Maged Mandour, Egypt Under El-Sisi: A Nation on the Edge (New Texts Out Now)

Maged Mandour, Egypt Under El-Sisi: A Nation on the Edge (New Texts Out Now)

Maged Mandour, Egypt Under El-Sisi: A Nation on the Edge (New Texts Out Now)

By : Maged Mandour

Maged Mandour, Egypt Under El-Sisi: A Nation on the Edge (Bloomsbury / I.B. Tauris, 2024).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Maged Mandour (MM): I have been writing this book without knowing I was writing it. It was a journey that spanned the better part of a decade. I started to write in the summer of 2013, what I call in the book “the summer of massacres.” Writing was my way of coping with the shock of that summer. I simply wanted to understand how Egypt’s democratic opening was shut brutally and with so much popular support. This later evolved into an obsession with the regime that developed from such mass state violence, and with the man who leads it, Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi. In essence, the book is an attempt to shed light on the working of the regime, what makes it so different and dangerous to the stability of the country and the region. I was driven by a peculiar mix of curiosity, survivor’s guilt, anger, and hope over the past decade. At the end of the road lay this book, and with it some hope that it contributes to our understanding of how this regime functions and the hurdles it has placed to the prospect of democratic transition.

... this regime represents a radical break in modern Egyptian history, the first time that Egypt falls under direct military rule with no civilian partner or façade to balance out the military.

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

MM: The book looks at the evolution of the regime over the past decade. The crux of the argument is that this regime represents a radical break in modern Egyptian history, the first time that Egypt falls under direct military rule with no civilian partner or façade to balance out the military. This has allowed the military to concentrate social, political, and economic power in its own hands to an unprecedent degree. Practically, this meant the complete militarization of the state, political system, and the economy that bred an extremely repressive and brutal regime. This concentration of political power also allowed the military to refashion Egyptian capitalism into a militarized form of state capitalism that is fueled by mass debt, sparking spectacular debt crisis that is still unfolding. These radical changes bred a regime that is poorly equipped to deal with dissent, except through mass repression, which makes it brittle and prone to crisis, but also extremely dangerous and destabilizing.

In this analysis I used Finer’s classification of military regimes and the Gramscian conception of passive revolution and hegemony. Using this theoretical lens, I classify the regime as a case of direct military rule and using the concept of passive revolution I argue that the new military regime embarked on a revolution from above. In doing so, the regime mobilized popular support while ensuring that no popular participation in decision making took place. In other words, it used popular mobilization to suppress popular participation, all with the goal of ensuring that events of 2011 are never repeated.

J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

MM: As already alluded to, this book is a continuation of my work over the past decade; it is most closely connected to the work I did for Carnegie. The bulk of this work looked at the regime’s repression and how it functions, as well as the legal and constitutional changes that provided immunity to the security forces and greatly enhanced the position of the military within the political system. I also covered the political economy of the regime, what I perceived to be an economic collapse in the making, which spectacularly erupted in 2022.

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

MM: My ego would say everyone! Alas, one needs to be realistic. The audience I had in mind when I wrote this book is those interested in the prospect of democratic transitions, not just in Egypt but also in the Middle East. However, I hope that this book is read widely in Egypt and that it will not only inform debates on the prospect of democratic transition in the country, but also highlight the plight of the victims of the regime, as a step towards the recognition to the damage done to the Egyptian social fabric from a decade of historic levels of state violence. Indeed, one of the most prominent hurdles that the prospect of democratic transition faces in Egypt is a lack of consensus on the nature of the regime and its crimes. I hope that this book will be the first in many attempts to initiate public debate amongst Egyptians on what happened in the last decade and to start to deconstruct the regime’s narrative that is anchored in chauvinistic nationalism with fascist undertones. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MM: My main project now is convincing my ten-month-old baby to sleep through the night. When I am not terribly sleep deprived, I continue to focus on the development of the Egyptian debt crisis, which has proven to have more twists and turns than a soap opera. The regime is constantly evolving and, surprisingly, becoming even more sinister, and I hope to continue to document and deepen my understanding of its evolution.

J: What are the most prominent challenges that Sisi will face in his third term?

MM: The country is going through a dramatic debt crisis that will have long-term social consequences. The most prominent of these are the dramatic rise in poverty and the evisceration of the middle class. However, another important aspect is that the regime has shown a remarkable resistance to avoiding any type of reform over the past two years, at the risk of catastrophic consequences. This signals a deepening of the military penetration of the economy, as the private sector continues to collapse under the weight of the crisis. Even if the Gulf intervenes, which seems to be a distinct possibility after the Ras El-Hekma thirty-five billion USD deal, this will only serve to shield the military elites, and probably deepen the crisis in the long term, leading to more economic deformities.

