Introduction with the spread of mass protests

In 2011, with the spread of mass protests all over the Middle East and North Africa

(MENA) against the long-standing dictatorial regimes, observers had high hopes that the region

would finally see a move towards democratization. Three years have elapsed and across the

majority of these countries, no positive changes have been made, with the states of Syria and

Libya deteriorating. Nonetheless, one country has remained an outlier within the Arab Spring,

appearing to have survived a successful transition process. Many political scientists and those

who have vigilantly observed the political climate of the region over the past few years,

including Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, are in agreement that Tunisia’s

revolution has brought about a stronger political change to an organized form of democracy.

Tunisia is the only country that has managed to substantially improve its political ratings

according to the annual Freedom House Freedom in the World index. Since rating Tunisian

political rights at a 7 in both 2010 and 2011, the country moved up to a 1. In the category of civil

liberties, the country progressed from a 5 to a 3 and they are now considered free. Egypt on the

other hand, which in 2010 began with a rating of superior political rights than Tunisia with a 6,

brought this down to a 5 in 2013 before receding once again to a 6 this past year. Its civil liberty

score has maintained a score of 5 throughout the period before the removal of Hosni

Mubarak until now. Similar to its political rights rank, Egypt was noted as being not free until

2013, at which point the election of Mohamed Morsi momentarily promoted Egypt towards a

status of partly free. After his removal, this classification once again reverted to not free. Since

Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution instigated a boom of uprisings across the MENA Tunisia has

progressed to a much greater degree than any other nation. This is an intriguing case as many

factors were similar to those in other states within the MENA that attempted similar transitions.

For years, authoritarian leaders within the MENA region construed Islamist movements

as the greatest threat to their governance. In order to sustain a one party system, these leaders

manipulated Islamist antagonism to epitomize the inability of Islamists to partake in politics.

Both Tunisia and Egypt pursued political liberalization during the period Ben Ali and Mubarak

were in office. These periods terminated with a severe crackdown on Islamists. During this

crackdown phase, the leadership in these nations ruled with an iron fist, forcing Islamists to the

side through legislative means. Considerable and continuous efforts were made by Hosni

Mubarak and Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to dismantle Islamist movements and

any considerable gains they achieved, creating an enduring rivalry between the state and

Islamists. Through the recent revolutions, this extreme polarization that began under generations

of former presidents has endured and created obstacles to the successful transition of both

nations.

The ousting of the incumbent authoritarian regimes forged the foundation of a new arena

in which Islamist movements could exploit their strong grassroots and social bases, despite their

position as opponents to the state. The tumultuous revolutions put a spotlight on the expansion

of Islam in the political evolution of these two countries. The revolutions in both Tunisia and

Egypt, which culminated in the removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak from their authoritarian roles,

were a catalyst for the Islamist movements that were subject to extreme suppression for decades.

This Islamist revival resulted in a newly acquired position at the forefront of politics through

their engagement in political debate and dialogue. Within this new positioning, subsequent

events have sparked new controversies over the ability of Islamists to participate at the head of a

democratic state.

By 2011, Tunisia and Egypt both went through similar waves of turmoil, leading to the

removal of their despots and an Islamist momentum towards governance. Just over twenty years

ago, Algeria faced an incredibly similar scenario to that which we have been observing in Egypt

and Tunisia. The struggle to bring about regime change through mass uprisings in each of these

nations has resulted in a disconcerting transitional period. Now that Ben Ali and Mubarak have

been ousted, efforts to cope with Islamism persist.

Despite similar aspirations, the outcome of each revolution varied immensely for all

parties contributing in the process. While each of these nations has its own unique past, the

stimuli behind the upheaval in Egypt and Tunisia fall along similar lines. In both countries,

citizens were despondent with regards to their worsening living conditions and low human

development rates, all due to a weakening economy. This set the stage for the breakdown of the

authoritarian nature of these predominantly Muslim states and set them up for an unconventional

transition period with the Islamist parties taking a major position. As these states attempted to

distinguish their new political atmosphere as Islamic democracies, they have been confronted

with numerous complications.

Reactions towards the grasp at power of Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia and the

Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have been immense. The ascendance of Egypt’s Muslim

Brotherhood in 2012 was ephemeral. As the first major Islamist movement established, its

representative, Mohamed Morsi was installed in July 2012 after presidential elections, only to be

forcefully removed by the military just one year later. The military’s expunging of the Islamists

from power was exceedingly similar to that of Algeria in 1991, which lead to devastating

consequences across the country for a decade. While the removal of Islamists from power in

Algeria led to a civil war in Algeria, Egypt’s violent reactions were more fleeting. In conclusion

of the removal of Islamists from power, a new president was elected, one comparable to

Algeria’s with regard to their military background.

In spite of the apparent Islamist political failure, Tunisia’s Ennahda party survived the

interim government, taking a disparate approach than that of the Muslim Brotherhood. Harsh

reactions towards Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia transpired. Nonetheless, Tunisia, which

experienced minimal military intervention and whose governing jurisdiction lied in the hands of

Ennahda for almost three years before peacefully transferring power to a technocratic

government, has progressed further in its democratic aspirations. Although Ennahda took itself

out of power due to the demands of the people, this party once again managed to garner an

impressive standing with new elections in 2014. While Ennahda is known to be a moderate

political party, along the lines of Turkey’s AKP, their ability to confront the issues facing them

brought them to a vastly different outcome from that of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even with Tunisia’s newly consolidated democracy, both it and Egypt have faced chaos

since their respective revolutions in 2011 due to the new administration’s spiraling disagreements

on Islam’s importance, along with unresolved grievances that instigated the initial revolts. Both

have experienced an exacerbation of the extreme polarization between Islamists and secularists.

Egyptians went to the polls twice, and initially seemed to have achieved a productive progression

towards democracy. Yet, one year later, the military was back in power. The Ennahda party

relinquished control of their interim government in a more reasonable manner in order to allow a

technocratic governing body to take over. While there are still many aspects of its political

policy which need to be reestablished, Tunisia, by seeking the most profitable outcome, seems to

have reached democracy, following a more exemplary transition. The interim governing figures

engaged in Tunisia’s transition managed to contain the many disparities whereas Egypt’s

transitional bodies could not. Through this commitment to dialogue,

Tunisia has become an important example for other states in the region.

Research Question

Egypt is considered by many to be in a state of paralysis today due to the culmination of

events succeeding the 2011 revolution while Tunisia is perceived as significantly more successful

in its democratic achievements. Despite the fact that Tunisia sustained an interim government

for three years that was dispersed due to varying degrees of discontent within the Tunisian

population, its progression has been much greater than that of Egypt which had similar internal

issues. This thesis seeks to determine the reasons behind the consequences of Islamists

ascension to political power in both Egypt and Tunisia since the Arab Spring. Various factors in

the transitional period of both nations, including their historical backgrounds, the military

involvement, economies, civil society, and Islamist parties will be important in examining the

fates of both transition processes. The reactions towards various obstacles faced during the past

three years can all help to explain the paths taken by Tunisia and Egypt.

Based on these various factors, which may have possibly affected the transition of

Tunisia and Egypt, I will answer the following questions through in depth research on each

variable:

The military’s involvement may have played a pivotal role in hindering Egypt’s transition

to democracy according to many. The decades long competition between the military and

Islamists is extremely consequential in regards to Egypt’s democratic attempts. How

determinant was the military’s involvement in the transition process on Egypt’s failure?

Proponents of democracy and transition theory would suggest that perhaps Egypt was bound to

fail while Tunisia was set up for success. Was the transition in Egypt positioned to fail

substantiated by characteristics of its background and economy that transition theory often

alludes to in regards of the ability or inability of a state to become democratic?

What role did social movements and civil society play throughout the past years

concerning the transitions? Why is this more or less important than the other variables

examined?

Lastly and most importantly, through finding out the causes of the successes and failures

in each transition, I seek to answer the following;

How has Ennahda, despite many confrontations similar to those faced by the Muslim

Brotherhood over the past three years, maintained its position at the forefront of politics in

Tunisia? What is it about the specific circumstances in Tunisia that allowed Ennahda to succeed?

How much did each variable alter the state’s ability to come to democracy? Why did we

ultimately see compromise and moderation take place in Tunisia but not in Egypt?

As an exception within the states that went through the Arab Spring, Tunisia has managed

to achieve a more successful transition towards democracy, and Ennahda has preserved itself in

the process with high hopes for a future in Tunisian political governance. Through this set of

questions and comparisons regarding Egypt’s apparent failure, I attempt to discover which

variables have led Tunisia to a more successful transition with Ennahda still a key player. Each

variable is fundamental towards analyzing the consequences. Ultimately, by asking these

questions I hope to examine how through the continuation of Tunisia’s transition, Ennahda has

retained its prominence and garnered respect both within Tunisia and on an international level.

Hypothesis

The more experienced and organized secular civil society of Tunisia contributed to the

emergence of compromise within the democratic transition by developing a coalition

government, therefore ensuring that Ennahda would take on a moderate stance while in power.

Within Egypt, an exceptionally deficient secular civil society was a major factor in the country’s

failure to achieve appropriate transitional measures.

Throughout the past three years, Ennahda was able to drastically alter their policies,

leading them to maintain the position they gained after the ousting of Ben Ali. This contrasts

with many of the inadequacies of other Islamist parties in the region, such as FIS, HAMAS, and

the Muslim Brotherhood, which all encountered defeat or longstanding struggles despite an

initial openness towards these Islamists. Ennahda, instead, has been hugely successful. Ennahda

was better positioned to deliberate and make settlements with other parties in the Tunisian

political sphere. Ennahda’s willingness to concede in issues that involve the state have greatly

influenced its maintained prominence. By instating a coalition government in Tunisia, Ennahda

was unable to appropriate complete control of the government like the Muslim Brotherhood did

in Egypt.

Many place the utmost importance on the military’s status within transition in order to

explain Egypt’s failure and Tunisia’s success. There are many apparent situational factors that

differentiate the revolutions, including this extensive military involvement in Egypt. In Egypt,

the army clearly played a pivotal role in the formulation of a new government, attempting to lead

the country towards democracy. This was seen after January 25th, 2011 with the army’s

positioning during the revolution and after Mubarak was ousted on February 11th. Through this

entire period, the Egyptian military wanted to display that they were on the people’s side by

ignoring Mubarak’s demands. The military’s placement in the midst of the transition, leading

Egypt and instating new laws, has been considered detrimental to the promotion of democracy.

Again on July 3rd, 2013, the army took a place at the heart of the conflict, removing President

Morsi and introducing a new roadmap for the country. On the other hand, the Tunisian army was

not a main presence in the transition period. Rather than meddling in the state’s internal political

affairs, they kept to their foremost responsibility as the protection of the nation and its people.

Although military involvement in the Egyptian revolution hindered the process of

democratization, without their presence throughout the transition, no complementary

organization exists within Egypt’s civil society that could have successfully managed the

transition in a similar fashion to the Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT) in Tunisia.

Despite the varying methods of bringing Tunisia and Egypt to newly founded elections,

one through civil society and one through the military, both nations initially had similar

outcomes. Through the first purportedly legitimate election process in either history, the citizens

of both nations brought Islamists to the forefront of politics. Regardless of the comparable

results of these first elections, the presence of civil society in Tunisia’s transition undoubtedly

aided in a smoother transition. Tunisia may have been better positioned for a transition towards

democracy due to various factors including a higher per capita wealth, a stronger education

system, and a larger industrial and manufacturing base, all of which contributed to a more

pronounced civil society. Therefore, as a better-suited electorate, the involvement of Tunisia’s

civil society within the development of transitional procedures helped to quell further problems

that were encountered during this uneasy time. While Tunisia planned fresh elections at the end

of 2014 due to growing despair over Ennahda’s governance, the country’s inclusiveness brought

about a more well rounded effort. Even after this new election process, Ennahda acquired the

second largest standing within the new parliamentary structure.

