Analysis: Mubarak's Strategy

With all that is going on in Egypt the "president" has given 2 speeches in total addressed to his nation (but watched by the world). So let's review exactly what his speeches mean and his strategy in dealing with the protests.

To help you understand everything that is going on, here is The Wikipedia time line:

Now that we know what has been going on (events are rapidly changing all the time!) let's analyze Mubarak and his strategy. Before all this began, the world's eyes were on Tunisia and many Arab leaders were worried about their nations. Some analysts expected that Egypt would be next, and they were correct.

Mubarak's early strategy was using his police force (not army) to get protesters out of the streets. These included the use of tear gas, water canons (reminiscent of the protests during the U.S. black civil rights movement) and more. Despite these efforts, the protests grew and the violence by police increased international attention and support.

The protests grew in the millions across several major cities and still Mubarak refused to step down. Several European countries and Turkey called for Mubarak to resign, while most others (including the U.S. ) just condemned the violence and defended the protesters right's to assemble. Several U.S. Senators have called for him to step down as of today.

As more pressure grew, Mubarak made his first speech to the nation, outlining his strategy. I couldn't find a full transcript of his first speech, and I'm not big on taking excerpts, but Reuters is a pretty reliable and unbaised sources to get it from here.

Mubarak Speech 1:

He starts off by saying how he's been following all the protests and listening to their demands. In his speech he actually said something very important:

"There is a fine line between freedom and chaos and I lean toward freedom for the people in expressing their opinions as much as I hold on to the need to maintain Egypt's safety and stability ..."

He makes a good point, however, people usually only resort to violence when they have no other alternative. The majority of the protests are peaceful, however, no one would have been violent had Mubarak himself created so many restrictions on political rights while ignoring the economic needs of his people.

He continues:

"The path of reform which we have chosen is irreversible and cannot go backward. We will proceed with new steps that affirm our respect for the independence of the judiciary ... new steps toward more democracy and freedoms ... new steps to face unemployment and increase the standard of living and services ... new steps to stand by the poor and those with limited income. Our choices and our goals are what will determine our fate and our future ..."

Notice how he uses the word "we" when talking about reforms. It is true that Mubarak has opened reforms since taking control 30 years ago. He has created a stronger free market and has secularized the countries government, however, the reform being asked today is something he doesn't seem to want to do: Hand in his resignation.

Finally, he drives home his strongest action:

"I have asked the government to present its resignation today (Friday) and I will name a new government starting from tomorrow ... to effectively deal with the priorities of this current phase ..."

This move was because of a combination of international pressure (well intended and not) as well as from the protests themselves. By doing this, Mubarak creates the image of reform by putting new faces in the government with the possibility of reform, but still remains in power. It's a deceptive move and one supported by Egypt's allies because he remains on top and in power. By appointing his own government he allows for newer faces that will do his deeds while TRYING to create some legitimacy to the government while hoping to decrease the size of the protests.

Soon, as the protests get larger and louder, chants of Mubarak's resignation increase. He comes up to the nationa after resigning the government and appointing a new one with a newer speech.

Mubarak Speech 2: 


I did find a full transcript of the speech, so here it is.  He begins by highlighting his action of instituting a new goverment, as I said he would in my analysis of his first speech:

I have begun putting a new government with new priorities that respond to the youth’s requests.  And I put a vice president who will help lead the improvements democratically and constitutionally for the sake of making these changes and restoring order.

The problem of course, is that the appointing of his cronies doesn't solve the problem at all. Like I said, new faces, same policies. He follows this up with the announcements that made the headlines:

I say this with all truth and independent of the current events – I will not run in new election. I have done enough at the service of Egypt and its people but want to close my service to the country in a good, safe way that keeps the constitution and ensures security.

Many analysts believe that Mubarak was on the verge of relinquishing his position in the government, before these protests even began; these protests have just sped up the process. The problem is that, he would have ended his rule, only to give control to his older son whom he had been vetting for many years now. With these protests, that is no longer an option.  He follows this by making a very passionate statement:

So Hosni Mubarak who speaks to you today, cares a lot for the people he has served for year. This great country is my country , the same way it is every Egyptian’s country — I lived here, and waged war for it and fought for the people and I will die on its land and history will be the judge me.

This shows that even when ousted, he wants to remain in Egypt and won't follow the route that most dictators take: living in another country.  This critical second speech is what I want to spend some time on.

Yes the protesters want him out now, but is it for the best? Could he have some other strategy behind staying in power for months? Let's find out.

Mubarak's announcement to stay in power has made many very anxious, hence the Day of Farewell march that has been going on all day. They are glad he is going to go out of power, they just want it sooner. Mubarak says he will stay for the remainder of his term until September, when the elections will be held. Protesters fear that, over the coming months, as media attentions slowly fades away from Egypt (as the media has a short attention cycle) Mubarak will use his remaining months in power to do several things: Crackdown on protests, further limit media reporting, "take out" either militarily or politically his main political rivals. By doing so, by the time that elections are held in September, Mubarak will be able to leave confident that he has a government that remains loyal to his values without giving in too much to the protesters. Furthermore, this would keep the basic order of things without much reform; just the image of change.  These are all very serious and legitimate concerns, especially in a country who has known 3 presidents over the past 60 plus years, however, let us consider the other side of the coin.

If Mubarak were to listen to the protests and left tomorrow, what would happen? There would obviously be a power vacuum to fill. No, before you even think it, the "Islamists" or "Anti westerners" will not fill that vacuum since they don't have high standings with the protesters, but it is important to point out, that when governments and countries transition from a dictatorship to democracy, the transition is the most important part. If done too quickly, there are extremely high chances of the vacuum being filled up by another dictator. If they wanted to, a military general could have easily taken over things by now, pushing back the protesters and Mubarak out of government at the same time. Thank fully that isn't the case and the military is reluctant to support Mubarak and has been very friendly with the protesters, but it shouldn't be dismissed from the calculation in what will happen.

There was a forum discussion at Harvard's JFK School of Government with several experts in the area. One of the experts, Rami Khouri, Director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, makes an extremely important point: these things take time. We can't compare the government that will be formed now with the governments of today. It took the U.S. government 300 years to move from slavery to equal rights to all races

If rushed things may turn out way worse than they were, however, this could also be a plan by Mubarak to consolidate power even after he is gone.

My favorite correspondent in history, Christiane Amanpour (now working for ABC) got an exclusive interview with Hosni Mubarak.

If you were to follow any of the links that I put up on this blog consider these ones: NYTimes Article that details the "Bumbling Muslim Brotherhood" about [why and] how they haven't gotten to power (to allay your fears of a Muslim Brotherhood take over)

The other is a an article by Robert Fisk, one of the greatest writers about the Middle east and someone who I highly recommend you read. Also this article titled "We are All Egyptians" by Nicholas Kristof, one of Times' best reporters.

Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!