The euphoria of victory spread quickly amongst the crowds in Tahrir Square after President Mubarak announced his resignation. The general discontent caused by chronic social unrest had been brewing for decades before it reached its apex and stirred a palpable change. Many even started to imagine a new era for the Arab countries, following the ouster of Arab dictators. But history has taught us that deep-rooted and undemocratic practices don’t change overnight.
When the uprising came, everyone rejoiced. The sight of children climbing tanks and people hugging soldiers was unthinkable before. At the time, nobody could foresee that the same soldiers would mere months later strip a female protester, stamp on her and drag her along the ground like a slaughtered lamb. It became clear that the military’s siding with the protesters in January had been a survival move on the part of the military commanders. It was realized later that the umbilical cord between the military and Mubarak cronies had not yet been cut; very soon, the military apparatus started to show its true colors.
In all political systems, armed forces are the safeguards against any potential invasion that poses a threat to a nation’s sovereignty. Though it does not interfere directly in domestic issues, the military remains a powerful institution by virtue of its offensive capacity and the network of connections it has with decision makers. When the military and the government’s interests are in sync, their complicity remains invincible since they can brandish their weapon in the face of any foreign or domestic threat. Friction between the government and the military are liable to endanger the countries’ stability, as is the case in Pakistan where the possibility of a military coup is always there. In the Arab uprisings, the rapport between the military and the civilian order has been decisive in controlling the course of events and their outcomes.
The military is a public institution characterised by the use of lethal force to deter threats to national security. It is a closed community that has its own facilities and is considered a ‘society within a society’. Their capacity depends on the defence budget allocated by the state to sustain their infrastructure and equipment. The armed forces often function in the shadows, unnoticed by civil society, except in wartime. In Egypt, for instance, junior officers affiliated with the Free Officers Movement could orchestrate a military coup to overthrow King Faros in 1952. Therefore, they could expand their power through infiltration of strategic sectors in Egypt – namely politics and the economy. Needless to say that two of the most influential presidents in Egypt‘s history, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, were military officers. Thus, the military’s stance on critical issues and at sensitive junctures is likely to shape a country’s history by virtue of the hard power they have at their disposal and their firm grip over key sectors.
There is no doubt that in Tunisia, the alignment of the military with the masses had a soothing effect as it made the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic system rather smooth. The Tunisian armed forces pledged to protect the revolution and chased off Ben Ali’s security forces, accused of harsh repression against peaceful protesters. The Tunisian revolution unexpectedly sparked and unfolded as relatively peaceful. On the other hand, in Egypt, the revolution’s tale has had more than one twist. The military council’s delay to return power to civilians and its insistence to remain above the rule of law has outraged the bulk of Egyptians, who have started to think that their victory against totalitarian rule is being hijacked. It has become obvious that the Egyptian revolution still has to jump many hurdles if it wants to stay afloat.
In Syria, the military apparatus boasts a much wider circle of influence. Bashar al-Assad was propelled to power to reproduce a replica of his father’s staunch rule. With his brother, Maher al-Assad, at the head of the Republican Guard and the Fourth Armored Division, the military remained under the Assad family control. In addition, the Alawites who pledge allegiance to Bashar al-Assad make up the majority of soldiers in the Syrian armed forces. Strongly backed by the military, Assad struck back the uprising with an iron fist. Fear of retaliation by the security forces, along with the reluctance of the Syrian opposition to take a firm stand, are the main factors that adjourned a sweeping revolution in Syria. Yet more cracks are appearing in the armed forces apparatus with many defections by soldiers who are incrementally reluctant to perpetrate massacres against their fellow Syrians. To add a layer of complexity, Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, wielded its veto power to prevent a UN resolution against the Syrian regime. In the midst of this chaos, the military still has the upper hand, committing atrocities against civilians with total impunity.
The military apparatus has played a pivotal role in the Arab revolutions’ viability and continuation. While the armed forces assailed the disarmed protesters in Syria and Yemen, Tunisian armed forces presented themselves as the new revolution guards. The military and the security apparatus have proven to be major players in sketching the new face of newly born Arab democracies and their behavior in the coming months will be worth paying attention to.