While the military did take charge of the Egyptian revolution and the subsequent

transition after the ouster of Mubarak and Morsi, this is largely due to a civil society vacuum in

Egypt. With minimized military interference, a stronger institutional structure, and civil society

would have provided a greater chance for compromise, and it is possible that Egypt could have

managed a more successful transition to a democracy functioning in conjunction with Islamists

like we are now seeing in Tunisia. Because this major factor was omitted from the Egyptian

transition, its democratic process faltered once again leaving the military in command and the

Muslim Brotherhood banned, while Tunisia’s Islamists continue to thrive.

Method

This research will be primarily conducted through qualitative analysis. Gathering data for

this will depend on secondary research to test my hypothesis through scholarly articles, books

and academic journals. I will also collect data through primary sources including news articles

and government published constitutions along with other relevant information. This thesis will

be written as a comparative paper, examining the correlation between various variables that will

ultimately help provide insight into various issues facing these regime changes. Through this, I

will examine variables that may be similar or varied in the case of Egypt and Tunisia. The

correlation between these variables can help provide insight into the issues facing the regime

changes. The variables I intend to examine in each case include: how the attempt at transition

occurred, and what were the motivating factors, who was involved in the transitional periods and

what transpired, the government and its institutional framework, how the election process was

devised, who developed the context within which elections would take place and reactions to the

context, and the role of the military, civil society, and Islamists. In examining the similarities and

differences within these variables, I will be able to demonstrate what factor was most important

in the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood, yet assisted Ennahda in maintaining their legality and

prominent position throughout political transition. I plan to use moderation theory to look at how

the Islamists managed their power after elections. Through the use of this theory as an

explanatory indicator for what transpired in each scenario leading to such diverse results, my

hypothesis will be supported further. Civil society played a major role in the process of the

inclusion of Islamists within Tunisia, and therefore is the most important variable in the

moderation that moderation theory suggests should develop within political openings.

2- Literature Review and Theory

Many factors influence a nation’s ability to successfully transition to democracy, with no

two transitions identical. In order to examine the interim period in the cases of Tunisia and

Egypt, each variable that may have been an element triggering the failed or successful transition

attempt must then be closely examined. Both states exemplify significant cases of transition

after a revolution in which one saw Islamists successfully manage its transition period, and the

other saw Islamists reverting to their pre Arab Spring status.

There have been frequent attempts by political scientists to examine the maintenance of

authoritarian regimes in the Middle East for half a century. While the rest of the world seemed to

be moving through what Samuel Huntington designated the “third wave” of democratization, the

Middle East stood firm within its authoritarian roots. It is essential to look at the rationale behind

this “robustness of authoritarianism” within the region and discern how the leadership of the past

has molded each nation and the ability of its civil society to combat the single-party regimes in

order to construct an effective progression towards democracy. Within this domain, there are two

important variables to observe; the role of the government in each nation and their means of

retaining dominance while suppressing civil society.

Before Ben Ali overthrew him, Habib Bourguiba ruled Tunisia since their independence

in 1957. Bourguiba ruled as a secular leader, creating a state with minimal tolerance for Islamists

to rise. At the same time, he was fearful of a military coup, as had occurred in many other Arab

states. This fear led to his decision of keep the army out of politics. Squashing the Islamists and

the military undermined the two biggest threats to his regime. By forbidding many Islamic

practices and closing the Islamic university Zeytuna, Bourguiba maintained an unrelenting push

against a prevalent Islamic society in Tunisia and created a state at odds with Islamists.

However, in 1981, there was a period of political liberalization. Through this time, the Islamist

Ennahda Party in Tunisia attempted to garner a position in the parliamentary elections by

establishing the group as a political party. Yet Bourguiba was not prepared to allow Islamists

into power. He imposed harsher laws on Islamist groups and imprisoned many of their leaders.

In reaction, Islamist responses became more severe. In the following years, “the growing unrest,

coming on the heels of mass protests and strikes by trade unions, undermined support for

Bourguiba and laid the groundwork for Ben Ali’s rise in 1987.”

Ben Ali indicated that arrangements would be made to allow for a larger multiparty

system in Tunisia, and claimed that there would be elections, along with the elimination of the

authoritarian regime. He initially made plans to legalize the Islamic Tendency Movement (MTI)

and allow for its participation in elections.10 However, throughout his first years, people

recognized that these promises were not genuine. Despite this, there were few who protested

against the regime. The response of civil institutions within Tunisia against Ben Ali’s efforts to

maintain a closed off society, after promising a multiparty and more openly democratic system,

were not substantial. Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan claim that a strong bourgeoisie is a major

component for democratization and that their hesitation to partake in major disagreements left

Ben Ali in control. Throughout Bourguiba’s years in office, capitalism and labor industries

gained momentum and strength; however this was depreciated at the time of Ben Ali. Despite

restrictive laws shaping civil society, the UGTT was extremely developed, with firm objectives

and organizational expertise that allowed the UGTT to take on a major role in political conflicts

that faced the regime. With members who maintained a relatively close alliance to the Ben Ali

regime owing to bribes and extra privileges they received, the UGTT saw a slight confrontation

over ideologies at the onset of the revolution. Yet, the organization ultimately became the most

important actor in the post-breakdown government restructuring. During the revolution, the

UGTT was able to take a major role in promoting democratic transition, expanding upon the

influence it established previously.

Within both Egypt and Tunisia, when Islamist movements were banned in the 1990s,

these movements took the opportunity to produce a greater presence within associations and

other portions of civil society. As a banned organization, many members of Ennahda fled

Tunisia in order to avoid government action. In consideration of this, the overall scope of

Ennahda’s activism in Tunisia was minimal in comparison to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in

Egypt. Candidates from the Muslim Brotherhood even contested in various elections, and

garnered an impressive number of seats in Egypt’s parliament. Despite their ability to run as

independents on election ballots, their high numbers provoked a strong reaction by the state. In

2005, after an unforeseen gain in parliamentary seats by the Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak

began once again with the execution and imprisonment of members across Egypt. In addition in

the following elections in 2010, it was ensured that the parliament would not be shared, and

Mubarak’s NDP won the majority of seats, with a larger proportion than it had seen since 1995.

During the most recent discord with the army in Egypt, the military has taken the

opportunity to demonize the Islamists once again. Exploring the importance of the military in

the states before, during, and after the transition attempts is important to discovering the

framework of each country. In most authoritarian regimes, the security apparatus will maintain a

robust position in politics in order to provide a secure environment for the leader. Yet for

democratization to succeed, “a withdrawal of the state to allow free spheres of social autonomies

and initiative, whether economic or associational,” must take place. As mentioned previously,

political scientists such as Eva Bellin made many attempts to examine the reasons behind the

strength of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Bellin and others attribute part of this

strength to the regimes’ ability to pressure citizens into obedience, due, in large part, to their

maintenance of strict security apparatus. Following the revolution in 2011, the military was not

severed from the state. While Egypt has continuously ruled with a sturdy military regime,

Tunisia was regarded as a police state and this is a major facet of the different consequences.

Prior to the Arab Spring in 2011, Steven A Cook examined the role of the military in both

Egypt and Algeria. While not characterized specifically as military dictatorships, the two states’

militaries both play a strong role through governing indirectly, with great influence. The close

internal elite military relations with the head of state in Egypt was motivated by the desire to

“ensure the continuity of the political system” and, in Algeria, to “purchase political docility in

the one-party state.” The use of the military apparatus played a huge role in the Arab Spring due

to their positions within the political structure and as a legitimizing force for one-party politics.

While the function of the military was meant to preserve the presidency, the role seemed to

change during the period of uprising, as the military did not continue their support of the

government, and instead the military in both states took on a role of their own as a main actor.

Cook forecasted that “without an external catalyst for change… patterns of authoritarian politics

will endure in military-dominated states like Egypt,” and since the Arab Spring, we have seen

that this appears to have materialized through the current situation. Egypt’s army may have too

closely followed the steps taken by the Algerian army during Algeria’s black decade, leading to

similar fallout. Tunisia’s proximity to Algeria may have made them more conscientious of the

potential failings had they taken a similar approach. This was evident in Ben

Ali’s decision not to conduct elections and revile Islamists after Algeria made the first attempt.

Many political scientists did not foresee the contribution that the military would play in

the overthrow of the authoritarian regimes during the Arab Spring, and since have scrutinized the

role taken by the armies. Previously, the military was largely undermined as solely a player for

the authoritarian government. Gregory Gause considers two reasons that affected the military in

their response to unrest during this period; “the social composition of both the regime and its

military and the level of institutionalization and professionalism in the army itself.” Tunisia’s

military institution remained relatively neutral throughout the revolts, maintaining their place

outside of politics. On the other hand, in Egypt, while the military did not support the

government in its attempt to remain in power, associating with the peoples’ aspirations instead,

they immediately positioned themselves at the head of state in a move of self-interest.

Eva Bellin readdresses this issue, pointing out that the will of the armies was an important

element more so than the capabilities. By reexamining her previous work on the “robustness of

authoritarianism,” she points to two factors to determine the military’s purpose during these

revolutions: “the institutional character of the military and the level of social mobilization.” The

core interests of the military are “cohesion, discipline, prestige, and legitimacy,” and these

provide a role in the military’s determination to act on certain uprisings or problems that occur

within a nation, yet the military opening fire on civilians shows to be opposite of the military’s

goal of protecting the state. Bellin analyzes the unexpected numbers which joined in protest

against the regime, and the cohesion shown across multiple class levels. She determined that

these factors vastly differed from previous ideologies on social mobilization in the Middle East.

Attributing to this, were “long-standing grievances, an emotional trigger, a sense of impunity,

and access to new social media.” The grievances of the people provided the emotional trigger

needed to cause protest, and the access to the media provided an outlet for the coming forth of

hundreds of thousands of people to join together to express their outlook and disdain for the

regimes.

At this moment in time, civil society in both nations came out as a strong force to remove

the president. It was the period after the president left when civil society reactions became

immensely important. Tunisia’s civil groups did not leave the streets after Ben Ali fled. They

made sure that the newly formed government was void of Ben Ali era leaders. They maintained

their presence until they were able to make their own completely new interim government. The

passive forcefulness of Tunisia’s sturdier civil society brought them on the path of

democratization. While movements within Egypt continued protesting the new incumbent

regime of Shafiq and SCAF over the following months, efforts were not as effective. As

Tunisia’s transition was inclusive of various branches of civil society, the management of

elections and new referendums was much more successful. Within Egypt, SCAF monopolized

the transition period after Shafiq’s removal and thus made very biased decisions that served the

military.

Within Egypt, one of the biggest questions is if Egypt will really transition from

authoritarian governance towards democracy. Will Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, a man of the military,

give up the power or will Egypt become the new Algeria? Tarek Masoud poses three reasons for

which he bases the idea that the military may be unlikely to surrender the power gained through

the revolts. Politically, economically and geopolitically, the Egyptian military has strong,

grounded power. The military in Egypt removed the transition from the citizens and have

decided the fate on their own. The actions taken by the SCAF after they took power, such as

abolishing the constitution in order to create a new one, show that their power is still enduring. A

“durable” democracy in the country is necessary, and great economic development is absolutely

crucial in the means to achieve this. These intertwined variables regarding the previous regimes,

the security apparatus, and civil society must all therefore be examined to determine how they

have affected the transition and Ennahda’s continued presence in Tunisian

politics.

Democratization

This thesis will investigate the details of the Egyptian and Tunisian transition process

through the framework of democracy and transition theory. In this, the theories will aid in

examining which aspects of each case influenced the implementation of regime change and its

success. Transition theories have illuminated many of the variables that exist within nations that

have either successfully or inadequately transitioned towards democracy. By relating these cases

of attempted democratic transition in the Middle East through the theoretical frameworks of

democratization, we can see the distinctions that have made Tunisia a more likely candidate for a

prosperous transition. The behavior displayed by each state within its period of regime change

was molded from conditions of the pre-colonial state, and the one-party systems established

postindependence.

Since the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Tunisians have taken a more methodical approach

within their transition. This provisional process was left to the Tunisian civilians. Instead of

rushing to complete the transition towards democracy, Tunisia’s interim government has

organized itself to follow a more outlined path to achieve a democratic process. In Egypt, the

military assumed a role as the provisional leader until an election was set to take place. Tunisia’s

civil society was the body that created electoral law creating a completely new facet of

government, as opposed to the military of Egypt which had always been an integral part of the

authoritarian regime.

