[Voila le paper, I need help from you, who have no clue what hell I am talking about, telling me if this paper makes sense to you or not. I do not mean to offend, just that I look for content and if it makes any sense since I know what I'm talking about but I doubt people will get it. It's seven pages and it needs citation [I need to find the damn sources again, I knew some of them I took it off of Wiki but I'm like GAH! Why did I forget to CITE!]]
Egypt has always been an interesting country, from the ancient world to the modern times; the country went through phases of strength and falling. However, the end of the ottoman and British ruling in 1952 by a young man by the name of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt has been under the ruling o the military power, for 60 years, the military had a strong hold on Egypt’s political seat and it was most evident when the military ousted the democratically elected Mohamed Morsy,.
With the above knowledge, and throughout this study, I will delve into the the historical background of the military role in Egypt, seeing how it all started, who were the influential leaders that used the military, and who were the weak leaders I would then concentrate on presenting three different speculations of what might happen to Egypt’s future by looking at Turkey under the military ruling till Erdogan took over, Romania under Ceaușescu , and how the old regime took over again and finally the 10 year civil war of Algeria and how that turned out.
By presenting all three countries and looking in the similarities and differences between them and Egypt, I would like to analyze what is the most likely outcomes, and from there I would start to research how Egypt can implement that scenario and what the future looks like in the country.
In the end, what will happen to Egypt depends on how the scenarios play out, and so far it is looking more and more like Turkey, will Egypt become another Turkey? This study will try and answer the many questions that come from all the scenarios and the important question of what is the military role and how does this affect the future of Egypt.
Synopsis of the situation:
Throughout the modern times, and especially the last sixty years, Egypt has been under military rule. From Gamal Abdel Nasser to Mubarak Egypt has always been ruled by someone with military background, and thus the military has been an integral part of the society. When Mohamed Mursi won the elections in 2012, he began to struggle against not only the old regime, which was military based but from the military as well.
An example of a military man who influences the military is Nasser. Nasser, with the aid of the military, was able to form the National Charter, pass land reforms that save farmers from enslavement and built the high dam of Aswan that would save Egypt in the future from droughts and floods.
Nasser was an influential military leader who was one of the founders of the non-alignment group. His influence on both the people and the army made him well respect and influential to both Arabic and few non Arabic countries. This leadership skill also helped with the national identity revival from the British and Turkish ruling.
Moving forward in military history, Sadat was a very good strategist who was also influential on the military. To Sadat, there was the credit of the 1973 victory war and the Peace Treaty with Israel. However, he failed to influence the masses and thus through my reading he was often compared to Nasser, but that is not the important question.
From listening to Mursi’s June 26th speech, and Mahmud El Sisi, the current minister of defense’s statement before that, one would speculate that the Egyptian population has not moved away from the military society. A more important question thus becomes not a comparison of leaderships, but whether the military remains a strong political institution and is thus the ‘true’ ruler of the country.
That question was answered when on July 3rd, 2013, Egypt’s democratically elected Mohamed Mursi was ousted from the presidency by riots in Egypt .The following few days, the problems that had aroused from the time Mursi took over began to disappear. There were no longer electricity shortage, no longer problems in the gas stations, and according to the local news, everything seemed to be good, as though no problems ever existed in the first place.
By then, the study was starting to look like a clear cut case of Turkey, where the military remained a true ruler until Egypt got a Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That was not the case, with violence increasing between the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafist and the military, the study began to look at Algeria. In conclusion to what the study will talk about, the study will start with a brief history of the military role and military leaders in Egypt, then move to Turkey and a brief history of what they have done in the past, same thing with Algeria. This will help the study by seeing where Egypt will be heading in the future and thus shed some light on the road to democracy.
The Case of Turkey:
Reccap Tayib Erdogan, won the elections in 2007, at a time where the Turkish has been under one of the worst economic situations since the demise of the Ottoman empire. In 52 years of military power, none of the elected members were able to remain in the power for a long time. Especially, Islamist. In a country that is known for its secularism, Turkey was ‘freed’ from the Ottoman Empire under Arktan, the military then took over for 52 years after that, removing any prime minister that was not to their liking, as has been evident to the number of islmaist that have been removed from the power by the military.
The islamist then remained in the shadows and in 2007 Reccap Tayib Erdogan was in the elections: when he won the elections, twice in a row, he became a very strong leader. His leadership skills were dubbed as Neo-Ottomanism, but under Erdogan: 45 years after Turkey signed an Association Agreement with the EU, the negotiations for Turkey's accession to the EU started during Erdoğan's tenure. Parallel to this, inflation, which had for decades adversely affected the country's economy, was brought under control and the Turkish Lira was re-valued. Interest rates were reduced and per capita income grew significantly.
His foreign policy vision is claimed to rest on Neo-Ottomanism, the policy according to which Turkey should maintain and increase its presence in the lands formerly ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Under his premiership, the country consolidate its position as a regional power with global ambitions.
The AKP won the elections of 2007 making it the first time in 52 years that a party in power had increased its votes for a second term. In the 2011 general election, the AKP was re-elected for a third term and Erdoğan remained Prime Minister.
