"All Democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one person or small group have too much power for too long a time." This quote by English novelist Aldous Huxley effectively summarizes the recent state of events in Egypt.
Egypt has long been classified as one of the most stable and enlightened regimes in the Middle East, characterized by strong ties to western nations. However, over the past few months the stability and sustainability of this constant force crumbled under cries for democracy.
When analyzing the contexts prior to, during, and directly following the protests in Egypt, it is necessary to study both the cause and effect. What made this revolution different? Why was it successful? The answers to these two fundamental questions are necessary to fully understand the far reaching implications of the Egyptian revolution.
Hosni Mubarak had a long and oppressive reign as president of Egypt. In the period leading up to the revolt, a general disaffection with the Mubarak regime was brewing. The Egyptian populace was growing increasingly disenchanted with the tyrannical organization, and that disenchantment was finally enunciated through the mass protests.
For 18 days the Egyptian people used peaceful protests and social networking to call for democratic reform. Over the 18 days, violence was never a core factor or driving force. The people fought for change not with weapons, but just with a unity of voice.
The Egyptian people were successful in their endeavors for two main reasons: unity of voice and military support. One of the most effective elements of the recent revolution was the manner in which the people united under the same cause. Calling for democratic reforms and political restructuring, the Egyptian populace presented a clear and direct message to the regime in control, a message that was received all across the globe. This united front provided legitimacy and strength to the protests.
Similarly, the military was largely influential in the outcomes of the revolution. For a revolution to succeed, the military must either directly or indirectly support the cause. While the Egyptian forces toed the line throughout the entire process, there was never a point where the military used blunt force to restrain the protests.
Without an enforcement of existing rule of law and current regime policies, the protests persisted until the Mubarak regime finally crumbled under pressure. Following the resignation of Mubarak, the military temporarily took control of the country and promised to pursue a more democratic governance. This promise provided a clear account of the military’s indirect support for the revolt.
In 1922, when the Egyptian people pursued independence from British control, they did so through peaceful demonstrations. In 2011, when the Egyptian people pursued independence from the repressive Mubarak regime, they used similar methods. Later generations will look back through the pages of history and see Egypt as a catalyst for peaceful reform driven by an internal desire for democracy.
Join the Conversation