The Egyptian Revolution of 2011: Should the Democratic Inadequacies and Problems in the Region be Faced with Despair?
The Arab Spring refers to a revolutionary movement in North Africa and the Middle East that originated in Tunisia in 2010. The main intention behind the revolutionary movements was to overthrow the corrupt and tyrannical governments that have been punishing people and violating their human rights.[1] While the causes of these revolutions were clear, there is still widespread denunciation amongst critics and the media which constantly disapprove and undermine the validity and effectiveness of these movements.[2] This can be seen through the case of Egypt, as massive developments and democratic movements pushed for changes in government and society. This revolt was met with widespread pessimism as the foundations for the pursuit of democracy were controversially flawed, and that the transition towards change in this manner was historically unjustifiable.[3] As many of the autocratic political regimes were attacked with speculation and anger, it became evident that changes to the socio-political dynamics of the region would become imminent. This paper will argue that the revolutions as a product of the Arab Spring were absolutely necessary and important, and in the case of Egypt, produced imminent and effective changes that should not be faced with discouragement as previous states like France underwent identical transitions.
The Arab Spring movement officially began in Tunisia in 2010, where the successful ousting of President Ben Ali after 23 years in power inspired socio-political change. There were many problems affecting the Tunisian people under the rule of President Ben Ali, as human rights violations, corruption, and high unemployment rates inspired civil resistance and protests.[4]
With the successful resignation of President Ben Ali and the establishment of democratic institutions that allowed for citizens to vote in free elections, many citizens of states in the region felt it was necessary to pursue change.[5] As many citizens of states in the region felt inspired to pursue democratization, the case of Egypt remains an important and relevant example of how history and pre-existing authoritarian regimes make it hard for a state to transition to implementing democratic institutions and practices. Aside from the significantly difficult transition away from the previous autocratic government, these newfound democratic changes are being faced with immense criticism.[6] It is completely unjustifiable to attack these reforms with negative historical comparisons, as states like France underwent similar transitions in search of liberty and freedom. In comparing the transition of Egypt from the corrupt regime of President Mubarak towards democratization, the case of France and democratic backsliding during the French Revolution in 1789 remain pivotal to exemplifying why it is wrong to pre-emptively judge the Egyptian case. It becomes evident that democratic weakness comes as a result of pre-existing authoritarian regimes, and in the case of Egypt, it becomes apparent that states should not be unfairly criticized on their transitions towards achieving democracy, especially when states like France went through a similar path.
In order to fully understand the causes and importance of the Arab Spring revolutions, it is important to comprehend the events leading up to the movement. The Arab Spring was named after the Revolutions of 1848, which were political movements and waves of disruption that affected European states.[7] These revolutions were significant because they were attempts to remove the existing political structures that limited the fundamental liberties of people. The Revolutions of 1848 pushed for changes to the existing social systems, promoting movements like liberalism, nationalism, and the implementation of democracy within a state.[8] It is clear why the Arab Spring is related to the Revolutions of 1848, as both movements inspired a push towards democratization, liberalism, and the termination of existing corrupt governments and institutions.
Furthermore, youth movements, social media, and national issues like corruption and economic decline further instigated growing resentment amongst people.[9] The youth of the region became dissatisfied with the increasing gaps that separated the rich and the poor, and social media helped promote these views and inequalities. Alongside these protests, it became apparent that high unemployment rates and economic recessions were crippling the region.[10] Once news spread about the Tunisian protests and the successful ousting of corrupt President Ben Ali, many people in states like Egypt recognized that they could follow a similar path towards democratization and liberty. Even though the Tunisian protest movements may seem like the central stimulus that advanced the Arab Spring revolts, it is clear that many of the problems that inspired democratization and change were rooted deep within the states of the region.[11] This is precisely the case of Egypt, as many of the problems that plagued Egyptian society were rooted deep within the history and structure of the state. This is also comparable to the French case, as many of the problems that led towards inciting the French Revolution appeared in the Ancien Régime and emerged throughout French history. These factors primarily explain why it is so difficult for a state to fully manifest democracy, as many of the pre-existing authoritarian regimes and ineffective governments limit the spread of information, oppress the people, and create massive class divides within society. In order to completely understand how the people of Egypt were able to push for democratization, it is important to understand previous cases like that of France and how similar each transition away from the existing problematic regime actually was.
The Egyptian Revolution took place in 2011, where millions of protestors inspired by the recent Tunisian revolts condemned their disapproval for President Hosni Mubarak. The protests consisted of civil disobedience, civil resistance strikes, and marches in hopes of ousting President Mubarak out of power.[12] The Egyptian people felt that thirty years of autocratic rule under President Mubarak was enough, and they felt mistreated by how corrupt his government was. According to Dr. Ann Lesch of The American University in Cairo, “Mubarak’s government exerted tight control over political and social life”.[13] This meant that all aspects of public life were controlled, and censorship of the media enabled President Mubarak to empower his government, and continually remain in power.[14] These instances of President Mubarak’s rule are important because they indicate how powerless people were under his rule, as he had complete control over all of the operations within the state. Many of the problems that led to the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 were deeply rooted within the Egyptian state, it just took a tyrant like Mubarak to abuse the Constitution, and assume ultimate authority.
The French Revolution took place in 1789, and much of the similar monopolizations of power seen in the Egyptian case can also be distinguished in French society during the 18th Century. One critical similarity between both the Egyptian and French cases is that there was a profound discrepancy between citizens and those in power. The government in Egypt and the King in France exercised ultimate authority over people in order to primarily benefit themselves and higher classes in society. Many of the problems that led to the French Revolution in 1789 were present in the Ancien Régime, as the Three Estates completely segregated French society. The overarching socio-political system in France disadvantaged the commoners and approximately 97 percent of the population, while the First and Second Estate profited off of them and did not get taxed.[15] Democracy was absolutely necessary in both Egypt and France, as the previous state institutions and governments completely violated and oppressed the general public.
