The removal of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi by the military is a risky twist in the country’s drive towards a proper functioning democracy. The move followed mass protests against Morsi’s unpopular Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government which did little to improve the plight of ordinary Egyptians and which was seen as pushing an Islamist agenda onto the country.

Morsi’s decision to appoint an Islamist-dominated panel to write up a new Constitution was a very polarising step

Although when elected President last year Morsi had promised to govern in the interest of all Egyptians, he proved to be a divisive figure who excluded secular, liberal and centre-left opposition figures – all of whom participated in the revolution that overthrew Hosni Mubarak in 2011 – from the decision-making process.

Furthermore, Morsi proved to be highly incompetent when it came to managing Egypt’s economy, which remains in a poor state. Last November’s presidential decree granting him extensive powers (which put him above the judiciary) was very controversial and Morsi’s decision to appoint an Islamist-dominated panel to write up a new Constitution was a very polarising step. A lack of law and order over the past year was also a major concern for ordinary citizens.

What Egypt desperately needed over this last year was an inclusive government led by a statesman who believed in consensus. Unfortunately President Morsi did not provide such leadership and a three hour address he gave to the nation on Wednesday gave the impression that he wanted power at all costs and was not interested at reaching a compromise with the opposition.

In response to the protests and fearing that a country was heading towards paralysis the army placed Morsi under house arrest, suspended the constitution, pledged early new elections, appointed the head of the constitutional court, Adly Mahmud Mansour, as interim President, and promised a caretaker technocrat government as well as talks on a new constitutional set-up.

In a live televised address army chief of staff Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said the removal of Morsi was done to resolve the political crisis in Egypt after the President refused the military’s ultimatum to reach an agreement with Egypt’s opposition. He accused Morsi of having failed “to meet the demands of the people”. Significantly, al-Sisi spoke while flanked by the country’s top Muslim and Christian clerics as well as opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei.

So, two and a half years after the army forced Hosni Mubarak to resign , following massive protests throughout the country, it has now done the same to Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s first freely elected President who took office a year ago and whose Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party won the parliamentary elections in January 2012 with almost 50 per cent of the popular vote.

The Muslim Brotherhood did well in the elections that followed the overthrow of Mubarak because it was well organised, well established (it was set up in 1928), had a reputation for honesty and took advantage of the divisions and lack of organisation within the liberal and secular parties.

Its one year record in government, however, has been appalling, and although Morsi still has the backing of his core electorate, the Muslim Brotherhood has now lost considerable popular support throughout the country. The millions of Egyptians who celebrated Morsi’s downfall is evidence of this.

Is the military overthrow of Morsi justified? Military rule is never the ideal solution in any crisis and this latest coup (it can only be described as a coup) could send a (dangerous) signal to Islamist-minded political parties in the Arab and Muslim world that they will never be allowed to assume power through democratic means. It would be terrible if the Muslim Brotherhood is forced, or chooses, to go underground; it would be absolutely disastrous if it turns to violence to achieve its goals.

The Muslim Brotherhood denounced violence many years ago, even though it was officially banned under presidents Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak (the movement survived and kept a public profile by adopting different names for the organisation), and Morsi has called on his supporters to defy the new government through peaceful means. However, there are jihadist groups in Egypt who have carried out acts of violence and a nightmare scenario would be if radical elements within the Brotherhood join up with such groups and resort to terrorism.

The worst possible outcome would be an Algerian-style civil war; this was an armed conflict between the Algerian government and various Islamist rebel groups which lasted from 1991 to 2000 and which killed an estimated 44,000 to 200,000 people. The conflict was the result of the military taking control of the country and cancelling the parliamentary elections after the first round of voting in 1991 showed that Islamic parties would win the poll.

I do not think Egypt will descend into civil war but the interim government and the military will have to tread very carefully over the next few months. The news that a number of Muslim Brotherhood leading figures have been arrested and could be prosecuted on a number of charges including “insulting the judiciary” is very worrying.

The Muslim Brotherhood cannot be excluded from Egypt’s political process and certainly should not be persecuted. It has to be recognised as a major political force representing millions of people and must be involved in the negotiations that will take place for a new constitutional framework. So far the Muslim Brotherhood has said it will have nothing to do with the new interim government and will not take part in any discussions with it. Hopefully it will change its mind; arresting its leaders, however, is not the way to convince them to sit around the negotiating table.

The United States, on the other hand, which provides $1.3 billion a year to the Egyptian military, has expressed its concern over Morsi’s removal and called for a swift return to a democratically elected civilian government.

“During this uncertain period, we expect the military to ensure that the rights of all Egyptian men and women are protected, including the right to peaceful assembly, due process, and free and fair trials in civilian courts,” US President Barack Obama said.

Obama did not call the military overthrow of Morsi a ‘coup’ because US law bans “any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d’etat or decree”. That would mean a freeze in America’s annual $1.3 billion aid to Egypt, which would weaken the Egyptian military, one of the country’s most stable institutions with long-standing ties to the US.

Washington must make it clear, however, that this aid will now depend on a genuine transition to democracy in Egypt. Both the US and the EU should insist on a roadmap and a clear timetable for a return to democracy. Much is at stake in Egypt and the country is too important to be allowed to descend into chaos and violence. It is bad enough that Syria is almost a failed state; a similar path for Egypt is just unthinkable.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.