1980 coup on the grounds that the army was the guarantor of the secular state following years of turbulence. This is a shameful stand by legal experts who seem to be forgetting the principles of democratic systems that they studied in constitutional law courses in law school. I hope this is not an early lapse of memory among these still-young legal experts. The uprising in Egypt and other Arab countries has caused the United States, a close NATO ally of Turkey, to criticise the country for its suppression of freedom of expression, of the press, and of religion, according to a recent statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton said that she hoped that Turkey's continued modernisation could serve as a model for other Middle East countries looking for models of democratic change. Ironically, the new Egyptian system might suit the United States' interests, since the US has maintained a strong relationship with the Egyptian military for many years, especially during the 30-year rule of Mubarak. As I observed in my article in Al-Ahram Weekly on 14 July, the US administration has been ready to back any government, democratic, autocratic or even Islamist, as long as this government cooperates with it. Past events have demonstrated that the United States prefers to work with dictatorships in small countries, rather than democratic regimes that may object to pressure from America and allow a free media to flourish that could expose the United States' poor behaviour locally and internationally and jeopardise its interests. The new plan by the Egyptian military undoubtedly negates the basics of democracy and human rights and of governance and transparency. Under the plan, the actions of the civilian elected government would be subject to scrutiny by the military, while the military's budget would be immune from review by the elected People's Assembly, the lower house of Egypt's parliament, as was the case under Mubarak. The continuation of military trials, whatever the reason for them, would also mean the continuation of the emergency laws and the elimination of judicial guarantees for the accused. Yet, in any democracy the military budget must be approved by parliament and must be subject to review by the country's budgetary authorities, in Egypt the Egyptian Organisation for Accounting. The only acceptable action for the revolutionaries is to establish a fully democratic system with all the necessary guarantees. It is essential that a new constitution be promulgated before the elections for the People's Assembly. Obviously, this will be a setback for the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis and other extremist Islamist groups that are poised to get the majority of the seats in the new People's Assembly, after which they will be able to shape the new constitution on Islamist principles. These groups have also opposed postponing the elections for long enough to allow other political parties, less organised than the Muslim Brotherhood, to campaign and rally voters to their sides. If the news reported by the Times is true, it will constitute another false move on the part of the military at a time when millions of demonstrators have already been dissatisfied with the military's slow actions in moving to prosecute former president Mubarak, members of his regime, cronies and party thugs, and especially those responsible for the killing of more than 800 demonstrators. Those who plundered the country's resources and antiquities and failed to secure the country from criminals and others should also be prosecuted. The lack of security in the country has halted the flow of tourists and investment into Egypt, adding to the economic malaise. In addition, high unemployment and underemployment, extended from Mubarak's regime and mostly among university graduates, has added to people's sense of despair. The middle classes and the poor will suffer most from increasing grain and food prices, influenced by increases in world prices at a time when Egypt has become a net importer of some of these staple crops, especially after thousands of acres of arable land were illegally transformed into construction sites under the former regime. This latest move by the military will cause more instability in the government and will make the new Egyptian democracy into a mockery for the world's media. Furthermore, continuing military control of Egyptian politics will open the door to further corruption in the government, whose members will try to appease the military, the invisible rulers of the country. As is the case with all despotic rulers, these will remain in power by rewarding a small group of loyal officials, such as senior civil servants and high-ranking military officers, together with cronies, relatives and clansmen. Such mechanisms were all too obvious during Mubarak's regime, and by following these rules a dictator may stay in power for a very long time. Although history tells us that revolutions are rare, they must also be initiated by dissatisfied citizens and not by the military, which resorts to using its might in coups. A revolution is always inspired by a desire for political and social justice, whereas an army coup tries to take over the government by force, and, in most cases, succeeds in turning a country into a dictatorship. If the military then feels that the dictator will not be able to deliver the expected benefits, or that the revolution will take away what has been given to it by a corrupt ruler or dictator, then the army will pre-empt the revolution and take over the government in a coup. The Armed Forces have undoubtedly been the protectors of the country from foreign aggression, and Egyptians appreciated the heroic performance of the country's armed forces in the 6 October War, which restored the country's honour. Yet, it is for the benefit of civil liberties that an elected and independent civilian government should be allowed to rule the country under a proper constitution. There is nothing degrading for the military in its receiving orders from a civilian minister of defence, who, in turn, gets his orders from an elected president who is the supreme commander of the Armed Forces. In real democracies, where the president and the parliament are elected, an army coup is unimaginable because the real function of the army is to bear arms to protect the country against foreign invaders and not to step in to rule it. Any change of government is made through a constitutional process, such as elections. This was clearly illustrated in the classic American movie Seven Days in May, starring Fredric March, who played the president of the United States, Burt Lancaster, who played the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, and Kirk Douglas, who played an army colonel and assistant to Lancaster. Douglas learned that his boss, Lancaster, was planning a coup against March, the president, in order to prevent him from signing a treaty with the former Soviet Union. Outraged by what he had learned, he decides that it is his duty as a citizen to inform the president, against whom, as it happened, he had voted in the presidential elections. March takes quick action to prevent the coup and asks Lancaster and others to resign. He is curious about why Douglas volunteered to warn him of the coup, the answer being that it is not the role of the military to remove an elected president. This role belongs to the voters. Revolutions are the means by which a civilian population can express its grievances and demand justice. If this is not granted to them, it is their right to grab it. A mistake of this sort was made by the United States during the Vietnam War, when it found itself fighting a people ready to die for their freedom. I am sure that every true revolutionary in every country is ready to die for his or her freedom. That being so, it is not difficult to anticipate what Egyptian demonstrators will do next. * The writer is an international lawyer.