In his article Why are there no Arab Democracies, Larry Diamond describes features that

he has found to prevent democracy. These factors include a poor economy. Despite some

countries in the Middle East having a high GDP, low human development is a main challenge.

Other factors are problems with corruption, absence of formal taxation, and lack of motivation

for industry or institutionalization, therefore causing a weak civil society. Economic factors were

a major element contributing to the revolts and responses following the removal of each leader.

Despite a growing GDP growth rate in both Egypt and Tunisia, citizens became more wary of the

gap between classes and were unhappy with their lifestyle. Despite this, under Ben Ali, Tunisian

society was more economically liberalized in comparison with Egypt. Tunisia is comprised of a

more diverse industrial sector, higher levels of education, and stronger labor movements.

In the instance that elections take place, the competition and pluralism will be constrained

to specific parameters; external support and reinforcement of “internal hegemony” promote the

preservation of Arab autocracies. These factors allow us to examine the event of the Arab

Spring. Both Egypt and Tunisia have a resilient civil society. Because of their culturally rich

past, social movements and civil society, especially religious, have been significant in the Arab

Spring. This can allow us to visit some reasons that Tunisia has had a more successful

progression towards transition. The UGTT has played a major role throughout the transition

process. Although the UGTT’s elite members serving as agents for the regime initially sided

with Ben Ali, upon realizing that the revolts were supported countrywide, the group made a

strategic move to support the Tunisian citizens. Thereafter the UGTT served as a prominent

figure in ensuring a smooth transition process. In addition, Tunisia’s economy is much more

developed and diverse than that of Egypt, providing Tunisian citizens a larger presence within

the transition dialogue.

Seymour Lipset’s The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited focuses particularly on

essential levels of legitimacy a new democracy requires in order to be protected. He reaches the

conclusion that “because new democracies have low levels of legitimacy, there is a need for

considerable caution about the long term prospects for their stability.” A new democracy is

feebler, and will inherently have lower levels of legitimacy than a country whose democratic

system has been in place for years. Lipset ascertains that there are three measures a new

democracy must achieve: institutionalization, consolidation and legitimacy. Institutionalization

will come from developing legitimacy, an executive and electoral system, civil society, political

parties, rule of law and economic order. Throughout the process of regime change, Ennahda has

taken this important step in ensuring that Tunisian citizens are accepting of the new government,

and following more by-the-book policies to ensure legitimacy. This “supportive culture”

described by Lipset during the implementation of democracy was not found in Egypt. Through

this, democratization theory can provide insight into Tunisia’s more lucrative democratic

leadership.

“Democracy crafters in charge of the state apparatus must take into careful consideration

the particular mix of nations, cultures, and awakened political identities present in the territory.”

It is clear that Rachid Ghannoushi in Tunisia has seen this as an important issue in the ability of

democracy to survive. He was cited as stating that “in diverse societies the victors had to learn to

share power ‘or else face falling into conflict and chaos,’” and Ennahda has taken this to heart.

This is entirely opposite to the Muslim Brotherhood’s stance, in which they attempted to exploit

their power like the previous authoritarian regime. The support garnered by the Brotherhood

over more than half a century gave them the reassurance of trusting that they would not be

resisted.

Because of the Muslim Brotherhood’s actions while in power, Egypt seems to be stuck in

a “political grey zone,” which Thomas Carothers described in the article The End of the

Transition Paradigm as countries stuck in the middle, between a democracy and a dictatorial

regime, without strongly displaying the traits of either. Carothers describes two types of

“political syndromes” which he sees to be included in this grey zone. The first he designates as

“feckless pluralism,” in which there are “significant amounts of political freedom, regular

elections, and alternation of power between genuinely different political groupings.” However,

despite this seemingly democratic process, the democracy is not really completely consolidated

and found in all aspects of governance. This “feckless pluralism” described by Carothers could

be where Tunisia has fit within their transition, as Tunisia took more democratic steps in order to

achieve a “consolidated democracy.” The second fallout he describes is “dominant power

politics,” in which “one political grouping (movement, party, extended family or single leader)

dominates the system,” which largely seems to be the case of Egypt and the grasps at power

amongst the Muslim Brotherhood and the military.

Nonetheless, it can also be argued that it is not possible to use prerequisites to determine

the likelihood of a democratic transition to take place. Because human nature is not always

predictable, a theory looking at transition can also be considered a “theory of ‘abnormality,’ in

which the unexpected and the possible are as important as the usual and the probable,” according

to Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter. However, even with this consideration, they

do seem to agree on some ideas of what generally is needed before a democracy, one of those

factors being political liberalization. This follows the lines of Lipset’s notion of

institutionalization being necessary for democratic transition. Another factor discussed by

O’Donnell and Schmitter that is more likely to prevent a prospective transition towards

democracy is violence. Throughout the past few years, Egypt has been hindered by various

skirmishes between groups with distinctive ideologies, which are stalling the process of

transition. In addition to these few aspects that are common in transitions towards democracy,

which is not to say that they are always present, human mentality plays a huge role. Through

this, it can be argued that the way in which certain nations see their situation greatly affects the

outcome. Actions can vary greatly depending on whether the nation is worried about a coup

taking place, the way in which they form pacts, or the perceived role of civil society or the

military. After a revolution, it can be difficult to get actors to play by the same set of rules, and

this can generate a great degree of insecurity throughout a transition. In Tunisia it has been seen

how different groups can communicate and come to a more rational settlement.

Moderation Theory

Throughout the Middle East, various attempts at democratizing through Islamist parties

have failed. The Arab region has been home to a multitude of religious social movements, with

the most expansive being the Muslim Brotherhood. Branches of the Muslim Brotherhood range

throughout the Arab world and seek to gain political prominence. At various points in time we

have seen other countries implement Islamic parties within their governments. In the wake of

revolution in Iran, the country became the first in this experiment of political Islamization. In

subsequent years, we saw Algeria attempt to democratize through FIS, an elected Islamist party,

as well as the election of Hamas in Palestine. Additionally, Islamists have gained momentum

within several monarchies including Morocco and Jordon, yet these parliamentary elections, as in

Egypt and Tunisia do not provide real power. Nonetheless, their positions illustrate the influence

of Islamists across the region. Scholarly debate over Islam’s compatibility with a liberal

democratic system endured over decades due to the inherent contradictions that exist between

Islam, or any religion and liberal democracies. Secular governments have become prominent

within democratic systems throughout the rest of the world. The majority of Middle

Eastern states are endowed with rather homogeneous Muslim populations within which a rise of

Islamists to power always seemed to threaten democratic endeavors should authoritarianism

cease. In order to determine the role that Islamists take in a democratic system, moderation

theory has attempted to evaluate this process. Through moderation theory, scholars have

indicated how Islamists may internalize a democratic narrative in order to enter the political

field.

Using moderation theory I will look into the notion that “political openings can encourage

Islamist opposition leaders to moderate their tactics.” In order for democracy and Islamism to

coexist, there must be a certain measure of “twin toleration.” This idea came along with

moderation in that “the first toleration is that of religious citizens toward the

state…democratically elected officials the freedom to legislate and govern without having to

confront denials of their authority based on religious claims… The second toleration is that of the

state toward religious citizens…requires that laws and officials must permit religious

citizens…to freely express their views and values within civil society, and to freely take part in

politics.” Both of these aspects of including Islamists within the political sphere imply the need

for a space in which members of religious groups and secular groups comply with one another.

They must formulate mutually beneficial discussions that can lead to the most profitable outcome

for all sides.

After the Arab Spring, this contentious issue was again brought to the forefront of

political apprehensions, as many feared the position Islamists would take in government. Would

the Islamists become an impediment to democratic transition in these countries? With such strict

guidelines based off of Sharia, the entrance of Islamists into the political realm was feared for

years. It was for this reason that Islamists were among the most repressed under the dictatorships

of Ben Ali and Mubarak. Decades of repression against Islamists in Tunisia and

Egypt due to a fear of their strength and political justifications did not hinder these movements.

Their presence after the removal of these governments was just as strong as the leaders had

suspected, leading them to victory in both Tunisia and Egypt. However, the outcome of both

Ennahda and the Muslim Brotherhood differed drastically. It is assumed that once being able to

integrate into politics, radical “party leaders increasingly become concerned with state

repression. As a result, the greater a party’s electoral organizational capacity, the more timid its

policies are,” and within this, it is possible to note the difference between Ennahda’s political

presence and that of the Brotherhood. Ennahda seems to not only have succeeded in a more

democratic atmosphere over the past four years despite some bumps in the road, but also they

have continued their presence within a second round of parliamentary elections. The Tunisian

Islamist group founded by Rachid Ghannoushi won the largest number of seats in the first

parliamentary elections that took place in 2011 and subsequently had a considerable and

dominant position in politics. Although the two prime ministers in place from Ennahda were

transferred out of power with a technocratic government in 2014, its political stance has not

changed. In Egypt on the other hand, the Muslim Brotherhood, which had also gained a majority

of seats in parliament, reinforced even more so by the number of Salafists who were elected, lost

their chance at democratic representation. Because of the overall win of Islamists in Egypt, no

possible state repression could be taken out against them. The inconsistencies that lead both

prevailing Islamist parties on distinct paths must be examined.

In Tunisia and Egypt we have seen the effects of government repression on Islamists,

both hardline and reformist. Despite the pressure and atrocities of the previous leaders over

Islamists for the past few decades, Ennahda and the Muslim Brotherhood leadership have

maintained more open ideologies. However, there seems to be a fine line between exclusion,

causing radicalization of Islamists, and inclusion, causing their moderation. It is clear from the

Algerian scenario, in which the Islamist party, the Islamic Salvation Front was given an opening

to political opportunity and participated in democratic elections in 1991, that the FIS was initially

open to pluralism and adopting policies necessary for its inclusion within the state. Yet when the

military announced that they would not abide by this electoral victory of Islamists and essentially

took power once again through a coup, this moderation of Islamists reversed. Through the next

decade, Islamists radicalized and terror existed throughout what is now known as Algeria's black

decade. This period demonstrated two opposing sides within one Islamist movement. They

formed a militant wing, the Army of Islamic Salvation (AIS). The AIS along with the Armed

Islamic Group (GIA) subsequently terrorized the country until elections in 1999, when the new

president, Bouteflika vowed to rid the country of terrorists.

Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda, FIS did not have a long-standing history

with the state. Its conception occurred only two years prior to the elections in which they won a

majority of seats. In 1989, it took only a period of seven months for FIS to be legalized by the

government and therefore take part in the election process. Perhaps due to their background of

being newly established, they did not have as strong of an ideology to fall back on as the Muslim

Brotherhood and Ennahda. It took Algeria ten years to quell the violence of the Islamists, who

were subsequently banned from forming political parties and taking a part in politics.

Within moderation theory, it is important to distinguish between two forms of

moderation, and how they were affected throughout the Egyptian and Tunisian transitions.

Through their incorporation into government, Islamist parties would be expected to exhibit both

political moderation as well as religious moderation. Under the authoritarian governments of

both states, political moderation did not exist, while religious moderation did. Both Ben Ali and

Mubarak did not promote religion to a large degree, and were often at odds with those who did.

With the implementation of Islamists to the newly executed political sphere, many expected

political moderation to occur with an increase in the severity of religious ideals imposed on

society.

In discussing political moderation, I refer to adhering to democratic procedures and

standards. Güneş Murat Tezcür refers to this behavioral moderation. This facet of moderation

“concerns the adaptation of electoral, conciliatory, and nonconfrontational strategies that seek

compromise and peaceful settlement of disputes at the expense of nonelectoral, provocative, and

confrontational strategies that are not necessarily violent but may entail contentious action.”

Throughout this thesis, it will be demonstrated how this feature of moderation took root in

Tunisia, yet was lacking within Egypt. Following the lines of moderation theory, Ennahda’s

inclusion into the transition is what gave them the ability to retain their political standing while

the Brotherhood’s complete conquest of the newly implemented political structure caused their

failure.

