When Hosni Mubarak took over as president of Egypt in 1981, he returned the country to the “state of emergency” that had largely been in place since 1958. This week, the military leaders who ousted Mubarak likewise returned its country to a state of emergency.
And Egypt is no more secure or stable today than it has ever been.
That’s Mubarak’s true legacy. When he took office, there was cause for a state of emergency: the assassination of Anwar el-Sadat. In the same way, the slaughter we’re now seeing also screams state of emergency. But what do you do about a country where a state of emergency has prevailed for most of the last half-century?
Within the region, many of Egypt’s neighbors want the Muslim Brotherhood suppressed and don’t much care how it’s done. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, for example, yesterday threw his support behind Egypt’s military leaders amid their increasingly bloody crackdown on rampaging Brotherhood supporters. In doing so, the Saudis sent an important message to President Obama: The oil-rich state will more than make up for any cutoff of US aid to Egypt, also underscoring how little influence we have in that important country.
All this might have been avoidable if Mubarak had used his time in office to move the country in a healthier direction. It’s true that he kept the Brotherhood at bay with his crackdowns, and upheld the peace with Israel. But it’s also true to say that by relying solely on repression, he also kept Egypt from advancing — ensuring the ugly alternatives we have today.
America’s interests clearly require a stable Egypt, which has long been the political anchor of the Arab world. That means, first, an end to the bloodletting, including that of the country’s besieged Coptic minority. But it also means an end to the kind of stability that leaves Egyptians with the bad choice we see now: between a militant movement bent on an Islamist future and a secular army that seems destined to repeat the tragedy of the Mubarak past.