International Support and Persistant Authoritarianism in Egypt

Although the orientalist fashion is to declare that resistance to democracy is due to Islam, this explanation is actually quite weak. While many factors may inhibit transitions to democracy in the modern Middle East, I want to focus on one factor that meets alot of resistance from Americans--specifically the role played by geostrategic rents to the maintenance of authoritarianism in Egypt.

Despite declining literacy and widespread poverty, Egypt would appear to be a good case for democratic transition. Some popular resistance exists and the Egyptian regime is widely perceived as illegitimate, however, there are no signs of impending collapse or popular revolution. The work of Eva Bellin is instructive here. She examines the relative will and ability of a regime to maintain their coercive apparatus. The Egyptian regime has both greater will and ability than a cursory examination of their fiscal health and relatively high degree of institutionalization would suggest. How can this be?

Geostrategic rents provide part of the answer. The U.S. provides 2 billion in aid every year. This money is used by the Egyptian regime to buy support from key societal sectors and to slow down economic reforms so that economic losers can be deprived of the means to resist and associate while economic winners are incorporated and coopted into the regime's agenda. Continued economic success depends upon regime support. Rather than state-owned enterprises, crony capitalism has found a new business elite that also has no interest in democracy--all those losers with a real vote could cause a loss of special privileges and mean real reform. The security apparatus never suffers from the underfunding of schools or social welfare or even the cuts to subsidized staples that the poor depend upon for survival. The security apparatus gets funded first and most, thereby ensuring that it will function in favor of the regime and against the people. The money provided by the U.S. is crucial to maintenance of the coercive apparatus (although not singular as remittances also play a role).

So why doesn't the U.S. ever hold back aid? We are supposed to be pro-democracy, right? That depends on who would replace the despised and illegitimate Mubarak regime. If it's Islamists, than we're not at all pro-democracy. The Egyptian regime has proven adept at playing this card too. If Americans complain of human rights abuses--well, they're combatting an Islamic insurgency. If Americans suggest more honest and free elections--well, the Muslim Brotherhood would take over and they're radical Islamists that are just like Al Qaida (these two groups despise one another). It might surprise Americans to know that the laws we have applauded Egypt for passing against "Islamic terrorism" are far more commonly used against human rights groups, pro-democracy groups, and even just people striking for better working conditions.

This is how international support inhibits democracy in Egypt. Ignorance and fear rule American policies towards Egypt and, whether we choose to believe it or not, we are supporting authoritarianism in Egypt.