Hosni Mubarak: Determining a Difficult Legacy
On the 25th February, the death of Egypt’s longest serving ruler was announced. Hosni Mubarak, the fourth president of Egypt, was reported to have died in intensive care at an Egyptian military hospital.
The legacy that he leaves behind is one who’s rare shining moments are marred by the turbulent downfall that ended his presidency.
Hosni Mubarak’s emergence into the political sphere was one gleaming with military heroism. In his position as Air Force Commander, Mubarak is credited with the planning and execution of a decisive air strike during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. His rise through the military and accompanying success presented him as a good candidate to deputise Anwar Sadat as president.
Having been thrust into the presidential seat following the assassination of Sadat in 1981, Mubarak was presented with the growing and systemic threat of Islamic activism. A concern that placed the political security of Mubarak’s legacy government in a precarious position. Commentators at the time noted that the sudden nature of his ascension to power may have been partly responsible for the lack of policy direction or commitment to enact changes.
The situation should be considered a factor to his adoption of a security and stability focused regime. Mubarak sought to preserve the power of not only the National Democratic Party (NDP) but his authority over it, continuing the autocracy of the Egyptian presidency. The threat posed by rising Islamic fundamentalists, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, within the domestic sphere looked to destabilise the internal politics of Egypt which would thus impact the nation’s international attempts to install stability back into the region as a whole.
During his Vice-Presidency, Mubarak played a crucial role in rebuilding relations with regional partners following the signing of Sinai II, an interim agreement between Egypt and Israel assuring the resolution of conflict through peaceful methods. A diplomatic gesture so poorly received by members of the Arab League that Egypt was expelled from the very organisation it gave name to. Through successfully negotiating the regional power axis with Saudi Arabia, Mubarak was able to use his previously established relations with the Saudi government to rebuild an alliance that was to prove essential to counteracting Iranian power plays at the time. The success of which was shown in Egypt’s re-admittance to the League in 1989.
Throughout his presidency Mubarak toed a difficult line between rebuilding and maintaining a strong regional position and maintaining some form of relations with the US and Israel. Although continuing to stick to the Camp David agreement, a noticeable move towards a “cold peace” with Israel was made. With regards to the US however, Mubarak was careful to ensure that it remained a key ally, if anything for the beneficial financial fall out.
Symbolic of the primacy he placed on security, Mubarak ensured that Egyptian forces were amongst the first to deploy to Saudi Arabia following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991. In return, the Egyptian debt sheet was halved in what can only be described as an American reward package.
Despite engaging with foreign powers with relative success, this was not to sufficiently distract the domestic populous from the turmoil that was befalling Egypt. The actions of the United States’ were a means of mitigating the repercussions of the economic situation, but the longer-term effects were to have deeper felt consequences.
If Hosni Mubarak had been able to commit to the required economic reform, it would have paved the way for more extensive IMF loans. However, the inability to produce economic prosperity from increased levels of liberalisation led to disenfranchised working classes and growing social issues as unemployment grew and inequality widened. These problems became engrained in rural communities who, even when Egypt began to experience some resemblance of economic prosperity at the end of Mubarak’s rule, were left behind.
In conjunction with increased economic liberalisation, Mubarak’s presidency allowed for marginally increased levels of political freedom. Although the emergency law that curtailed public demonstrations, political activism and removed constitutional rights was still in place, there was allowance made for the basic activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. Permitting their provision of rudimentary social services and limited freedom of expression presented Mubarak in a vague light of tolerance. Ultimately, the allowance of such a movement to bubble under the surface and gain traction was an influential move that sparked his eventual downfall.
The rise of popularism in the region encouraged the increasingly numerous workers’ riots to develop. Although secular in nature and expressing frustration at the regime, the protests-maintained undertones of Muslim Brotherhood support. The youth demographic that Mubarak’s reforms failed to appeal to was the driving force behind the revolution, their persistence and resilience perpetuated by the Brotherhood’s backing.
With protests turning violent and beginning to be termed revolutionary by the international media, Mubarak resigned. His inability to use the stalwart of his presidency- military force- to end such riots led to his downfall. A fall from the heights of presidency that was only to continue as detention, accusations of corruption and incitement of murder dragged Mubarak’s reputation further in to repute and shame.
Despite the charges being dropped, their legacy still shapes the Egyptian public sentiment towards Mubarak. A leader whose great emphasis on security and fear of losing power was so intrinsic that he failed to recognise the true force that promulgated his power: popular support.
Images of Mubarak, the toppled corrupt autocrat, being wheeled into court on a hospital bed will forever eclipse those of the broad shouldered General that restored Egypt’s position as a central power in the Middle East.
