Last Update 22:37
Saturday, 15 December 2018

The 1952 precedent: Egypt and military rule

Military sources say popular sentiment around Egypt's military has made it hard to disengage from politics; others wonder if army can juggle multiple roles

Dina Ezzat , Monday 7 Oct 2013
Army Chief General Abdel Fattah El-Sisi (C) attends the military funeral service of Police General Nabil Farag, who was killed on Thursday in Kerdasa, at Al-Rashdan Mosque in Cairo's Nasr City district on 20 September, 2013 (Photo: Reuters)
Views: 4637
Views: 4637

Four decades after the military's celebrated victory against Israel, the Egyptian army has once again been asked to play the political role it first assumed in 1952 when it toppled a decaying monarchy to establish the first republic.

As Egyptians celebrated the day in 1973 when Egypt's army crossed the Suez into Israel-occupied Sinai, their revelry carried an additional message: a call for the army chief to assume the presidency through elections or "public authorisation."

"I am joining friends and relatives to call on Sisi to be Egypt's president because today, more than ever, the nation needs a strong military to piece together our broken country and push us forward," said Nadia, a banker from Heliopolis in her late 40s.

"Today, my call is 'Sisi is my president'," Nadia concluded.

Army chief Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi is credited by many Egyptians as having 'fulfilled the public's will' to remove former president Mohamed Morsi, Egypt's only freely-elected civil president.

Assuming the presidency on 30 June 2012, Morsi chose El-Sisi – the former head of military intelligence – as his defense minister only two months later.

 "When president Morsi chose El-Sisi, he thought he was putting an efficient military leader as the army's head. He wanted El-Sisi to modernise the army and to motivate it back into shape after some lazy years at the end of Hosni Mubarak's rule," said a Muslim Brotherhood figure who asked that his name be withheld.

"The choice to appoint El-Sisi was about removing Hussein Tantawi and Sami Anan [Mubarak's top brass], but it was also about giving the army its intended military mandate outside of politics. Unfortunately, things happened the other way around, and the choice of El-Sisi ultimately meant that the army was heavily involved in politics, to the point of removing the democratically-elected civil president through a military coup," the Muslim Brotherhood source added.

El-Sisi – flanked by leading political and religious figures – announced Morsi's removal on national television on 3 July. The announcement was deemed a coup by the Muslim Brotherhood and by other international forces, including the African Union, which subsequently suspended Egypt's membership.

Western capitals considered the move a curious political development. They were unsure whether the massive 30 June anti-Morsi demonstrations justified the military's decision to remove Morsi, rather than to simply hold early presidential elections as was first demanded.

Despite these objections to Morsi's ouster, for many Egyptians – especially those from the heart of the middle class that initiated the January 25 2011 Revolution – El-Sisi is 'Egypt's saviour.'

"He saved us from the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, who did not know the ABC's of running a state, and who only cared about making financial and professional gains. The country was falling apart and the army rescued it, just as it did in 1973 when it ended the 1967 occupation. It was the same spirit of regaining Egypt," said Hussein, a civil engineer from Mohandessin.

The parallel between the 6 October crossing and the 3 July removal of Morsi has been a pervasive message emanating from state-run and private television and newspapers.  The connection was even invoked by Jihan Sadat, the wife of late-president Anwar Sadat, during a televised address during Sunday's festivities.

The connection drawn between 6 October and 3 July is the sequel to an earlier parallel made between El-Sisi and Gamal Abdel-Nasser, one of Egypt's most popular presidents who led the 1952 revolution against the monarchy. Just as 3 July was equated with 6 October, the 30 June call that "Morsi is not my president" has been depicted as analogous to 1952.

In both cases, argues leftist activist Ahmed Said, the people's glorification of the army as 'the saviour' is prominent.

"It is true that the army is, at times, the saviour. But we can't forget that when given too much credit, the army, as embodied by the military rule we have been living under since 1952 – with the exception of one year under Morsi – makes huge mistakes. The 1967 defeat is one example that should not be forgotten," Said added.

According to some retired military generals, the 1967 defeat was the inevitable result of the army's deviation from its original mission: to protect the country and its borders.

"It was not about Gamal Abdel-Nasser's rule, because Nasser went from being a military leader to a truly national leader that the people still adore. Rather, it was that the army was running all aspects of the country and putting itself above criticism. In the end, the army was not doing its real job," said one retired military officer regarding the defeat.

He added that the same failures apply to Sadat and Mubarak, in different ways.  Following the 1973 war, Sadat thought he could act without restrictions under the pretext of the "military victory that he led." According to the retired officer, Mubarak was the same. Mubarak "was in office for 30 years despite his limited capacity to rule only because of the army's support," the officer said.

Mohamed Naguib, the military officer chosen as Egypt's first president after the 1952 revolution, was removed after only two years in power. Some say Naguib's removal was due to his desire to bring the military back to the barracks and allow civilians to rule.  To this, the Free Officers, including Nasser, could not agree. They did not want the military to retire from politics only to have the newly-established republic's fate in the hands of a pro-monarchy politician.

Since that moment, Egypt has been led by military rulers. Nasser chose Sadat as his vice president, and Sadat subsequently chose Mubarak, one of the top generals in the October war, to rule under him.