In the branch of moderation in which religion is discussed, which Tezcür refers to as

ideological moderation, there will be a focus on the restraint or lack thereof in enforcing Sharia.

This is an important factor to distinguish, because despite many of the political ideologies of the

Islamist movements, the fulfillment of Sharia is a common goal. While both religious parties did

not force religious ideals on Tunisian and Egyptian citizens, as had been a common concern over

Islamists in government, this does not indicate the elimination of this goal from their political

stances. As seen in Egypt, all it took was the mismanagement of political power for its citizens

to plead SCAF to remove Morsi from office. It is therefore likely that had the Brotherhood

practiced a more moderate political stance yet attempted to enforce stricter ideals based on

Sharia, their removal would have still occurred. In the end, religious moderation was not enough

for the Brotherhood to succeed within their moment in politics. Moderation in both political

action and religious principles were necessary. Ennahda has practiced both political and

religious moderation during their tenure in politics. The environment of inclusion within the

Tunisian transition that was produced by politically neutral social movements made moderation

compulsory. There is no doubt that Ennahda has succeeded throughout the past four years due to

their ability to moderate politically and religiously. With the arrangement of political order in

Tunisia, moderation was not only an option for Ennahda, it was the only approach feasible while

ruling with two additional parties. According to Samuel Huntington, a “participation-moderation

tradeoff" would occur between reformers and moderates within scenarios such as the transitions

in Egypt and Tunisia. This is key in the electoral processes of both nations as Tunisia witnessed

the environment of both reformers and moderates taking part in the democratic development. In

Egypt, the group that would need to be reformed did not merge with moderates, eventually

eradicating the necessity for this “tradeoff” to occur within their political development.

Political opportunities in Tunisia and Egypt provided a new space for new political

party’s inclusion into the political structure of a country. The inclusion into a newly developed

democratic makeup should provide that there exists a space for competing ideologies to

counteract one another and ultimately make more insightful decisions. Inclusion comes within

the political realm by incorporating diverse political parties in a democratic state. It is civil

society that has the greatest impact on influencing the resulting environment. In the case of

Tunisia it was the strength of civil society in organizing the parameters around which political

contestation would take place, and forming the atmosphere in which political parties would

govern. Because of this push by civil society to arrange political parties in a power sharing

structure, Ennahda’s moderation took root. Ultimately, “moderation takes place not because

Islamists volunteer for it, but because strong checks and balances -- domestic and foreign --

impose it.” Through the case of Egypt and Tunisia during transition, this notion continues to

expand and prove accurate.

3- Military and the Regime:

Historical Links vs. Revolutionary Attitudes

Current rhetoric on the Arab Spring has studied in great depth the military involvement or

lack thereof as a major attributing factor to the success of the citizens who pleaded for the

removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak. There is a clear distinction between the countries and leaders

that had the backing of their military, including Syria, Libya and Bahrain with both Tunisia and

Egypt. The Tunisian army’s refusal to abide by Ben Ali’s demands ultimately supported the

people and gave the dictator no force to rely on. Egypt’s military similarly did not follow

Mubarak’s orders to attack the protesters and instead defended them against police brutality.

This is but one facet of the military and their support of the people and the revolutions. Their

proceeding actions also proved to be critical in the step towards democracy. It is first necessary

to examine the historical ties between the military and incumbent regimes to gain a better grasp

of their behavior both during the removal process and the subsequent positions taken. It was the

function of civil society in each state that greatly impacted the following years of transition in

both Egypt and Tunisia. Whereas in Tunisia, the strong UGTT was able to take charge in

developing a new political structure, “challenging the SCAF [in Egypt] require[d] sustained unity

of purpose and determination among civilian leaders and political parties and movements, and a

favorable external environment,” which did not exist.

Military on the Backburner

As a relatively minor country, Tunisia’s military never played a strong political or

protective role. With minimal international threat towards the country, there was never a strong

need for its development into a greater force. Therefore, for the most part, the Tunisian military

remained a separated constituent with insignificant government integration. Under Bourguiba’s

years in office, the military’s assignments only functioned to preserve internal stability and

intervene within national boundaries against Tunisians who protested the regime. As discussed

in the previous chapter, there was a common misconception among many political scientists over

the years that ascertained that the ability of Arab autocrats to maintain power and keep

authoritarianism alive after decades was due to the power of its military as a way for presidents

to keep the people at bay. Since the revolutions, we witnessed that the government did not have

as much support from their security apparatus’ as formerly suspected.

President Habib Bourguiba began the Tunisian policy of maintaining an undersized army.

He had a strong conviction against the military playing a role in politics, fearful of a coup,

similar to those occurring across the region. This encouraged Tunisia’s maintenance of a

relatively professional military, not sustaining the regime unlike many militaries of the region.

Although there was no need for the military to engage in international encounters, they did play a

role in mollifying internal conflicts. In both 1978 and 1984, Bourguiba utilized his armed forces

in order to suppress internal revolts caused by social issues, and in both instances, these reactions

did not turn out successfully, ultimately leading to many deaths. Thus, the use of the military as

an internal security apparatus was not advocated. Hence, “distrust began to grow between

certain members of the military and the leadership of the Interior Ministry, and military leaders

started to voice concerns… [of] poor decision-making on the part of the country’s political

leaders.”45 The poor results from involving the military in these internal conflicts only abated its

involvement in further clashes. The push of the government towards the army’s role in subduing

these conflicts along with a cut in military expenditures resulted in a growing fracture between

the military and the government. The threat of Libya on its borders and Islamists externally and

internally left the military in a debilitated state, as they were not perceived to be suited towards

handling any conflict.

Ben Ali’s Police State

As Ben Ali came to power, he continued to marginalize the military, instead placing even

greater focus on the function of police. Although Ben Ali did have a military and security

background, he was similarly fearful of its potential power. Before removing authority from

Bourguiba, Ben Ali was the head of the Interior Ministry, which provided him the advantage he

needed to support a police regime.47 He formed the National Security Council upon his

ascendance to power as a means to assess the army and its policies. He immediately made it

clear that any threat against his regime would result in a harsh penalty. Ben Ali constantly sent

the military on missions intended to distract them from his own endeavors. Additionally, he

continued to ignore the needs for military expenditure that began under Bourguiba, including

updating and maintaining equipment. This great distrust for the military in his attempt to

eliminate the potential threat of a coup eventually backfired when he needed their support in

2011.

Despite Ben Ali’s investment in the internal security apparatus of Tunisia over his years

in office, when the time finally came for his protection, the police were unable to provide enough

support for his presidency. The police strength was not as robust as it needed to be to keep the

protestors off the streets, and when General Rachid Ammar, the head of the Tunisian army

publicly declared his support for the Tunisian citizens and their plight against the dictator, there

was nothing the police force could accomplish to benefit Ben Ali.

With Ben Ali’s background in the military and as interior minister in Tunisia, he could

have gotten support from both for the start. Yet his decision to continue with Bourguiba’s small

military ultimately cost him in a way he did not expect. As interior minister of Tunisia during

Bourguiba’s time as president, he was strongly tied with the security and intelligence sectors in

Tunisia, and decided to continue promoting this division. The police ultimately bid his will when

they were needed and became the only force that would threaten Tunisian citizens. Brutal attacks

and torture were commonplace with Ben Ali’s police force, and Tunisia was thought of as one of

the worst police states in the world. Although the statistics regarding the number in the police

force was grossly exaggerated by almost 100,000 during this period, the police was still feared.

When the military refused to follow the orders of Ben Ali and instead protected the

Tunisian citizens from these brutal attacks during their peaceful protests, Ben Ali had no hope.

Unfortunately for Ben Ali, his years of support for the police force and diminishing of the

military had a different consequence than what he anticipated. Ultimately, his attempts to

prevent a coup against him by sidelining the military and providing them with menial

peacekeeping tasks and little fiscal support lead to his defeat. The military saw no reason to keep

Ben Ali in power, and saw that they would be more likely profit from a democratic system.

Throughout the progression of weeks following Ben Ali’s departure, the people continued

to protest to ensure that their goals be attained. While Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, his cronies

“believed that the revolution was nothing more than a popular uprising that had ousted the

president but had not displaced the political system.” After ignoring the hopes of Tunisians,

Mohamed Ghannoushi stepped in as Prime Minister in the coming days, following the existing

constitutional provision. The people, however, saw this as a continuation of the old regime and

therefore would not accept it. They continued to protest his removal in order to achieve a

completely new system free of Ben Ali’s associates and any members of the

Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD). Through this period, the police continued attacking the

protestors in an attempt to stop them and protect the incumbents of Ben Ali’s party, as this would

have been the most beneficial outcome for the corrupt police division. Since the removal of Ben

Ali and his cronies succeeded, there is a larger effort to diminish the role of the police, purging

them of their previously elevated status. In contrast with the police force, the support from the

army during the revolution and refusal to take part in actions against the protestors along with

their continued exclusion of any major role in the revolution helped Tunisia successfully move

towards democracy on the conditions of the people.

Taking The Army out of Politics

Within the past four years, there have been several interim governments and moments

allowing Tunisian citizens to take part in the voting process, providing them more rights and a

stronger awareness of the political process. Through taking charge of their own revolution, one

that they had launched, along with minimal intrusion from the army, the democratic process has

thus far been successful. By not immediately stepping in and insisting that they monitor the

transition process, the military created a vacuum in which it was necessary for the people to

determine on their own fate. By becoming the decision makers for the proceeding elections and

organizing a change in the government structure, Tunisians had far more authority. From this

point, Tunisians came to the voting booths for the first time on October 23, 2011, in what was

considered a free election of the National Constituent Assembly (NCA). It was at this time that

Ennahda began to exercise their rights to participate in the political sphere along with all other

political parties. Through the elections, the strength of the Islamists was envisaged for the first

time by gaining a majority of the seats in the NCA. The task of creating the first constitution of

Tunisia was placed in the hands of the NCA, along with electing the first president, Moncef

Marzouki, for this interim period.

However, despite taking these steps towards consolidating democracy in Tunisia, various

acts of political violence occurred. The assassinations against political rivals including Chokri

Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi caused various rifts in the interim government, with transfers in

power supervening in order to calm growing reservations amongst the people. Although acts of

violence took place in the past few years, creating problems for the interim transitional

government, the military did not step in and attempt to solve the problem for the people as the

Egyptian military did, and instead civil society managed to incorporate suitable solutions for

concerns brought forth over the years. In doing so, the entire political process since Ben Ali’s

removal has been entrusted to the Tunisian population. When issues within the elected interim

government became so great that a new resolution was needed, its organized civil society did not

hand over power to the army and expect a solution from this institutional power. Instead, the

people decided to create a technocratic, politically neutral government in January 2014. This

transfer in power was meant to quash the growing polarity that existed within the Islamist and

secular powers.

Rather than allow the political deadlock to continue, a roadmap was created for this

change in leadership that the military did not participate in. Concessions were made by each

party in order to come to a final decision, but ultimately the wishes of the Tunisians were

respected in order to resume a smooth democratic transition, with the military presence existing

only to maintain order and peace throughout areas in which violence was prevalent. In chapter 5,

this importance of civil society and its stance in the post-revolutionary period will be discussed

further.

Egyptian Regime Military History: Internal Attachments and International Conflict

The Egyptian military, in contrast with the Tunisian case, has had a long interspersed

history with the government. Since the Egyptian Coup in 1952 in which the Free Officers

Movement brought Nasser to power, its military has played a prominent part in all aspects of

Egyptian society. Unlike the Tunisian military, Egypt’s armed forces have been involved in

numerous external conflicts, most notably with Israel. Due to international rivalries experienced

over the past half century, there was a much greater need to bolster the military. Mandatory

conscription occurs in Egypt just as in Tunisia, but the quality of education for its members is

much more advanced. Overall there has been a clear, prominent disposition of the government

towards the military in Egypt. Along with its stronger role as a legitimate source of protection

for the state, the military had historically long ties with the government. Each Egyptian president

up until the revolution came through a military background. Lastly, the Egyptian military also

constitutes a major economic force in Egypt, controlling companies in various industries across

the country. It is speculated that Egypt’s military controls up to 40% of the GDP through these

enterprises. Each of these three factors must be explored in greater depth in order to gain an

enhanced understanding of the armed forces commitment to the revolution and their subsequent

engagement.

