![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbGod knows I love freedom. I would die for democracy, and I almost envy, and certainly admire, those who did. But I am looking at what is happening in Egypt and elsewhere with really mixed feelings.
First, it has not been a victory of the people; it has been a decision of the army. The army has decided Mubarak had to go, and democratic clothes were to be bought, but this does not mean much. They did the same to the king sixty years ago. In fact, historically, the army has always owned Egypt. It would be interesting to trace the lineages of today's officer corps, and of the high bureaucrats and businessmen who are their associates. I think one would find that most of them are quite old and go back the Mameluks.
Journalists who wish to show how knowledgeable they are repeat that "the army has ruled Egypt for sixty years". Add a zero, at least. The military Mameluk caste seized the country in the age of the Crusades and never really let it go. The Turks defeated them in 1520, but they remained in charge beneath the Turks, and when the Turkish grip grew feebler, they came back up, as much masters of Egypt as they had ever been.
Indeed, the social resilience and continuity of army power in Egypt is remarkable, given that their external records is none too imposing. They were defeated by the Turks, by Napoleon in 1798, in the Greek war of Independence (1821-30), by the British in the eighteen-eighty, by Israel several times. Nonetheless they are extraordinarily good at keeping power at home in their own hand.s.
As for the opposition, everyone has heard of the sinister influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, but has anyone reflected on the equally sinister fact that wavees of revolt always follow Friday preaching in the mosques?
First, it has not been a victory of the people; it has been a decision of the army. The army has decided Mubarak had to go, and democratic clothes were to be bought, but this does not mean much. They did the same to the king sixty years ago. In fact, historically, the army has always owned Egypt. It would be interesting to trace the lineages of today's officer corps, and of the high bureaucrats and businessmen who are their associates. I think one would find that most of them are quite old and go back the Mameluks.
Journalists who wish to show how knowledgeable they are repeat that "the army has ruled Egypt for sixty years". Add a zero, at least. The military Mameluk caste seized the country in the age of the Crusades and never really let it go. The Turks defeated them in 1520, but they remained in charge beneath the Turks, and when the Turkish grip grew feebler, they came back up, as much masters of Egypt as they had ever been.
Indeed, the social resilience and continuity of army power in Egypt is remarkable, given that their external records is none too imposing. They were defeated by the Turks, by Napoleon in 1798, in the Greek war of Independence (1821-30), by the British in the eighteen-eighty, by Israel several times. Nonetheless they are extraordinarily good at keeping power at home in their own hand.s.
As for the opposition, everyone has heard of the sinister influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, but has anyone reflected on the equally sinister fact that wavees of revolt always follow Friday preaching in the mosques?
The Mamluks
Date: 2011-02-12 07:20 pm (UTC)Re: The Mamluks
Date: 2011-02-12 09:11 pm (UTC)However, you are right to question, since it seems that I shot off my mouth with less certainty than I should have. Let us just say that Egypt has been ruled by military castes since at least the middle ages; that, I think, is indubitable. Another thing that should be thought on is that popular revolts are not unknown in mediaeval and modern Egypt, and that they ALWAYS have led, in the past, to the an increase in the power of the religious classes, however temporary. (As soon as I can locate the article where this was set out, I'll link.)
link to article on revolts in Egypt
Date: 2011-02-13 01:56 pm (UTC)