 

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 3, pp. 108-111)

Empowered by a draconian legal system, and in complete control of the state apparatus, the military has cast its repressive net far and wide. Its victims include researchers and academics like Ismail El Eskandrany; activists like Ala Abdel Fatah; politicians like Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, and ordinary citizens that caught in repressive machinery of the regime, like the Tik Tok girls. The regime’s repression appears to have a clear logic: by raising the cost of minor acts of dissent to the extent that it guarantees the complete closure of the public space, continuation of direct military rule is ensured. It is a policy aimed at making the regime impervious to change from below. However, a closer examination shows a much more complex dynamic at play, one that holds the regime hostage to its own repressive policies, reducing its ability to manoeuvre and its ability to absorb popular shocks. This reduces the regime’s resilience and makes repression rather than co-option its default policy choice.

The most glaring characteristic of the regime’s repression is its ideological imperative, not just to maintain its popular appeal but to maintain the cohesion of the security forces. The regime’s raison d’ être, based on its own narrative, is to protect the Egyptian state from collapse by combating traitors, terrorists and foreign agents. This logic not only helps the regime to consolidate its support base but it also justifies the complete closure of the public space, and the intenserepression required to do so. Hence, any attempts at easing repression would raise questions about the need to completely close the public space, the necessity for the continuation of military rule, and, most importantly, the truthfulness of the regime narratives that are used to solicit popular support for its repression. Indeed, a simple questionfrom its base, such as why release accused terrorists from prison, would be extremely difficult to answer. The regime is therefore under pressure from its own base to continue its repression. Indeed, popular support for the regime exists because of its repression, not in spite of it.

The pressure, however, is not limited to the base alone, as it also comes from within the security apparatus, especially from the petty security official and judges, the ones on the front lines in the regime war against dissent. These men have been indoctrinated in the regime’s chauvinistic version of nationalism, which is founded on the existence of an internalenemy, threatening the fabric of the nation. This became apparent in the Regeni case. When he was believed to be a spy by the regime’s security officials, the standard operating procedure was applied, namely severe torture which led to his death. Hence, any attempts at easing repression jeopardizes the credibility of the regime narrative – which is essential for maintaining the cohesion of the security apparatus – and is bound to be strongly resisted by its members. This brings us to the second characteristic of the regime’s repression, namely its decentralized nature. In essence, theideological indoctrination and the widespread popular support, as well as the legal immunity of the security forces, have made repression and torture endemic and decentralized. Indeed, the use of state violence has become a standard operating procedure, rather than a tool employed by the security forces to protect the regime, a feature that Human Right Watch has called ‘an assembly line of torture’ (HRW, 2017). This means that the centre can no longer control the periphery, and even if Sisi wished to rein in the repressive apparatus, he would struggle to do so.

The regime’s reliance on repression, and Sisi’s inability to rein in the security apparatus at will, stems from another structural feature, namely the lack of a civilian counterweight to the military and the security apparatus. Unlike Mubarak, Sadat or Nasser, Sisi does not seem interested in establishing a ruling party, which he could then use to hold in check the military and the security forces. Indeed, his main strategy seems to revolve around tightening his grip over the security apparatus and intelligence agencies through the appointment of loyalists, rather than developing a civilian counterweight to the military’s dominance. The most prominent example of this feature of the regime was the appointment of Abbas Kamel, a close confidant, as the head of the General Intelligence Services (GIS) in June 2018 (Egypt Today, 2018).