The history of the military is tied into two main factors: their relationship with the

government on one hand, and as the state security apparatus on the other. In 1952, Naguib came

to power through a military coup, during which the king was overthrown and banished, leading

to the declaration of Egypt as a Republic and bringing an end to the monarchy. Due to his strong

military position and support from the people who desired a regime change after the loss of the

Arab-Israeli war in 1948 for which King Farouk was condemned and the weakness of the

Egyptian royal regime was exhibited, Naguib became the first president of Egypt. Naguib

promised he would restore political parties and hold elections. However, he also proposed an end

to the revolution and that the military council be disbanded, believing the military should not run

a country. Gamal Abdel Nasser, who also had a major role as a leader of the military revolution,

supported the voice of the people who cried, “long live the revolution,” and vowed to make sure

that their demands would be met. President Naguib recognized the need to change his stance on

various issues, which began to make him unpopular. So he conceded to the desires of the people

and continued the revolution, but he also decided to suspend elections due to his unpopularity.

Despite the fact that Naguib acquiesced to his citizens, he was not prepared to act as a puppet. He

wanted more power, which eventually caused him to become ostracized. Through a military

coup, he ultimately was forced to resign in favor of Nasser ascending to the presidency.

Nasser’s stance largely differed from Naguib’s because he believed military power was

needed in Egypt in order to keep out British influence and suppress unwanted political resistance

groups from forming. His promotion of Arab nationalism was so strong, that the term

“Nasserism,” was created, referring to the considerable contribution he made to the identities of

Arabs in his foreign policies because of his strong nationalist ideals.65 He sought to augment the

military both in terms of fighting capacity and as part of his government. In 1955, Israel attacked

Egyptian posts in the Gaza strip. Egypt was denied arms by the West for this war and was

unprepared for this nature of Israel’s preemptive attack. This strike on Egypt demonstrated the

apparent fact that the Israeli army had a distinct military edge, with an army that was superior in

every way to any other in the Middle East. Since there was an apparent advantage for Israel in

being allied with the West, Egypt needed a military advantage as well.

Thus, they turned to the Soviets as their next apparent option. Nationalizing the Suez Canal in

1956 was seen as Nasser’s great military feat. However, ten years later the 1967 Six-Day War

became his greatest defeat and caused him to lose popularity.

After Nasser’s death, his Vice President Anwar Sadat was appointed as the new president

in 1970. Initially, Sadat followed up with some of Nasser’s policies in order to maintain the

popular public opinion of him. Though unlike Nasser’s regime, Sadat changed the bureaucratic

order of the government so that it would consist of a minimal amount of military and be more

inclusive of diverse civilian cabinet members from different social classes. His implementation

of a parliament diminished the spotlight of the military instead moving towards a more civilian

government. With a diverse cabinet more representative of the civilian population, Sadat was

more open to new policies than Nasser with his small, close group of legislative confidants.

Despite the fact that he opened his cabinet, Sadat still maintained the authoritarian nature of the

regime only containing members of the National Democratic Party. For Sadat, economic

improvement was also imperative. Under Sadat’s government, the policy of Infitah was engaged,

displaying his willingness to work with the Western world in return for support. Infitah

specifically refers to the opening up to the West and to private investment generally, announced

by Sadat in the wake of the October War. During the October or Yom Kippur War in 1973,

Egypt and Syria successfully attacked Israel with tough and devastating strikes that was

condemned by the West. Nonetheless, his focus towards economic development over the next

fifteen years exemplifies the slow move of the government away from the military that had been

so imperative to Nasser’s advance to power and his government. In 1978, in the Camp David

Accords, a peace treaty was signed with Israel, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from a

significant amount of Arab land. While the major threat to Egypt ceased, its military continued

to maintain itself as an important army against any international threat. It was necessary that it

retain its power in the event that peace be broken or other conflicts ensue.

When Mubarak came to power in 1981, he continued on the path of improving the

Egyptian military and modernizing its systems, placing the greatest importance on their outward

ability to be strong in case of any international attacks. However, he kept the military

exclusively within this mode, not giving them much power in the government. A

disproportionate amount of aid given to Egypt went straight to its army, developing its strength,

and giving the military elite great benefits. The supplementation of the military aided in

maintaining a one-party state and sustained Islamists at a distance. However, the slow

disintegration of the historical involvement of the army both in international conflict and within

the government had lasting impacts on the revolution of 2011 and the subsequent three years of

transition.

The Egyptian Military Economy

Because of the large military expenditures, this institution became the most well

maintained, and therefore considerably more advanced than the remainder of the state. It was

under Mubarak, and through his efforts to liberalize the economy that the military began to

involve themselves in additional aspects of Egyptian society. In Egypt, the large amount of effort

and focus placed on the military has allowed it to create its own economy within the state,

constituting an estimated 10 to 40% of Egypt’s entire economy. The military has established

corporations in transport, energy, computer technology, and many other important sectors that

would be important to have developed by private companies. A massive amount of the foreign

aid that comes to Egypt is placed directly into military expenditures. By placing such a large

emphasis on the maintenance of authoritarianism through this security apparatus, certain classes

continued to flourish while others remain in poverty. The military, which has been supplied with

huge amounts of support internally and internationally from aid, has only used this support to

spread across multiple sectors. The strong buildup of institutions such as the military in order to

deter opposition has impaired the economy.

Military Revolution

The 2011 popular revolution that took place in Egypt was an uprising of people across the

entire spectrum of Egyptian people, from the youth to the elderly, university students and those

with little education, Christians and Muslims. All classes were involved. Like Tunisia’s

Ben Ali, Mubarak asked the military to step in and support the regime but the military refused.

Despite the support that the armed forces received from the regime and the prominence they had

in Egypt, they were not as devoted to Mubarak, as he had consistently kept them out of the

government, unlike the years under Nasser and Sadat. The military forces therefore saw no

reason to bow to the demands of Mubarak. In fact, they had more to gain with Mubarak’s

removal. It was instead the police again who attacked the protestors while the military attempted

to block these attacks and protect the Egyptians and their revolution. On February 11, 2011, it

was announced that Mubarak had stepped down and that his power would be transferred to the

military. Field Marshall Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF),

promised that elections would be held within the next six months and they would do what they

could to protect the revolution of the people. However, this was only the beginning of the

military involvement in the long transition process.

On March 20, 2011, the SCAF instituted a newly approved constitution in which Article

56 gave them complete governing power over all aspects of Egyptian government and its

governing procedures. Over the next year until elections finally came about, there was a constant

fear that the military would not give up its power and bring the country to elections. Despite the

fact that the military showed reserved stance during the revolutionary process by refusing to

attack the Egyptian citizens who protested in the street, over the course of time they became

more involved. After the ousting of Mubarak, protests continued around the strong role that the

military took as the figurehead for transition. Movements against the SCAF included efforts to

stop military trials against civilians, and ending their control outright.76 Reactions towards these

protests were not as docile as those that had attempted to eject Mubarak only months prior. The

military finally fully controlled the government and did not want to let this out of their hands

with ease. On October 9, 2011, the military completely squashed protests by Egyptians Christian

Copts, against the destruction of a church in Upper Egypt. Despite finally having access to the

government, and protesting alongside the Muslims during Mubarak's ouster, the Copts felt that

they were becoming slowly pushed to the side once again. Following this, and additional

military actions towards women protestors, Egyptians became completely fed up. The military

went from attempting to side with Egyptians in order to remove Mubarak to completely against

them. The protesters slogan "Irhal" demanded the complete removal of the military. Ultimately

elections were announced for May and June 2012, and the end of military rule in Egypt was in

sight. However, in the first round of elections in May when the final contenders included Ahmed

Shafiq, a member of the old regime and a military man and Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim

Brotherhood, the people saw only one way out of the SCAF's

control.

Although Morsi was elected, after a year of failed policies and an outward appearance of

only promoting the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic ideals within its political process, Egypt

was again unhappy with the results. This led to a second large scale demonstration beginning on

June 30th, 2013, in which only three days later the military again took the control of the

government out of the incumbent’s hands, promoting a new road-map for the country. Despite

the installation of non-military into government positions during this second era of transition,

showing that the military did not wish to keep their grasp on complete government power, the

people still felt the control was ultimately in the hands of SCAF.

On June 8, 2014, Sisi was inaugurated as the new president of Egypt, coming only a few

months after resigning as the chief of the armed forces, and almost one year after deposing the

previously elected leader of Egypt. While many people see hope through this new election and

find comfort in Sisi's leadership, Egypt has been left more polarized than ever and reverted back

to the military leadership that existed since the country’s independence. This scenario falls along

similar lines of what Algeria experienced twenty years prior. The Algerians who initially

supported Abdelaziz Bouteflika, an affiliate of the military, like Sisi, found comfort in his vicious

stance on Islamists and terrorists in Algeria after ten years of bloody civil war. Yet after fifteen

years he is still in power and the people are unsure that he will relinquish control. Despite

attempts at democracy and opening up the system, Bouteflika claims the necessity to maintain

his leadership position in order to protect the country and Algerian citizens from further terrorist

activities. In the coming years, we will begin to see how Sisi's leadership role will affect

Egypt, and if it follows in the footsteps of Algeria as it seemingly has in the past few years.

Conclusions

Although the military stayed out of the initial revolutionary process in both Tunisia and

Egypt, protecting their fellow countrymen from the brutalities of the police forces that followed

the orders of the incumbent government, the resulting transitional approaches were quite varied.

In Tunisia the new government must find a way to remove the corruption of the police force and

make them a more professional association. The continuation of police attacks after Ben Ali was

removed from office showed their perseverance and commitment to the old regime, by

attempting to keep the RDC in power. Through the preservation of the RCD, the police force

would have secured their dominance, maintaining their methods of attacking and harassing

Tunisian citizens. Removing the strength of the police as an internal intelligence system for the

government is already a focal point for the interim government, in an effort to construct a more

democratic country with stronger freedoms for its people. In contrast to the police forces, the

military has remained a solely peacekeeping force for the revolutionary and transitional route

with no intent to change their position. Without this imposed military action, Tunisian citizens

have been able to focus on issues within the government that are of great concern to the security

of the state. The promotion of economic success and elimination of authoritarian measures that

were in place is an integral matter in the development of Tunisia’s democracy. This has

ultimately become more possible because this transition was placed in the hands of civil society.

The drastically different procedures launched by the military in Egypt, initially displaying

itself as an entity that would side with the people during the transition, completely altered the

course of democracy. When they first took charge of the country and demanded to be in

complete control over every governing aspect, apprehensiveness amongst Egyptians began.

When elections finally did take place, Egyptian's believed they successfully achieved democracy.

Yet once again with the interference of the Egyptian military, this hope was brought to an end

and the military continued to play a major part in the governing policies of Egypt. With two

elections in one year’s time, this process has hardly been seen as democratic, and the future of

Egypt is uncertain. The question remains, with the military back at the helm of Egypt, will

democracy continue to be a goal or will the security apparatus once again sequester total

authority without any plans of abdication? The military's background of historically intrinsic

government relations in Egypt may suggest that power is their ultimate goal rather than solely

being the protectors of the revolution.

Ultimately, it was the failings of the Muslim Brotherhood that brought the military back

into power and prevented the country’s democratic process from thriving. It is clear that the

involvement of the military did hinder attempts at democracy in Egypt. On the other hand,

without the military’s intervention after Mubarak left his post, it is difficult to imagine another

scenario in which negotiations could occur that would have allowed another alliance to form and

take charge as in Tunisia. The fault does not necessarily fall on the military for seizing power,

but the intrinsic fact that Egypt's civil society lacks any other significant social group that has the

ability to take charge of this process. It was the Egyptians that asked for military intervention on

more than one occasion within the transition, as there was no civil group with the strength to

force Morsi out of power and then monitor a new deal for elections. Additional detail on the

importance of civil society and the Islamist movements in these Egypt and Tunisia will be

examined in Chapters 5 and 6.

