Egypt elections: How to reverse the military power grab

Just after the Egypt elections for president ended, the military announced sweeping powers for itself. This hubris of superiority runs against the historic tide of democracy – which includes civilian control of the military.

Sami Wahib/AP Photo
Members of the ruling military council, Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Assar (l.) listens as Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Shahin speaks during a press conference in Cairo on Monday.

Many a country has learned a tough lesson after its military took power on the belief that only trained officers have the discipline, patriotism, and efficiency to run government well. To generals, a civilian-run democracy often looks messy and shortsighted.

For decades, Egypt was a model for this hubris of military superiority. A string of officers – Naguib, Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak – ran Egypt, that is, until last year’s popular uprising in Cairo’s Tahrir Square created the hope of an end to military dominance.

On Sunday, however, just 20 minutes after a historic vote for president, Egypt’s transition to democracy was dealt a blow. The ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) issued a constitutional decree giving the armed forces immense powers.

The presidency will be downgraded. The generals and the military budget will be protected from civilian scrutiny. And the Army will dictate the writing of a new constitution.

The world has seen this movie before – from South Korea to Chile, from Spain to parts of Africa – and rejected it. Generals just aren’t cut out to run an economy, let alone make the political compromises necessary for progress in civilian society. Eventually they must go.

Yet the myth persists within many militaries that they know how to run things better than civilians. Their bases are efficient, subordinates follow orders, and the task of defending a nation allows them to think they know the highest good. Most of all, they get the impression that power lies in guns rather than the will of the people.

The late Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington coined a phrase for this problem: “a bit of Sparta in the midst of Babylon.”

To reverse this power grab by Egypt’s military will require understanding its motives. Much of the Army owns businesses. Many officers fear being prosecuted for violence against civilians. Others enjoy the perks and prestige of being top brass. Democracy looks like trouble to them.

But the common thread in many military-run countries is simply arrogance, a trait bred by military training and a disrespect for civilian rule.

It hasn’t helped that the United States often uses its military to run other countries, such as happened after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Such a practice would not be allowed within the US except in an extreme emergency.

The US has also had to learn that its training of foreign military officers at big American bases needs to include strong lessons in democracy and civilian control. In the past, many of these officers would return home, believing the American military ran the US, and later take part in coups.

The US has long defined its relationship with Egypt through the military. That’s why Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been reminding Egypt’s field marshal, Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, about the need to ensure a full and peaceful transition to democracy.

A military’s culture of professional service should extend only to a defense against violence. In acting as a coercive arm of the state, the military must by nature be controlled by civilians.

Egypt’s democracy may be delayed until the military accepts this necessity. It’s a hard lesson to learn, but dozens of democracies now exist having learned it.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.