The absence of a mass ruling party, along the lines of Mubarak’s NDP or Nasser’s Arab Socialist Union (ASU), significantly reduces the ability of the regime to co-opt the citizenry, making repression the primary tool for managing dissent. This situation is exacerbated by the regime’s success in decimating and discrediting the moderate opposition, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, which had a long history of working with the regime and the military establishment in moments of crisis (Gerges, 2018), most notably in the 2011–12 period (Kandil, 2015). This is very similar to the role that the secular opposition played in the aftermath of the coup of 2013, when the first post-coup government included secular and leftist figures like labour activist Kamal Abu Eita and the liberal figure Ziad Bahaa El-Din, helping to legitimize the coup. This has a simple yet significant consequence, namely the inability of the regime to negotiate with anorganized, moderate opposition at times of mass social upheaval, making mass repression the only possible policy option. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood has been so thoroughly vilified that any attempts at reconciliation or negotiating with the group would lead to a disintegration of the regime’s ideological edifice and the rapid loss of popular support, which would have catastrophic consequences for the regime. The same applies to the secular opposition, albeit to a lesser extent. Repression has become endemic and is unlikely to abate due to ideological and structural constraints that are beyond the control of Sisi and his generals. This would explain cases where repression seemed senseless, and more costly than beneficial for the regime. Such a case is that of the economist Ayman Hadhoud, who was arrested and forcibly disappeared in February 2022 (Egypt Watch, 2022). His body was found in April 2022, in Al-Abbasiya mental hospital, bearing what appeared to be torture marks, including bruises, cuts and dislocated bones. Hadhoud had been a member of the Reform and Development Party, led by Anwar El-Sadat, the nephew of Egypt’s ex-President. Sadat was a member of the parliamentary human rights committee at the time of Hadhoud’s abduction, and was leading the negotiations with the regime for the release of a small number of political prisoners. Hadhoud was by no means a radical, but rather a member of a legal political party, which, by all counts, was close to the regime and the security apparatus – part of the domesticated opposition. His death baffled many, but considering the endemic nature of repression in Egypt, it should have come as no surprise. The regime’s policy of repression has clearly gone beyond its control, in a manner that will prove costly to Egypt and Egyptians.

New Texts Out Now: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein, guest eds. "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis." Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development

Conflict, Security and Development, Volume 15, No. 5 (December 2015) Special issue: "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis," Guest Editors: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you compile this volume?

Mandy Turner (MT): Both the peace process and the two-state solution are dead. Despite more than twenty years of negotiations, Israel’s occupation, colonization and repression continue–and the political and geographical fragmentation of the Palestinian people is proceeding apace.

This is not news, nor is it surprising to any keen observer of the situation. But what is surprising–and thus requires explanation – is the resilience of the Oslo framework and paradigm: both objectively and subjectively. It operates objectively as a straitjacket by trapping Palestinians in economic and security arrangements that are designed to ensure stabilization and will not to lead to sovereignty or a just and sustainable solution. And it operates subjectively as a straitjacket by shutting out discussion of alternative ways of understanding the situation and ways out of the impasse. The persistence of this framework that is focused on conflict management and stabilization, is good for Israel but bad for Palestinians.

The Oslo peace paradigm–of a track-one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution–is therefore in crisis. And yet it is entirely possible that the current situation could continue for a while longer–particularly given the endorsement and support it enjoys from the major Western donors and the “international community,” as well as the fact that there has been no attempt to develop an alternative. The immediate short-term future is therefore bleak.

Guided by these observations, this special issue sought to undertake two tasks. The first task was to analyze the perceptions underpinning the Oslo framework and paradigm as well as some of the transformations instituted by its implementation: why is it so resilient, what has it created? The second task, which follows on from the first, was then to ask: how can we reframe our understanding of what is happening, what are some potential alternatives, and who is arguing and mobilizing for them?

These questions and themes grew out of a number of conversations with early-career scholars – some based at the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, and some based in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere. These conversations led to two interlinked panels at the International Studies Association annual convention in Toronto, Canada, in March 2014. To have two panels accepted on “conflict transformation and resistance in Palestine” at such a conventional international relations conference with (at the time unknown) early-career scholars is no mean feat. The large and engaged audience we received at these panels – with some very established names coming along (one of whom contributed to this special issue) – convinced us that this new stream of scholars and scholarship should have an outlet.  

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures do the articles address?

MT: The first half of the special issue analyzes how certain problematic assumptions shaped the Oslo framework, and how the Oslo framework in turn shaped the political, economic and territorial landscape.

Virginia Tilley’s article focuses on the paradigm of conflict resolution upon which the Oslo Accords were based, and calls for a re-evaluation of what she argues are the two interlinked central principles underpinning its worldview: internationally accepted notions of Israeli sovereignty; and the internationally accepted idea that the “conflict” is essentially one between two peoples–the “Palestinian people” and the “Jewish people”. Through her critical interrogation of these two “common sense” principles, Tilley proposes that the “conflict” be reinterpreted as an example of settler colonialism, and, as a result of this, recommends an alternative conflict resolution model based on a paradigm shift away from an ethno-nationalist division of the polity towards a civic model of the nation.