4- Economic Dismay:

Revolutionary Motivation vs. Transitional Hindrance

Transition theory has often incorporated elements of development as a key-transitioning

factor. As stated in Chapter 2, much research has attempted to grasp how the economy of a

country affects its transition to democracy. Therefore it will be important to look into the

economies of both Tunisia and Egypt to examine how any differences could have established a

different sphere of change for each country. It is clear that from the outbreak of the revolutions

in Tunisia and Egypt, the protesters were discouraged by their dismal living conditions and

prospects for growth. Due to the lack of economic improvement brought about by their

presidents over the past decades, conditions in both countries were inadequate. The economic

demands of the revolution have clearly not been met, yet Tunisia still seems to be on the

appropriate path to democracy. Just as dictators in the Middle East used military power in order

to coerce their people from protests, they attempted to create an economy that would keep their

people bonded to the regime. Instead of creating an economic environment that would promote

and sustain its people, the goal was the sustenance of the autocrat who would make the people

reliant on his regime. There was a clear intention in both of these states to control and maintain

people's allegiance. Although because Tunisia and Egypt are not countries that rely heavily on

rents, a factor that has kept many other authoritarian leaders in the Middle East in power,

Tunisian and Egyptian governments could not easily appease the people’s demands as witnessed

in many of the oil rich Arab states. Despite these vain objectives, we can see in both cases how

their pursuits were crushed. This chapter will look at the pre and post-revolutionary economic

climate to examine any major discrepancies in Tunisia and Egypt that could account so greatly

for one country to become more democratic than the other. It also will study the variables which

are attributable to the poor economic performance of Tunisia and Egypt that caused massive

uprisings and how any differences could explain the outcomes.

Liberalized Economic Reforms

Ben Ali and Mubarak did attempt economic reforms throughout their periods of

governance, with plans to liberalize their country’s economies in the past few decades. The

reforms were installed with backing from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World

Bank. Through agreements between both countries and these financial institutions, they were put

on the track of following the Washington Consensus. This set of policies set up by these

international institutions, including both the IMF and World Bank, the World Trade Organization

(WTO) and some first world countries, intended to bring about economic growth in these two

economically desolate countries. This set of ten important economic changes to be made

included: “fiscal discipline…public expenditure priorities - moving them away from subsidies

and administration towards previously neglected fields with high economic returns, tax reform…

financial liberalization… exchange rates… trade liberalization… increasing foreign direct

investment (FDI)… privatization…deregulation - abolition of regulations that impede the entry

of new firms or restrict competition …secure intellectual property rights (IPR)… [and a] reduced

role for the state.” Both leaders did follow many of these steps towards improving the economic

conditions of their states. In Ben Ali’s attempts at economic reform, he tried to minimize the

public sector, remove subsidies and trade barriers in order to pay off massive debts. His initial

promise to Tunisians was that he would democratize and liberalize Tunisia, leaving many hopeful

that there would be an extensive change in governance and economic outlooks.

Furthermore, the failings of Bourguiba’s economic policy before the political coup in which Ben

Ali brought himself to power, gave Ben Ali support when he decided to adopt the new economic

principles set forth by these international organization that he had early refused to participate

with. Although Ben Ali’s Tunisia was hailed as becoming successful through these changes in

economic policy, the reality was inferior. While not as successful as the gross domestic product

(GDP) per capita growth rate of 3% per year had indicated outwardly, its economy was still

among the strongest in the region for a non-oil producing country. The perceived stability that

Ben Ali had brought to Tunisia was all brought to shreds, highlighted by the citizens’ demand for

change in the government and economic security.

The poor economic development through Ben Ali’s liberalization plans shaped different

regions in various ways. Within the coastal areas, industrialization became more developed,

causing great urban development. Within the interior region of the country, people did not

witness as much growth and development. The unbalanced investment into the country’s

economic expansion caused a major rift between Tunisians. This regional disparity was a cause

of major concern, and many riots against the government and its economic programs took place

within these underdeveloped cities. The imbalances present within the Tunisian workforce and

its great class divide was a bolstering factor for the discontent voiced against Ben Ali.85 In

addition to access to jobs, this disparity occurred in terms of educational opportunity and access

to a multitude of resources that improved the lives of middle class Tunisians living in urban

centers. Within Tunisia’s revolution, protests began within the rural sectors and later extended

into the more urban coastal cities. It was with the participation of the more urban elite that the

revolution could ultimately become successful. This exhibit of support across all sectors became

extremely significant for Tunisia’s transition.

As discussed in Chapter 3, Sadat began Egypt’s economic liberalization reforms in the

1970s with his process of Infitah. This attempt at liberalization was unproductive. Although he

opened up Egypt to foreign investments, all the investments were geared towards specific sectors

and did not improve economic outlooks for Egypt. The debt increased as it had under Bourguiba

and rising prices hurt the middle class. Bouguiba and Sadat both reduced subsidies, limiting the

worth of their citizens and leading to similar riots in both countries that required military

intervention to control. Consequently, Mubarak, just as Ben Ali, came at a time of dire economic

troubles that they expected to fix. Both initially sought to liberalize the state economically and

politically. Under Sadat’s Infitah, “no growth of industrialization took place, but consumerism

and importation was encouraged,” ultimately a paradox that was not possible. After the failure of

his subsidy cuts, Sadat put them back in place and Mubarak did not change this, although it was a

designated step within the Washington Consensus plan for economic development. The public

sector that Nasser had so boldly built up was still the principal segment of Egypt’s economy and

a minimal private sector existed. With an ever-expanding debt and the need to subdue this

burden, Mubarak agreed to this IMF plan to lower the country’s debt on the terms that the IMF

and World Bank agreed to cancel half. As in Tunisia, the macroeconomic reforms that took place

following the execution of the international finance institutions’ guidelines were praised. Egypt

was seen to be improving its economic position. The structural changes which were taken by

Mubarak while outwardly effective, did little for Egyptians.

While the macroeconomic environment was seen to be improving in both Tunisia and

Egypt, the structural reforms were not enough to help the people, especially those in the lower

classes of society. Many of the policies put in place by both leaders were in hopes to eliminate

the increasing state debt. Therefore, the economic changes were meant to benefit the

government and their economic struggle for the state rather than the people. Ultimately, in both

states, this brought about a great class divide. The elite continued to benefit from these economic

changes, but the growing rift is what ultimately brought the people to the streets.

Public Sector Consequences

The economic dead ends came from an economy largely based on external income in the

form of tourism, FDI, aid, and remittances. Unfortunately, with an economy receiving the

majority of its income and developments from international parties, the majority of people would

not come to see a substantial benefit from this. Despite the major changes that Ben Ali

undertook during his period in office and the improving macroeconomic outlook, Tunisia still has

a small private sector. While the market opened up over the past twenty five years, bringing in

substantial FDI, from the inside it was increasingly difficult for entrepreneurs and small and

medium enterprises (SMEs) to thrive. The sector for private businesses did increase over the

past decade due to reforms taken on by Ben Ali, yet much of this exists in an informal manner or

more marginalized sectors that do not produce high-level wages. The public sector of Tunisia

controls “energy and utilities… banking and mining… and communications…”and private sector

companies are mostly involved in “agriculture, manufacturing, construction... trade… business

services, transport and tourism,” all which can generally only provide relatively low income jobs

through small companies. Additionally, besides the more trivial jobs generally supplied by the

private sector, Tunisian law has put forth various regulations that made it difficult for employees

who had previously worked for the private sector to enter the public sector. The private sector is

often more insecure for employers than if they work for a public sector job. On top of this, lower

wages have created an undesirable working environment for job seekers. If possible, they will

choose to wait for a secure and higher wage public sector job. This disparity between the private

and public sector has been caused by the regulations put forth by the Tunisian government,

making it rather difficult to open a business and therefore putting people in the position to

organize informal enterprises in which they can avoid these bureaucratic steps and taxes.

However, a business formed outside the formal sector and abiding by these procedures cannot

give high wages and the quality of work is usually more menial. Additionally, with the type of

foreign investment that Ben Ali brought to Tunisia, many European countries have started

outsourcing, “set[ting] up assembly shops that provide low-skilled jobs rather than building a

growing economic base that could expand the country’s technological base and workers’

professional skills.” Unfortunately for the majority of Tunisians these steps towards liberalizing

the economy have not improved the quality of life.

While part of the IMF plan in both Egypt and Tunisia was meant to diminish the public

sector, this approach did not succeed. Although measures were taken to privatize previously

public companies, those involved were the country’s elite. In countries where the public sector

has been so ingrained, any effort to create a larger private sector will not be straightforward. In

order to encourage entrepreneurs in these states, there needs to be an incentive system. The lack

of motivation towards the development of the private sector is due to many factors in the

governments’ bureaucratic systems. This bureaucratic system has operated to provide

advantages for the elite class, while the residual classes are left to struggle through the public

sector workforce. With foreign aid and FDI making up a large percentage of the economies of

these states, there is little growth in the workforce, especially outside the welfare system of the

state. Due to excessive public intervention, over regulation and low human capital, the business

environment has deteriorated. Entrepreneurs in Egypt spend close to 35% of their time solving

problems related to government bureaucracies. Due to the difficulty of entering the business

world caused by government regulations, approximately 45% of the total Egyptian labor force is

in the informal urban sector. This is a similar problem with the private sector in Tunisia,

indicating a need for the separation of business and politics. The deteriorating public sector

unfortunately has not lead to an improved private sector, leaving both segments in decline.

Job Acquisition

The issues of the private and public sector highlight the soaring unemployment rates in

Tunisia. The unemployment exists largely within the educated population who do not wish to

participate in the private sector because they do not require the skills a university student would

have attained; yet public sector employment is equally demotivating. SME’s in Tunisia yield

approximately one-third of the total workforce, yet the smaller the company the more likely that

it has not been induced into the formal sector which creates poor conditions for workers. Yet the

smallest enterprises account for the majority. All across the MENA, the youth bulge has been

studied. Currently, the number of youth that are looking for employment far exceeds the number

of jobs that exist in Tunisia. This problem will only be exacerbated over the coming years,

which is why economic reform is critical. The SME’s within the informal system cannot be

sustained and cannot be expected to provide jobs for the large number of educated youth that are

being placed into the labor force every year. The improving educational system and higher

number of university students coming out of the schools every year is exaggerating the disparity

between employable workers and available jobs. The demographic for which jobs have been

created in Tunisia does not help those who are currently searching for jobs. In following through

on economic reforms over the past two decades, Ben Ali left a huge segment of society

abandoned. The rate of unemployment for Tunisian youth with a university education is 40%

while for those who did not achieve this level of education, the unemployment rate is 24%.

Although the education in Tunisia has been improving and has high graduate levels amongst

countries in the MENA, seventy two out of one hundred have not finished secondary school,

only thirteen of these have graduated from high school, six have some sort of vocational training,

and nine will have a college degree. As education levels in Tunisia improve and there is a

continued high level of youth entering the workforce each year, jobs must be created in more

sectors compatible with the training received by educated youth.

Egypt has an extremely poor quality of education, not only in terms of the teaching, but

also in acquiring an appropriate education in order to gain capabilities that will provide them

with more adept knowledge relevant within the job atmosphere. They have ranked almost dead

last in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) rating of the quality of the education system at 141

out of 144. In response to the shortcomings of employment, Mubarak increased the public sector

further. For some, this was seen as a blessing because of higher pay and more benefits, just as in

Tunisia. Currently in Egypt, 27% of those between the ages of eighteen and twentynine have not

completed elementary education. Within this, 17% had dropped out of school and 10% never

even enrolled. Educating the youth so that they have the skillset to enter the workforce is of

utmost importance, and is greatly lacking in Egypt. Unfortunately for Egyptians, over the past

decade, the government diminished the value of education. In 2005, the government devoted

4.8% of the GDP on education, and in three years, this was slashed to 3.8%. Even with an

improvement of education, if the overall climate for the private sector does not experience a

change, this cannot provide sufficient benefits and tackle unemployment rates, especially with

only .21% of the GDP being invested into research and development. In both states,

harmonization between education and the job sector is critically needed so that those who are

educated can work in an appropriate field.