May and June 2013 saw protests against what large sections of the Turkish public perceive as a growing authoritarianism of Erdogan and his government and his policies, starting from a small sit-in in Istanbul in defense of a city park. After the police's intense reaction with tear gas, the protests spread all over Turkey.
The Case of Romania:
Nicolae Ceaușescu was a Romanian Communist politician. He was General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party from 1965 to 1989, and as such was the country's last Socialist leader. He was also the country's head of state from 1967 to 1989.
A member of the Romanian Communist youth movement, Ceaușescu rose up through the ranks of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej's Socialist government and, upon the death of Gheorghiu-Dej in March 1965, he succeeded to the leadership of Romania’s Communist Party as General Secretary. He soon won popular support for his independent, nationalistic political course, which openly challenged the dominance of the Soviet Union over Romania. As a result, Ceaușescu's rule was supported by the United States and Western Europe. Ceaușescu was elected to the newly created post of president of Romania in 1974.
However, Ceaușescu's regime became increasingly brutal and repressive. By some accounts, his rule was the most rigidly Stalinist in the Soviet bloc. His secret police, the Securitate, maintained strict controls over free speech and the media, and internal dissent was not tolerated. In 1982, with the goal of paying off Romania's large foreign debt, Ceaușescu ordered the export of much of the country’s agricultural and industrial production. The resulting extreme shortages of food, fuel, energy, medicines, and other basic necessities drastically lowered living standards and intensified unrest. Ceausescu's regime was also marked by an extensive and ubiquitous personality cult, nationalism, a continuing deterioration in foreign relations with the Soviet Union, and nepotism.
Ceaușescu’s regime collapsed after he ordered his security forces to fire on antigovernment demonstrators in the city of Timișoara on 17 December 1989. The demonstrations spread to Bucharest and became known as the Romanian Revolution of 1989, and was the only violent overthrow of a Socialist government to occur during the revolutions of 1989. Ceaușescu and his wife, Elena, fled the capital in a helicopter but were captured by the armed forces. On 25 December the couple were tried and convicted by a special military tribunal on charges of mass murder in a hastily organised two-hour court session. Ceaușescu and his wife were then shot by a firing squad.
But the Ceausescu regime did not forget about that situation and after laying in the shadow for a long time, they took over the leadership under the notion of change, and change they did do, until they became powerful again and what happened under Ceausesu happened again, and Romania from there on till now have under that regime that has iron claws.
The Case of Algeria:
The Algerian Civil War was an armed conflict between the Algerian government and various Islamist rebel groups which began in 1991. Total casualties have yet to be accurately counted but it is estimated to have cost somewhere between 44,000 and 200,000 lives, in a population of about 25,010,000 in 1990 and 31,193,917 in 2000.
More than 70 journalists were assassinated, either by security forces or by Islamists. The conflict effectively ended with a government victory, following the surrender of the Islamic Salvation Army and the 2002 defeat of the Armed Islamic Group. However, low-level fighting still continues in some areas.
The conflict began in December 1991, when the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) party gained popularity amongst the Algerian people and theNational Liberation Front (FLN) party, fearing the former's victory, cancelled elections after the first round. At this time the country's military effectively took control of the government, and president Chadli Bendjedid was forced from office. After the FIS was banned and thousands of its members arrested, Islamist guerrillas rapidly emerged and began an armed campaign against the government and its supporters.
They formed themselves into several armed groups, principally the Islamic Armed Movement (MIA), based in the mountains, and theArmed Islamic Group (GIA), based in the towns. The guerrillas initially targeted the army and police, but some groups soon started attacking civilians. In 1994, as negotiations between the government and the FIS's imprisoned leadership reached their height, the GIA declared war on the FIS and its supporters, while the MIA and various smaller groups regrouped, becoming the FIS-loyalist Islamic Salvation Army (AIS).
Soon after, the talks collapsed, and new elections, the first since the 1992 coup d'état, were held—won by the army's candidate (himself a former active participant, as were a significant number of other military officials, in president Bendjedid's FLN government), GeneralLiamine Zéroual. Conflict between the GIA and AIS intensified. Over the next few years, the GIA began a series of massacres targeting entire neighborhoods or villages; some evidence also suggests the involvement of government forces. These massacres peaked in 1997 around the parliamentary elections, which were won by a newly created pro-Army party, the National Rally for Democracy (RND).
The AIS, under attack from both sides, opted for a unilateral ceasefire with the government in 1997, while the GIA was torn apart by splits as various subdivisions objected to its new massacre policy. In 1999, following the election of a new president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, a new law gave amnesty to most guerrillas, motivating large numbers to "repent" (as it was termed) and return to normal life. The violence declined substantially, with effective victory for the government. The remnants of the GIA proper were hunted down over the next two years, and had practically disappeared by 2002.
A splinter group of the GIA that formed on the fringes of Kabylie in 1998, called the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), rejected the amnesty. It dissociated itself from the previous indiscriminate killing of civilians and reverted to the classic MIA-AIS tactics of targeting combatant forces. In October 2003 they announced their support for Al-Qaeda and in 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiriannounced a "blessed union" between the two groups. In 2007 the group changed its name to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and continues to be active.
[A Lot of this needs to be cited since it's not my own words but I need help in you guys telling me does it make sense of not.]
Home 
Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:56 am