Tariq Dana unpacks another central plank of the Oslo paradigm–that of promoting economic relations between Israel and the OPT. He analyses this through the prism of “economic peace” (particularly the recent revival of theories of “capitalist peace”), whose underlying assumptions are predicated on the perceived superiority of economic approaches over political approaches to resolving conflict. Dana argues that there is a symbiosis between Israeli strategies of “economic peace” and recent Palestinian “statebuilding strategies” (referred to as Fayyadism), and that both operate as a form of pacification and control because economic cooperation leaves the colonial relationship unchallenged.

The political landscape in the OPT has been transformed by the Oslo paradigm, particularly by the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Alaa Tartir therefore analyses the basis, agenda and trajectory of the PA, particularly its post-2007 state building strategy. By focusing on the issue of local legitimacy and accountability, and based on fieldwork in two sites in the occupied West Bank (Balata and Jenin refugee camps), Tartir concludes that the main impact of the creation of the PA on ordinary people’s lives has been the strengthening of authoritarian control and the hijacking of any meaningful visions of Palestinian liberation.

The origin of the administrative division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the focus of Tareq Baconi’s article. He charts how Hamas’s initial opposition to the Oslo Accords and the PA was transformed over time, leading to its participation (and success) in the 2006 legislative elections. Baconi argues that it was the perceived demise of the peace process following the collapse of the Camp David discussions that facilitated this change. But this set Hamas on a collision course with Israel and the international community, which ultimately led to the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, and the administrative division, which continues to exist.

The special issue thereafter focuses, in the second section, on alternatives and resistance to Oslo’s transformations.

Cherine Hussein’s article charts the re-emergence of the single-state idea in opposition to the processes of separation unleashed ideologically and practically that were codified in the Oslo Accords. Analysing it as both a movement of resistance and as a political alternative to Oslo, while recognizing that it is currently largely a movement of intellectuals (particularly of diaspora Palestinians and Israelis), Hussein takes seriously its claim to be a more just and liberating alternative to the two-state solution.

My article highlights the work of a small but dedicated group of anti-Zionist Jewish-Israeli activists involved in two groups: Zochrot and Boycott from Within. Both groups emerged in the post-Second Intifada period, which was marked by deep disillusionment with the Oslo paradigm. This article unpacks the alternative – albeit marginalized – analysis, solution and route to peace proposed by these groups through the application of three concepts: hegemony, counter-hegemony and praxis. The solution, argue the activists, lies in Israel-Palestine going through a process of de-Zionization and decolonization, and the process of achieving this lies in actions in solidarity with Palestinians.

This type of solidarity action is the focus of the final article by Suzanne Morrison, who analyses the “We Divest” campaign, which is the largest divestment campaign in the US and forms part of the wider Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Through attention to their activities and language, Morrison shows how “We Divest”, with its networked, decentralized, grassroots and horizontal structure, represents a new way of challenging Israel’s occupation and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

The two parts of the special issue are symbiotic: the critique and alternative perspectives analyzed in part two are responses to the issues and problems identified in part one.

J: How does this volume connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

MT: My work focuses on the political economy of donor intervention (which falls under the rubric of “peacebuilding”) in the OPT, particularly a critique of the Oslo peace paradigm and framework. This is a product of my broader conceptual and historical interest in the sociology of intervention as a method of capitalist expansion and imperial control (as explored in “The Politics of International Intervention: the Tyranny of Peace”, co-edited with Florian Kuhn, Routledge, 2016), and how post-conflict peacebuilding and development agendas are part of this (as explored in “Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding”, co-edited with Michael Pugh and Neil Cooper (PalgraveMacmillan, 2008).  

My first book on Palestine (co-edited with Omar Shweiki), Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy: De-development and Beyond (PalgraveMacmillan, 2014), was a collection of essays by experts in their field, of the political-economic experience of different sections of the Palestinian community. The book, however, aimed to reunite these individual experiences into one historical political-economy narrative of a people experiencing a common theme of dispossession, disenfranchisement and disarticulation. It was guided by the desire to critically assess the utility of the concept of de-development to different sectors and issues–and had a foreword by Sara Roy, the scholar who coined the term, and who was involved in the workshop from which the book emerged.

This co-edited special issue (with Cherine Hussein, who, at the time of the issue construction, was the deputy director of the Kenyon Institute) was therefore the next logical step in my research on Palestine, although my article on Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists did constitute a slight departure from my usual focus.

J: Who do you hope will read this volume, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

MT: I would imagine the main audience will be those whose research and political interests lie in Palestine Studies. It is difficult, given the structure of academic publishing – which has become ever more corporate and money grabbing – for research outputs such as this to be accessed by the general public. Only those with access to academic libraries are sure to be able to read it – and this is a travesty, in my opinion. To counteract this commodification of knowledge, we should all provide free access to our outputs through online open source websites such as academia.edu, etc. If academic research is going to have an impact beyond merely providing more material for teaching and background reading for yet more research (which is inaccessible to the general public) then this is essential. Websites such as Jadaliyya are therefore incredibly important.