Although similar disparities exist between the rates of education in both Tunisia and

Egypt, Tunisia does have a stronger education system than Egypt. The WEF rated Tunisia at

seventy-three out of one hundred and forty four for higher education and training while Egypt

ranks a low one hundred and eleven out of one hundred and forty four for the same variable.

Ranked around the middle of the pack, it is clear that Tunisia has invested more in the education

of its people as Egypt continues to struggle.

Additionally, it is considerably more difficult for women to hold a strong position in the

workforce. Gender roles are still significant, with many upholding the view that women belong

at home to tend to the children. On top of this, it is often difficult in Egypt for those who choose

to wear a hijab to enter the workforce, and they are often required to remove it in order to

maintain a position. Tunisia has come considerably further in terms of women’s rights under

Ben Ali, promoting a stronger female presence in the workforce than in Egypt.

Equally Unequal

Reforms that were put in place by Ben Ali did serve as beneficial to some Tunisians.

However, this only increased the gap between the classes and functioned to support his cronies

and the elite Tunisians leaving the rest of the population to face hardships with dismal living

conditions. According to reports, “estimates suggest that the Ben Ali family controlled

approximately a third of the Tunisian economy.” This assessment is approximately equal to the

military’s stake in the Egyptian economy. With one segment controlling such a sizeable amount

of the economy, the disparities that existed between those that were close to the regime and those

far from it are even more apparent. Inequality through these economic reforms was inevitable

after years of ignoring the majority of the population. The uprising in Tunisia began from the

rural cities of Tunisia after the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a vendor working in the

informal sector of the economy selling local produce from a cart. After refusing to pay a bribe to

the corrupt police and being humiliated by their harassment, his response ignited a fire amongst

those across the country who had similar experiences and were subjected to the dismal life Ben

Ali was unable to alleviate. The poverty levels and inequality experienced by many Tunisians

was what ultimately brought them to the streets. The economic reforms did not help their

lifestyle, and they became fed up with the hardships continually facing them. Tunisia’s Gini

Coefficient which measures the inequality in a country was 36.06 in 2010 before the uprisings,

making it the sixty-second most unequal country. While this number makes it seem as though the

inequality in Tunisia was not so severe, this is due in large part to the larger middle class. Even

with this large middle class, more impressive than other MENA countries, the poverty and wealth

gaps were felt largely due to increasing unemployment rates. Despite being initiated with the

rural poor in Tunisia, the revolution soon transferred to a more middle class conflict. With the

educated population and youth who would be searching for jobs coming to the forefront of the

Arab Spring, this conflict largely became an issue with different sectors of the population. A need

for financial and job security across every class division was at the forefront of Tunisian’s

objectives. Due to the unemployment rates and gap between supply and demand for jobs, there

exists a struggle to survive and maintain livable conditions for even the middle class.

While there have been strategies by governments put in place to help the poor live within

their means, these have not aided in providing a way for the poor to escape impoverished

lifestyle. The programs put in place by the government kept the poor people poor while making

the elite classes, often those with personal connections to the regime, even wealthier. The low

human development rates in Egypt were a severe trigger for the revolution. With the

everincreasing income gap that exists in Egypt, in 2008, only a few years before the revolution,

the GINI coefficient was 30.8, actually making it appear to be more equal than Tunisia.

Unfortunately, the low GINI coefficient is not as telling of a low income gap in Egypt, instead

pointing to the fact that everyone is more equally living at lower levels of poverty. In 2011, it

was reported that Tunisia was the 62nd most unequal country in the world and Egypt the 90th

most unequal. Tunisia and Egypt both apparently had higher rates of inequality in the year of

these revolutions. Growing inequality was a huge motivator behind the protesters desire to

remove Ben Ali and Mubarak. By outwardly looking at numbers provided by economists, this

was not always clear. It is clear by looking deeper into each country that many suffered due to

economic policies that favored only a few within each regime.

A Deceptive GDP

Continual improvement in the GDP and a constant rate of growth over the years left

people believing that Tunisia and Egypt were becoming economically prosperous and that

reforms in place were thriving. Egypt’s GDP was noted as improving over the past decade under

Mubarak. In 2004, it was 4.1%, increasing massively to 7.1% in 2007, and again to 7.2% in

2008, although a steep drop back down to 4.7% in 2009 was cause for concern despite seeming

to get back on track in 2010 with a GDP growth of 5.1%. Although the growth of the GDP in

Egypt was stable for the past decade, as we have seen, this did not signify any income growth for

many sectors of the working population.

The low GDPs of the Middle East, especially in non-oil countries, will improve with new

business ventures available to the vast majority rather than a select elite. It should be a goal for

the new governments to preserve the citizens who are educated and driven within the state rather

than forcing them to move to a country with greater prospects and possibilities. Just as the GINI

coefficient can be largely deceptive to someone looking only at numbers, a growing GDP

indicated to many that these two countries were on track.

Transition Economies

Three years since the onset of protests over the poor living standards and economic

opportunities in Tunisia and Egypt, not much has been achieved to improve the situation. In fact,

most transformations have not produced opportune results. In Egypt, the year of the revolution,

the improving GDP rate dropped the furthest in years to a measly 1.8%. Tunisia performed

somewhat better than Egypt with a GDP growth rate of 2.7%. It has been clear that the

revolutions in both countries drastically affected their economies, and that the people expect

great results from new democratically elected leaders. The most current GDP per capita of

Tunisia is 4,345 USD, and for Egypt 3,226 USD. This is up from 3,852 and 2,450 respectively

prior to the removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak. Although there has been an overall increase in

GDP per capita, neither interim government has implemented policies to allow for an economic

upturn overall since the Arab Spring. Due to the politically unstable regimes following the 2011

ousters, FDI decreased as well as tourism, two major sectors for both economies.

Unemployment rates have risen continuing to burden the citizens in Egypt and Tunisia. In both

states, reactions by the people were observed over the declining economies and little hope for

improvement. Tunisian citizens largely blamed failed economic policies and a declining

economy on Ennahda, a large motivation behind the transfer of power to a technocratic

government in early 2014 along with the deaths of political opposition leaders attributed to

Islamists. In Egypt, government failings also lead the people to demand that Morsi be removed

from his post, regardless of being the first lawfully elected leader in Egypt. Both nations forced

the incumbents out of office due to the declining confidence of the state and the direction taken

after 2011. Yet one important factor set these two countries apart. In Egypt, the Muslim

Brotherhood’s Morsi refused the peoples protests asking him to step down from power, claiming

his electoral legitimacy was most important above all. He did not leave his office without a

major struggle, which lead the Egyptian military into the revolution once again. In Tunisia,

Ennahda’s distinct approach not only brought the country to a smooth power transfer completely

in the hands of civil society, but also has allowed Ennahda to remain a major front-runner for

future elections.

Conclusions

Through examples of countries such as Turkey and Brazil that have followed plans

brought about by the IMF, it is possible to see how the intended reforms can improve a country’s

economy. Both of these states have succeeded dramatically over the past decade having

important global economies that are being watched around the world. This puts forth the issue

that it was not the set of reforms that were to take place, but how Ben Ali and Mubarak instituted

these policies to give themselves and their cronies an advantage. Although in examining the

economic reforms taken by both Ben Ali and Mubarak along with the reasons that these countries

came towards their uprisings contain similar facets, various differences exist. While Tunisia was

often hailed as being the most diverse economic country in the region prior to the revolution,

they were by no means a success story. The variation of the GDP between both countries

however, is not great enough to prove that one country would benefit democratically because of

this factor. In Guillermo O'Donnell's work on democratization, economic problems can also lead

to the collapse of democracy as seen in Brazil and Argentina during the 1960s. The revolution

and transition process in Tunisia and Egypt has thus far not lead to any economic improvement.

Should this continue, with new regimes failing to realize a policy that will benefit the citizens

and their quality of life, this may occur in Tunisia or Egypt. However, Tunisia's larger middle

class and more educated society does point more to its ability to transition towards a democracy.

This is the primary economic difference that exists between Tunisia and Egypt. With a strong

citizen base in Tunisia, more qualified choices can be made, and the middle class will have a

more substantial voice. The development of human capital in these states will lead to a more

educated labor force and superior environment for politics and business.

5- Civil Society:

Constraint vs. Control

Throughout the period in which Ben Ali controlled the repressive Tunisian regime, civil

society was inhibited and constant efforts were made in order to undermine any political

aspirations of the people. Political debate was therefore essentially nonexistent and the

formation of social movements was an arduous task. Under his dictatorship, elections took

place, yet participation was blatantly manipulated in order to ensure his continual leadership.

Despite discouraging the growth of civil society particularly in a political and religious manner,

and attempting to block any ideologies that promoted dissolution of the regime, Tunisia's civil

society in the wake of its revolution managed to successfully structure policies in order to move

the state towards a path of democracy. While there were setbacks along the way, social

movements did not cease to voice their opinions in an attempt to bring Tunisia towards its vision

for the future. How did Tunisia manage to achieve this inclusive environment during its

transition despite years of repressed civil society similar to other authoritarian states? The first

element epitomizing in what manner Tunisia's civil society was better positioned to take part in

the transition was through its economy. A more educated population in addition to a more

substantial middle class has attributed greatly to the strength of its civil society during this time.

This chapter will continue to examine other factors that played a role in developing the

atmosphere for Tunisia's civil society to enter into politics while Egypt’s civil society failed.

What is Civil Society and How Essential is its Role?

Definitions concerning the makeup of civil society can range greatly. A commonly noted

definition of civil society from the World Bank is: “the wide array of non-governmental and

notfor-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values

of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or

philanthropic considerations…[including] community groups, NGOs, labour unions, indigenous

groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and

foundations.” While political parties do not fall within the lines of civil society organizations,

they do have a relationship. In most cases, a civil society organization represents a group

autonomous from the states. This is not the case in Tunisia or Egypt. Additionally, because of

the lack of political participation in these undemocratic states, political parties were

underdeveloped. Often times, it was civil society organizations that attempted to form political

parties, as there was not enough desire for a party to develop outside of this circumference since

no political legitimacy would arise.

Within this, upon the opening of political regulations, we can see the development of the

Muslim Brotherhood, Ennahda as religious movements shifting into political parties. Despite

organizing political parties, Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda continued to exist in parallel as

civil society organizations. In general, due to the authoritarian makeup of the regimes in these

countries, civil society organizations were more often than not involved with the government.

Tight regulations and management over these organizations meant that leaders had a hand in all

aspects of society in order to constrict their abilities and ensure that these groups did not intend

to object to the regime. Generally, it was religious movements that managed to stave off any

integration with the regime due to extreme actions taken against these organizations in its place.

However, this allowed the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda to develop in a distinct way from

other civil society organizations. Overall, within these states, the line between political parties

and civil society organizations can become muddled and intersections exist.

Over the past decade in Egypt, despite political repression and low institutionalization,

social movements were gaining momentum and civil society became more prevalent. This came

about through several measures. The first aspect of this was due in part to the liberalization

policies of Mubarak. Many professional syndicates were restructured in the 1990s as a place for

workers to organize collectively. Secondly, the opening of the parliamentary elections in which

Muslim Brotherhood members were allowed to participate as independents greatly changed the

scope of civil society in Egypt. Despite running on an independent political platform, it was

never concealed that these contestants were part of the Brotherhood. This change in the electoral

policy, allowing Egyptians to witness the possibility of other parties coming to power greatly

shifted the ideology of civil society. Additionally, within the past decade, as economic

conditions began declining, forsaking many to a life of poverty in which they would struggle to

find jobs, revolts became intensified as Egyptians hoped to discredit Mubarak’s rule. Even

within the evolving compass of civil society, eventually, we observed civil society’s inability to

take over Egypt’s transition.

