Here are models for Egypt's future.
«TURKEY: mooted as a model for Egypt, but with reservations.
The Good: the military has traditionally stepped in to “ensure democracy,” in times of upheaval. Although it intervened in civilian government four times between 1960 and 1997, the military won points with the West by returning to civilian rule and overseeing constitutional reform.
The Bad: Turks, Kurds and liberals were repressed by the state and the new constitution had an authoritarian edge.
The Outcome: gradual transition to multi-party democracy, and the military’s loss of power through free elections. As a moderate Islamist party took over and sought membership in the European Union, the military sank further into the background. Turks still see it as part of an omnipresent “deep state.”
INDONESIA: seen as a bastion for the West against a feared enemy, with echoes in the present day.
The Good: Cold War Washington saw Gen. Suharto’s military regime as the best alternative to communism in the mid 1960s, pumping in billions of dollars in humanitarian and military aid. Foreign investment fuelled a massive rise in the GDP.
The Bad: corruption, criminality, repression and massive bloodshed were the hallmarks of the military government, while ordinary Indonesians saw few benefits of the economic upturn.
The Outcome: growing calls for democracy, splits in political parties and the Asian financial crisis led to a huge protest movement and Suharto’s resignation. It later forced a change that allowed direct election of the president and development of democracy.
PAKISTAN: like Egypt, a country where the military has a large footprint, and is seen as a defender of the state.
The Good: since independence Pakistanis turned to the military at times of instability to solve their economic or political problems and stave off chaos.
The Bad: successive military rulers promised to build the economy, guarantee internal and external stability, but ultimately failed. Latterly, President Pervez Musharraf vacillated over dealing with religious extremism while terrorism took root, violence escalated and the economy frayed.
The Outcome: protests and political rivals forced Musharraf from office in 2008, but the legacy of terrorist violence continued. The military led disaster relief efforts during the 2010 floods, while the civilian government lost credibility. The government is weak, the military still entrenched, but shows no signs of wanting to regain power.
BRAZIL: decades of military dictatorship and political turbulence were reversed by a military leader’s change of direction.
The Good: After successively repressive regimes, Gen. Ernesto Geisel began gradual democratization, cracked down on military violence and repression. His successor allowed transition to civilian rule in 1985, beginning a bumpy road to political stability.
The Bad: until the mid 1970s Brazil was plagued by a regime of torture and brutal repression that left deep scars on the society.
The Outcome: After the transition Brazil’s “economic miracle” catapulted it into the front line of the new global economic order, and its first female president was elected last year.»
www.thestar.com/news/world/article/93769...