Having said all that, I am under no illusions about the potential for ANY research on Israel-Palestine to contribute to changing the dynamics of the situation. However, as a collection of excellent analyses conducted by mostly early-career scholars in the field of Palestine studies, I am hopeful that their interesting and new perspectives will be read and digested. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MT: I am currently working on an edited volume provisionally entitled From the River to the Sea: Disintegration, Reintegration and Domination in Israel and Palestine. This book is the culmination of a two-year research project funded by the British Academy, which analyzed the impacts of the past twenty years of the Oslo peace framework and paradigm as processes of disintegration, reintegration and domination – and how they have created a new socio-economic and political landscape, which requires new agendas and frameworks. I am also working on a new research project with Tariq Dana at Birzeit University on capital and class in the occupied West Bank.

Excerpt from the Editor’s Note 

[Note: This issue was published in Dec. 2015]

Initially perceived to have inaugurated a new era of hope in the search for peace and justice in Palestine-Israel, the Oslo peace paradigm of a track one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution is in crisis today, if not completely at an end.

While the major Western donors and the ‘international community’ continue to publicly endorse the Oslo peace paradigm, Israeli and Palestinian political elites have both stepped away from it. The Israeli government has adopted what appears to be an outright rejection of the internationally-accepted end-goal of negotiations, i.e. the emergence of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. In March 2015, in the final days of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Jewish settlement of Har Homa in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is regarded as illegal under international law. Reminding its inhabitants that it was him and his Likud government that had established the settlement in 1997 as part of the Israeli state’s vision of a unified indivisible Jerusalem, he promised to expand the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem if re-elected. And in an interview with Israeli news site, NRG, Netanyahu vowed that the prospects of a Palestinian state were non-existent as long as he remained in office. Holding on to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), he argued, was necessary to ensure Israel’s security in the context of regional instability and Islamic extremism. It is widely acknowledged that Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s security—against both external and internal enemies—gave him a surprise win in an election he was widely expected to lose.

Despite attempts to backtrack under recognition that the US and European states are critical of this turn in official Israeli state policy, Netanyahu’s promise to bury the two-state solution in favour of a policy of further annexation has become the Israeli government’s official intent, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading ministers and key advisers.

[…]

The Palestinian Authority (PA) based in the West Bank also appears to have rejected a key principle of the Oslo peace paradigm—that of bilateral negotiations under the supervision of the US. Despite a herculean effort by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to bring the two parties to the negotiating table, in response to the lack of movement towards final status issues and continued settlement expansion (amongst other issues), the Palestinian political elite have withdrawn from negotiations and resumed attempts to ‘internationalise the struggle’ by seeking membership of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), and signing international treaties such as the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. This change of direction is part of a rethink in the PA and PLO’s strategy rooted in wider discussions and debates. The publication of a document by the Palestine Strategy Study Group (PSSG) in August 2008, the production of which involved many members of the Palestinian political elite (and whose recommendations were studiously discussed at the highest levels of the PA and PLO), showed widespread discontent with the bilateral negotiations framework and suggested ways in which Palestinians could ‘regain the initiative’.

[…]

And yet despite these changes in official Palestinian and Israeli political strategies that signal a deepening of the crisis, donors and the ‘international community’ are reluctant to accept the failure of the Oslo peace paradigm. This political myopia has meant the persistence of a framework that is increasingly divorced from the possibility of a just and sustainable peace. It is also acting as an ideological straitjacket by shutting out alternative interpretations. This special issue seeks a way out of this political and intellectual dead end. In pursuit of this, our various contributions undertake what we regard to be two key tasks: first, to critically analyse the perceptions underpinning the Oslo paradigm and the transformations instituted by its implementation; and second, to assess some alternative ways of understanding the situation rooted in new strategies of resistance that have emerged in the context of these transformations in the post-Oslo landscape.

[…]

Taken as a whole, the articles in this special issue aim to ignite conversations on the conflict that are not based within abstracted debates that centre upon the peace process itself—but that begin from within the realities and geographies of both the continually transforming land of Palestine-Israel and the voices, struggles, worldviews and imaginings of the future of the people who presently inhabit it. For it is by highlighting these transformations, and from within these points of beginning, that we believe more hopeful pathways for alternative ways forward can be collectively imagined, articulated, debated and built.