After 18 days of protests, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down on Friday after he lost the support of the army and his principal international ally, the US.
Mubarak handed over power to a supreme army council which now has the delicate task of guiding the country along a path of constitutional and political reform, and free and fair elections.
Mubarak’s speech to the nation on Thursday evening – in which he refused to step down – baffled many observers and led to an angry reaction among the protesters in Egypt and also the international community.
During his speech Mubarak showed no signs of resigning before September and simply said he was transferring some of his powers to vice-president Omar Suleiman – although he did not specify what powers he would be handing over.
Mubarak’s praise of the protesters “dreaming of a bright future and shaping such a future” as well as acknowledging their “legitimate demands” did nothing to calm the situation. Indeed, it only made matters worse and intensified calls for him to resign.
Considering the signals that were being sent out and the various statements that were made before Mubarak’s speech it would seem there was either a change of heart within the President’s inner circle, or that the army – which calls the shots in Egypt – was divided over Mubarak’s future, or indeed that, in reality, the President was undecided until the very last minute.
Indeed, on Thursday all the signs pointed to Mubarak finally exiting the scene. Soldiers had told crowds in central Cairo to expect important news and that all their demands would be met. Earlier, a statement by the Higher Council of the Armed Forces said it would remain “in continuous session” to discuss how to safeguard “the aspirations of the great Egyptian people”.
Furthermore, Hossam Badrawi, the new secretary general of Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party had told the BBC he would be surprised if Mubarak did not step down. And significantly, CIA director Leon Panetta was quoted as telling a US congressional committee that he believed there was a “strong likelihood” the Egyptian President would resign and that the arm’s role would be decisive.
The Americans, who certainly have the most influence over events in Egypt, were certainly taken by surprise by Mubarak’s initial refusal to quit, and were clearly running out of patience with him.
Washington was so sure Mubarak would go on Thursday that President Barack Obama told students at Michigan University just before the Egyptian President’s speech:
“We are witnessing history unfold. It’s a moment of transformation that’s taking place because the people of Egypt are calling for change. We want all Egyptians to know America will continue to do everything we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy in Egypt.”
Clearly frustrated, Obama said after Mubarak’s speech that although the Egyptian people had been told there was a transition of authority “it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient”, adding that Mubarak’s statement was “not enough” to meet protesters’ demands.
I have no doubt Obama’s reaction to Mubarak’s speech helped facilitate the Egyptian President’s exit.
Even though the US had initially sent out mixed signals as events in Egypt unfolded – Hilary Clinton last week questioned whether Mubarak should step down immediately – it soon became perfectly clear that the US had taken the side of the protesters and wanted Mubarak to go.
The US was right to adopt this stand as it is perfectly clear that this is genuine revolution with a clear Egyptian agenda – one cannot say the protestors are controlled by foreign interests. Of course the US wants stability in Egypt, but Obama is correct in believing that real change is the best way to guarantee such stability.
One can criticise the US (and, of course, the EU) for not having done enough in the past 30 years to encourage political and economic reform in Egypt. After all, the US provides Egypt with $2 billion a year in aid – $1.3 billion of which is in military aid – so it certainly has clout in the country.
However, the fact that Obama has made it clear that the US is on the side of the those who are demanding change in Egypt – another US administration might have blindly supported the Egyptian President in the name of stability – is to be commended.
I am sure Washington played a role in convincing the Egyptian military, with which it has very close links, to act in the country’s best interest and force Mubarak to step aside. The crucial thing now is for the new Egyptian administration to enter into negotiations with all political parties to pave the way for free elections and the opening up of the political system.
The Egyptian army on Friday endorsed the transfer of some of Mubarak’s powers to Suleiman (what exactly these powers are still unknown), and said it would guarantee a free and fair presidential election, constitutional changes and “protection of the nation”. The military high council also promised to lift the country’s 30-year state of emergency when the “current situation has ended”.
This is all encouraging and perhaps Mohammed El Baradei, a leading light in Egypt’s opposition movement, best summed up the situation when he stated after Mubarak’s speech: “Egypt will explode. The army must save the country now.”
It looks like the army has saved Egypt, and it must now balance the need for stability with the opening up of the country’s political system.
This is a very anxious time for Egypt and the whole world is watching to see if a real transition to democracy can take place in an orderly manner. Egypt has the potential to change the face of the entire Arab world.
We are witnessing history before our eyes. Now the US and the EU must do everything possible to help Egypt along a path leading to a true secular democracy. There will be many challenges but I believe this goal is achievable.