Many of the main causes of the French Revolution can be directly compared to the primary causes of the Egyptian Revolution. This can be seen through the spread of Enlightenment ideas in France, as many people were subject to the influence and teachings of prevalent writers and philosophers of the time. Through the published works of French political philosopher Montesquieu, there were clear teachings to the public on how a strong and good government should operate.[16] More specifically, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws was critical in informing the public, and it initiated intellectual responses and inspired thinking that criticized bad government and aimed at promoting the important values of liberty and the separation of powers.[17] These intellectual movements were critical to the French Revolution because the newspaper in France was heavily censored by the government, and millions of French people never recognized how persecuted they were.[18] These Enlightenment ideas significantly influenced public opinion, and many French citizens began to protest and take action against the Ancien Régime for oppressing them.
The role of Enlightenment ideas in France in 1789 can be directly compared to the effective youth movements and the role of the media in Egypt in 2011. Youth movements and the media informed the general public of how ineffective and problematic the Mubarak government was. Once the Egyptian people came to recognize how severely oppressed they were, many began to protest and take action.[19] There was a massive number of Egyptians who used the internet to organize and promote protests against President Mubarak.[20] The Egyptian protests against the government were also deemed a social media revolution, as millions of Egyptians turned to the internet and websites like Facebook to get informed, take action in mobilizing protests, and ensure fellow citizens could understand what was going on.[21] This can be directly compared to the writings of political philosopher Montesquieu, as the main goal of this social revolt was to inform the general population and inspire intellectual movements to oust Mubarak from power. Similar to the French newspaper in 1789, the Egyptian government heavily censored all aspects of the media in order to downplay the socio-democratic problems within the state. Once the corruption, economic decline, electoral fraud, and high unemployment rates were exposed, many Egyptians understood that it was absolutely necessary to remove President Mubarak from power.
Another significant problem that led to the French Revolution was the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI. King Louis XVI put France in debt, as he funded troops to participate in the American Revolutionary War. France had to borrow a lot of money in order to fund those troops, and after the war had concluded, it became evident that King Louis XVI had significantly damaged the French economy.[22] King Louis XVI was also very indecisive, and he ended up making a lot of poor political decisions. He did not listen to his financial ministers and abstained from taxing the nobility, he spent a lot of French money and did not solve any of the social inequalities that were prevalent in French society, and many people began to view him as an incapable ruler when commoners began starving.[23] Widespread hunger in France alongside the fact that the nobility were living lavishly while being excluded from taxation, led to the French people questioning his leadership with violent revolts.
The ineffectiveness of President Mubarak can also be seen in the Egyptian case, as many Egyptians were impoverished and people began to die from starvation.[24] Statistics indicated that approximately 40 percent of Egyptians were living below the poverty line, while corruption continued to play an important role in Egyptian politics.[25] The Egyptian government exerted tight control over society, and President Mubarak was able to closely manage a widespread corrupt monopoly over local government officials.[26] Alongside this, it became evident that President Mubarak could maintain supreme and complete authority over Egypt at any time with the implementation of The State of Emergency. The ineffective Egyptian Constitution allowed him to devalue the importance of human rights by restraining the movement and association of individuals.[27] As electoral fraud, rising food prices, and high unemployment rates continued to plague the Egyptian state, it became evident that President Mubarak was an ineffective President. In both the French and Egyptian case, it is clear that an ineffective ruler pressured citizens to revolt.
Another important similarity is both states utilized similar methods of achieving their end goal. Both French and Egyptian citizens utilized protests, civil disobedience and resistance, and public demonstrations to pursue socio-political change. In France, many people stormed the Bastille in 1789 to show that they were tired of constantly being oppressed by the monarchy.[28]https://academiaresearchers.com/ This was a crucial instance in the Revolution as it signified people had finally had enough of being mistreated, and it propelled more citizens to join the movement. The case of Egypt has a similar example, recognized as the self-immolation of Adbou Abdel-Monaam. Monaam set himself on fire in protest of President Mubarak’s business laws that disallowed him from buying subsidized goods.[29] He wanted to protest the rising prices of food in Egypt, and felt President Mubarak was ruining people’s lives. Both of these instances are examples of demonstrating civil disobedience against the regime in change, and it marked an important point in each Revolution where people had been inspired by movements towards pursuing a better life.
In both the Egyptian and French push towards democratization and change, there are many similarities that become evident when closely studying both states. There was a widely apparent cause for social reform, as citizens in each respective were terribly oppressed. There was unfair taxation, violation of human rights, and the citizens in each state suffered from the lack of food. Additionally, corruption and ineffective democratic structures and institutions allowed for those in power to abuse the citizens of the state. King Louis XVI was able to bypass taxing the nobility and people in the Third Estate were continually mistreated.[30] President Mubarak was able to utilize the substandard Egyptian Constitution to remain in power, he was able to violate the human rights of Egyptians, and he was corrupt in heavily censoring the media and appointing whoever he wanted to Egyptian state offices.[31]
In both the Egyptian and French case it became evident that incapable rulers had completely damaged each respective society. King Louis XVI had spent a tremendous amount of money on troops and put France in debt, and he continually made poor financial decisions that progressed to the extent that French citizens were starving.[32] President Mubarak had significantly damaged the Egyptian economy, as millions of people lived below the poverty line.
Unemployment rates increased, food costs rose, and Mubarak’s government was undeniably corrupt to the extent that basic media was completely censored.[33] Lastly, it became apparent th
