Dictators do more than harm their people. They harm the world as well, maybe their region first. Citizens say their leader, Hosni Mubarak, should go in Egypt.
Now his going out of power will create more problems than staying. At least, that is observers' assessment of the situation at hand, one that raises the question: How did he box his people into a corner in the first place.
The current situation in Egypt is a sample of what people get in return for watching as their leaders go about town with nails and hammer, cutting the constitution and hammering it.
Compare that with Nigeria, where citizens shout themselves hoarse, and lawmakers stood as guards in defence of democracy at any attempt to panel-beat the constitution to suit anyone in the presidential villa, and then the picture becomes clear. It is one reason no one stays beyond the time people want here. Both military and civilian leader have tried it. It didn't work. But it did in Egypt.
Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak, born May 4, 1928, assumed Egypt's presidency on October 14, 1981. That was after President Anwar El Sadat was assassinated. Mubarak was a career officer in the Egyptian Air Force, serving as its commander from 1972 to 1975 before he entered politics. He was appointed by Sadat as Vice President in April 1975. He served Sadat loyally and he took part in government consultations that dealt with agreement with Israel on future disengagement of forces.
Egypt has been operating under an emergency law since 1967. This law gives police extensive powers which have been so handy for an administration such as Mubarak's. Constitutional rights are also suspended and censorship is legalized.
This emergency law prohibits non-governmental political activity, forbids street demonstrations, non-approved political organizations, and unregistered financial donations. Seventeen thousand people are detained under the law, and political prisoners are about 30,000. The "state of emergency" gives government the right to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for no reason. That is the Egypt Mubarak created.
But there is another angle to his creation. Until the latest demonstration broke out, Mubarak had no clear line of succession to the presidency. He had no Vice President. He had panel-beaten the constitution such that lawmakers in Cairo regularly return after election and rubber stamp him and his laws. The last election that sent the latest 518 lawmakers to parliament has been criticized as flawed. Yet under existing rules, any constitutional amendments would have to be approved by these same legislators who are loyal to Mubarak and his ruling National Democratic Party.
Political corruption in the Mubarak administration's Ministry of Interior has risen due to the increased power over the institutional system that is necessary to secure the prolonged presidency. Political figures and young activists are imprisoned without trials. Universities, mosques and newspapers staff members have been maltreated or denied their basic rights based on political inclinations.
And it is not surprising that Mubarak is ranked 20th on Parade Magazine's 2009 World's Worst Dictators list, while Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that he and his family might be worth about $70 billion due to corruption, kickbacks and legitimate business activities.
When the Jasmine revolution in Tunisia spread to Egypt, the Mubarak government had made offers of political reforms to the protesters which were rejected as inadequate. The solution was for him to go. Now, resigning itself has become a problem, both internally and in the Mid-East where he is a moderate and his voice provides stability in the volatile region.
The Western world is worried about his going for reasons that included Israel, Iraq and Iran, as well as the delicate peace that he has helped maintain. At home Mubarak has always played the card of Islamic fundamentalist both to have the support of the international community and to maintain his hold on power. Now pro-democracy advocates in Egypt say forbidding Muslim Brotherhood from getting near power goes against the principles of democracy.
The Vice President Mubarak appointed shortly after the January 25 outbreak of protests, agreed in a meeting with major opposition figures that a committee should propose constitutional reforms. Yet, the path to free and fair elections has its hills. A part of the fallout of Mubarak's creation in Egypt is: If he resigned, the current constitution stipulates that presidential elections must be held within 60 days. But the electoral rules have restrictions on who could run, and this tilts the balance in favour of the current regime. Yet there is not enough time to change electoral rules during the run-up to the elections.
Relevant Links
Relevant Links
The complications are such that even the Americans who have been backing transition from Mubarak sounded notes of caution of the need not to rush the man out of power. "It takes time to think those through, to decide how one is going to proceed; who will emerge as leaders," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said.
"The principles are very clear. The operational details are very challenging." Those are the details Mubarak had worked into his country's constitution and electoral laws while his people looked on over the years, a thing Nigerians have never allowed to happen, and which all Africans from now on should look out for before leaders turn themselves into gods that cannot be moved, even after they have spent some three decades in power to the detriment of the whole nation.