"When Mubarak declined to appoint a military man as vice president and instead showed interest in handing power to his younger son, the army became apprehensive. They started to work against him. Mubarak tried so hard to appease the army, granting them extra financial benefits, but it did not work. This is why the army sided with the January 25 Revolution: to end the succession dilemma," a former minister under Mubarak who requested anonymity said.

Today, military sources say that it is just as difficult for the military to disengage from politics now as it was right after the 1952 Revolution or on the eve of the 1973 war.

According to one military source, it is not only the military who thinks this way. "Many want El-Sisi to be president," he said. Today, he added, "no one would dare" shout cheers of 'down with the military' in the face of "millions of Egyptians" who sing the army's praises.

Whether or not El-Sisi will run for president remains uncertain. Many suggest that the army chief is toying with the idea, but is also apprehensive of the international outcry that might pitch Morsi's ouster as an attempt by the top general to rule.

"He is still thinking about it, and there is added pressure on him as Egyptians renew their pride for the glorious army sacrifices of the October war. But he has not decided yet, and he is inclined not to run," said the same military source.

Other military sources say that if Sisi does not run, another military figure would not run in his place. Some suggest that Sisi would not support a military candidate so as to maintain the army's image as concerned only with "key interventions."

Many military personnel are determined to support Sisi's – or indeed any military figure's – presidential run, sources suggest. They argue that it is ultimately the army who must fix Egypt's broken pieces, and that the experiment with a civilian presidency was unsuccessful.

According to political scientist Hassan Nafiaa, the military's extended presence in the political scene is due to the work of a small group, rather than the direct outcome of any political or military development.

Sadat's proclamation that the "October war was the last of all wars" allowed for an exaggerated political keenness in some military quarters, Nafiaa admits. However, he insists this political role was not at all inevitable. Nafiaa notes, in particular, that "despite the uncontested military victory in 1973, the army did not fully win the war. Egypt only retrieved Sinai following a peace deal that imposed some very unfair terms on Egypt."

"Military rule has been here since 1952, and the 1973 war only accentuated an existing fact. However, we need to consider today whether this situation has been favourable to the interests of a country that is facing serious socio-economic challenges."

Short link:


Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.

Ahmed M Ibrahim
09-10-2013 10:20am
Egypt's future
The interim President has brought dignity and a sense of statesmanship to the high office he holds. However it is for the Egyptian people to elect the President when the elections are held next year. Gen. Sisi has every right to contest but Egypt should be a democratically ruled state rather than a military dictatorship. Egypt has abundance of qualified persons both in the civil society and the military who can assist the newly elected President in running the state.Nonetheless Egypt should be free from terrorism of the fanatics who want to hold the nation to ransom. If Egypt is to progress they should be buried deep in the desert, never to rise again.
Comment's Title

08-10-2013 01:10pm
Egypt needs 100 years to wake up
Tell one ountry where the military rule and the country is not a huge failure? Look, Egypt now is 50 years backward, is in the throes of civil war, witnesses daily massacres, intellectuals leaving the country, universities collapsing...and the stupid masses and stupid media are chanting Sisi sisi !
Comment's Title

Words of Wisdom
08-10-2013 11:54am
MB must take blame
If sisi runs for president, the only force that can take blame for this happening is the MB. they are delusional and forget politics and religion mixed or not, they do not know how to play politically. If we go back to the first elections the MB were not going to field a candidate for the elections, they did and as a result we were left with Morsi or Shafiq. Also if they keep protesting day after day, not only are other people getting fed up with them but the more they protest, the more Egypt remains unstable. The more Egypt is unstable, the more accepting it is for Sisi to run as president. Yet again the MB blindly take decisions without looking at the long term.
Comment's Title
08-10-2013 06:56pm
Don't invent the strawman...Egypt has always been ruled by the military
You are decidedly wrong. The MB is the only guarantee for true democracy. The MB can't allow a fascist anti-Islam democracy to take root in the country. Military rule has nothing to do with the MB. It continued under Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. So, don't invent the straw man.

08-10-2013 05:45am
What other options are there?
As long as the brotherhood is set to terrorize people. Intimidate civilized people to go back to the dark ages. Brainwash the feeble minded to follow them in mayham. Then the MILLITARY is one hell of a better alternative for all Egyptians. You are all damn lucky to have El Sisi.
Comment's Title

azza radwan sedky
07-10-2013 10:57pm
Until now, it hasn't
I agree that if the army is given too much power, it may turn into the tyrants we have come to know quite well. However, until now, people are truly satisfied by the role of the army and the intentions of El Sissi. I wish we don't encourage him to run though because it will prove that the world was right. It was a military coup, though I'm dead sure it wasn't. This is what I wrote after June 30th. The picture drawn here is so completely different from what happened in '52 and in '2011. "A people's coup"
Comment's Title

07-10-2013 10:39pm
military government= gigantic disaster
A military authority in 2013 is a prescription for disaster. It would make Egypt emulate Somalia and Syria and other failed states. The MB is the only force that can make Egypt get its act togother.
Comment's Title

07-10-2013 09:32pm
Welcome back to the DARK ages...
Military rule has forever kept Egypt backward and in the dark ages. Seems like this dark backward age is back with the military in FULL control and is here to stay with sisi hungry for power at all costs even the murder of thousands of innocent Egyptians at the hands of this mass murderer sisi!!
Comment's Title

© 2010 Ahram Online.