Egyptians want something that's impossible, and therefore don't know what it is that they want.
They want somebody who is going to come in, restore their dignity and honor by giving them cheap food, good housing, cheap fuel, and great jobs that allow the young to marry and have the respect they so richly deserve.
Mubarak didn't get deposed because he was illiberal or a despot. Under him women had fairly good rights. Public services weren't bad. Religious discrimination was a problem, but it certainly could be worse. The "young relatively educated" people were educated.
But two things happened. (1) The rise of relatively educated young people who wanted a better future. (2) The economy tanked and with it foreign reserves were running low.
Mubarak needed foreign reserves to maintain the subsidies on food, housing, fuel. Egypt was poor ... and he raised prices. Immediate riots. Then demonstrations. It became clear given the recession and economy that those young people wanting a better future wouldn't find it. And, in the hubris of youth, they demanded that Mubarak step down. The Ikhwan/Islamist contingent also wanted Mubarak to step down. And poor people, not relatively educated, in general who wanted their subsidies restored and blamed Mubarak for raising them wanted Mubarak to step down because he took away something that was theirs--having somebody subsidize them. Three groups. Some overlap, to be sure.
Of course, the riots and demonstrations further tanked the economy. And that's what Morsi inherited. The young "liberals" couldn't believe they lost the election ... or the next one. They walked. No reps on the Constitutional committee. They rejected cabinet positions. They denied legitimacy--and then complained that Morsi didn't include them. They found common cause with the Mubarak folk left in the government, like the courts. The Army dislikes the Ikhwan on principle. And the Army sided with the young relatively-educated people. Still not a majority. And not because of their political views, per se. Armies like things settled. Dictatorship? Sure. Democracy? Sure. As long as it's settled.
Unless the economy recovers as the effects of the recession wrap up, the new group--probably technocrats--will have the same problem. Lack of cooperation--but if they write the constitution alone, that'll be a good thing (representation is important--above all, having the right representation!). And they'll still have a crappy economy, but we'll excuse them for years because they inherited it. Unlike Morsi, who allowed demonstrations, open press, and a lot of things that Mubarak disallowed, I think the "liberals" will just ban dissent to a large extent, and we'll think that's just fine because squelching voices we don't like is a Good Thing. They will control things so that the dissolution of society happens behind the scenes, hoping that things work out.
But they will press all the right political buttons. Subsidized food? No, not without hurting the economy even more, but there will be a reduced role for religion. Freedom of the press? No, but we will apply the right economic measures--and if they don't work, well, they were the right economic measures so it must be enemies of the State. Women will have their rights back. Even those that they didn't actually lose.
In short, I think we're rooting for them to get Assad light. Why, just 5 years ago he was hailed as a "reformer." That's got to be embarrassing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