The importance of a prolific civil society has long been studied for its position in

transition, and the cases of Tunisia and Egypt continue to demonstrate its significance. A

developed civil society has a strong impact on political parties and political formation, and is

seen as an increasingly important agent for promoting good governance like

transparency, effectiveness, openness, responsiveness and accountability. Civil

society can further good governance, first, by policy analysis and advocacy;

second, by regulation and monitoring of state performance and the action and

behavior of public officials; third, by building social capital and enabling citizens

to identify and articulate their values, beliefs, civic norms and democratic

practices; fourth, by mobilizing particular constituencies, particularly the

vulnerable and marginalized sections of masses, to participate more fully in

politics and public affairs; and fifth, by development work to improve the

wellbeing of their own and other communities.

Throughout the years prior to the Arab Spring, it was evident to many scholars that Egypt lacked

an abundant civil society. While Tunisia had a developed civil society that followed secular

lines, the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious organizations control a significant portion of

civil society organizations within Egypt.

The impartiality of organizations within Tunisia such as the UGTT, which played a major

part in the overthrow of Ben Ali and the subsequent steps towards founding a new government,

gave them a broader and encompassing sphere of influence. In contrast with this, as the Muslim

Brotherhood seeped into essentially all major organizations, civil society overall did not benefit

and instead became severely hindered and one sided. While this is not to say that civil society

does not exist in Egypt, rather, through the multitude of civil society organizations that have

formed, their structure and ideologies remain weak. This is in part due to the suppression of civil

society by the government through legislative and forceful means, and in part due to the

overarching reach of the Muslim Brotherhood. Due to the linkages between civil society and

political parties especially within the environment of an authoritarian nation, this chapter will

discuss both segments. Civil society may have a hand in influencing political parties, but in

democratic states, political parties do not have a place in civil society.

While religious movements played a pronounced part in civil society both in Egypt and

Tunisia, it was their secular civil societies that were greatly lacking. Islamist movements were

able to seek support through lower bases of society by providing them with education,

healthcare, and provisions through the lowest classes that the government often omitted from

their new policies. Through this, Islamists expanded over the past decades in these nations while

secular civil societies did not gain enough support to grow. The secular civil society was often

sparse and incohesive in their ideologies. The foundations of Ennahda and the Muslim

Brotherhood on the other hand were much more organized and efficient. In Tunisia, Bourguiba

and Ben Ali both placed great importance on the secularization of society and put in place many

policies to ensure that society would not be as religious. This more centrist state policy in

Tunisia created a greater space for its secular civil society to grow and create greater equilibrium

between religious and secular civil organizations. This did not exist in Egypt.

Political Contestation Through Artificial Pluralism

Through the process of political contestation in both Egypt and Tunisia, it is possible to

witness further, the repression of Egyptian and Tunisian civil society. Due to the largely

controlled political process, overall knowledge in the field was not developed. Previous political

repression has greatly inhibited the understanding of the political process during the transition.

The control each leader had over the electoral process limited the influence of civil society by

ensuring that votes were not counted properly and dis-incentivizing citizens to participate. In

general, a relationship should exist between civil society and political parties in order to ensure

that the desires of civil society are met.

Ben Ali arranged presidential and legislative elections throughout his presidency that

were controlled by himself and his party. In 1987, Ben Ali made a move towards the legalization

of various political parties that granted him an initial appeal amongst many opposition groups.

He even made preliminary indications that the Ennahda party could be legalized. In 1989, Ben

Ali allowed members of Ennahda to run in parliamentary elections where they earned 14.1% of

the seats. As a result of this triumph, Ben Ali banned Ennahda. Through gearing his policies

towards political liberalization, accompanied by his observance of various religious practices that

Bourguiba had actively avoided, he originally fostered a persuasive personal image that appealed

to many Tunisians. In 1994, as Ben Ali first began the process of institutionalizing presidential

elections, there was hope that pluralism would indeed occur. Nonetheless, he insisted on a

separation of religion and state politics, which removed any genuine hope for Islamists. True

progress towards democratization was avoided, as the regime would eventually prevent

organized election procedures from taking place. The constant control and overriding of any

political party attempting to make gains under his government created a great constraint over this

aspect of civil society to vote for politicians in an honest election. Through the continual efforts

composed by the incumbent regime, it is clear that any attempt to pluralize the Tunisian political

system was totally government controlled and did not truly hope to allow for authentic political

pluralism for Tunisian citizens.

Under Sadat, Egypt’s single party system was removed. He allowed for the legalization

of few opposition parties, but severe laws were set in place with regards to these newly formed

parties that did not truly allow for a plural government, similar to the case of Tunisia. Strict

regulations for the formation of political parties, including a ban on religious parties, made it

near impossible to register and kept the Muslim Brotherhood out of politics. Even with the

opening of the political sphere to competing parties, Sadat and Mubarak continually ensured the

reign of the NDP through electoral manipulation, giving little to no power to civil society. The

weakness of the legalized political parties did not only come from the severe regulations put in

place, but by their inability to develop clear ideologies and capacity to garner support from civil

society. “In a country where only 25 percent of voters bother to cast their ballots,” it is obvious

that civil society had no strong commitment to elections and the politics of the NDP.

In the 2005 parliamentary elections, the Muslim Brotherhood acquired an astounding

20% of the seats, and four additional parties won a total of 5% of the seats. While this was not

the first time the Brotherhood ran in parliamentary elections, this was the first time the result was

so considerable. The ability of the Muslim Brotherhood to compete with such an impressive

success rate demonstrates the strength that this movement has in comparison with many other

social movements. They were able to amass supporters and convince them to vote in

parliamentary elections to a degree that no opposition party could. The visible superiority of this

religious group within Egypt’s civil society shows their dominance and tenacity within a closed

system. Because of this result, the Muslim Brotherhood’s success sent a powerful message to the

presidency. Subsequently, the era for even insignificant political openness was closed. The

results of the parliamentary elections posed a threat to the Mubarak regime, demonstrating the

Muslim Brotherhood’s support from the people and their ability to attract followers while at the

same time indicating to other parties and groups that there may be potential. While many of the

parties which came out unsuccessfully from the elections blamed this on the authoritarian

approaches of the current regime, the Muslim Brotherhood managed to defy this, showing that

there was a possibility to gain political momentum.

The Muslim Brotherhood however possessed a strategy existing since the 1920s, through

which it gathered support over decades despite constant repression and the issues of legality that

often afflicted them to a greater degree than other social movements. The consequences of the

unprecedented win by the Muslim Brotherhood brought about extreme anxiety for Mubarak and

as a result, the movement would once again be banned from taking part in elections and

illegalized. This reaction would not only remove the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood from

later elections and power seeking, but the severe actions taken out on many its members served

as a tacit warning to other political parties. The repression of the Mubarak regime was once

again restored after a fleeting moment of openness.

Regime Allies

Much of what we saw through the election process in Egypt and Tunisia follows the lines

of scholar Ellen Lust’s notion of “competitive clientelism” a practice largely existing in the

Middle East under authoritarian leaders who hoped to display a slightly plural society. Even with

a legislative branch in place integrating perceived powers, the parliament actually has no ability

to make changes within the government since the president maintains complete authority.

However, this ceremonial democratic process was used as an instrument for the elite to vie for

power, providing the regime with a way in which to maintain their power and ensure the regime’s

permanence. This competitive clientelism results in the appointment of elites to the states power

resources, in exchange for support and obedience from this certain subset of society. With the

distribution of this minimal power to chosen elites, selective assets were circulated that would

ensure the continued success within this subset in order to influence elite voters, swaying them

towards the ruling party.

As presented in the previous chapter on economic influences of regime change and how

varying factors of economic reform under Ben Ali and Mubarak affected the classes, we

observed the elite benefiting from their rule. Through various factors, including the economic

profits given to a select portion of Tunisian society, Ben Ali managed to encourage a relationship

that proved to be an asset for his regime as well. The mutually beneficial relationship in which

the class of elites would continue to have security ensured their welfare, in return giving Ben Ali

a sense of reassurance owing to his management of a group that would back him. Encouraging

this strong group of citizens’ dependence on his regime was a major display of force by the Ben

Ali government. In accomplishing this, the most educated and prominent members of society

had significant reason to endorse Ben Ali and his party rather than attempting to broaden their

own political sphere and encourage a more democratic process. However, by focusing on the

maintenance of this resilient commitment of the elite class, Ben Ali inadvertently fostered an

environment for lower classes to emerge and become more aware of the shortcomings they faced.

Egypt’s leaders had ties with a small group of business elite as well as with the military

throughout their years of rule. These two groups were among those which benefited from a

political relationship and had strong ties with the regime. While the military benefited greatly

economically from the closeness to the presidency, they were slowly losing their grasp at

political influence that they had under previous leadership. Due to this diminishing space for the

military within the government, we saw how they followed their own motives during the

revolution under the pretense of protecting the people. The business elite also saw great benefits

from Mubarak and his economic policies. The minority elite who enjoyed the biggest gains

during Mubarak’s tenure generated a profound divide within the nation, which brought the

distraught lower classes to the streets to demand a change in government. During the revolution

however, the elite adopted a different position than expected. Besides direct members of the

ruling party who supported Mubarak throughout the weeks of protest, a significant number of

internal elite demanded Mubarak’s removal as well. The joining of the elite in protests showed a

unanimous opinion that Egyptians no longer accepted Mubarak, despite attempting to use his

personal ties as a way to manage protests. The united front against Mubarak consisted of a

fusion of a broad spectrum of classes. At this point in time, the unity and level of civic

engagement disillusioned many as to the strength of Egyptian civil society. Shortly thereafter,

the distrust and polarization across all sects of Egyptian civilian life returned. It would be a

tough endeavor to reconcile a notion of revolutionary unity that existed for a brief eighteen days.

The unfortunate fallout for Egypt has meant four years of conflict and disagreement leading back

to a potentially equal system of authoritarianism that existed under Mubarak.

Labor Organizations

The most prominent Tunisian labor union, the UGTT, which after its founding in 1946

played a major role as a nationalist movement during Tunisia's move towards independence from

France, also was amongst the leading associations during the initial Tunisian revolts of 2010

which led to the ousting of Ben Ali and the following years of transition attempts. The

perseverance of this labor union to invoke transformations throughout the past four years has

ultimately proved to be unrivaled within other Arab countries in the region. Without the

involvement of the UGTT, it is likely that the transition would have been unsuccessful from the

start. With pressure from the UGTT, Tunisians were able to push out the ruling regime’s

continuing presence in politics after Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, and an arrangement was

structured with Ennahda in order to remove them from government in the early months of 2014.

Where did the influence of the UGTT come from when Ben Ali and Bourguiba so extensively

subjugated the majority of civil society organizations?

While the UGTT is an independent union, not officially a state institution under its rule, a

considerable attachment of the UGTT with Ben Ali still existed. Beginning under Bourguiba's

rule, in 1978, strict impositions were placed on the organization in order to diminish the part it

took in protests. The regime's surveillance was apparent to those within the UGTT and other

civil society associations as “ruling-party people would approach you directly and let you know

what they had heard about your conversations with friends and colleagues. Ben Ali was spying

on us.” Despite acting as an autonomous union under which the majority involvement was

through the public sector, the government, as with every aspect of civil society, did impart

influence over a portion of the union. This presence of government-affiliated cohorts within the

UGTT ultimately did not manifest in a show of support for Ben Ali. From the outset of protests

against Ben Ali in 2010, “the federation’s leadership... met at least five times during the mass

demonstrations and issued statements, the first of which demanded the immediate release of

political prisoners. When the regime began to kill protesters, the stance of the federation shifted.”

Divisions within the UGTT were overshadowed during the revolution when the UGTT

eventually wholly sided with the opposition. By gaining significant backing from this major

union, Tunisia was able to experience a transition process with a strong and organized force.

In the wake of the revolution, the UGTT formed the National Council for the Protection

of the Revolution, which would serve as a balancing medium to ensure the goals of the

revolution were upheld and the people had a space for national dialogue. Again in 2013, when

the smooth transition began to falter after the assassination of Chokri Belaid, the UGTT aligned

with three other movements to establish a newly accepted road map. This union included the

employers union (UTICA), the Tunisian Bar Association, and the Human Rights League

(LTDH). The compilation of these groups continued to ensure that Tunisians would formulate a

plan accepted by a broad spectrum of parties and individuals.

The convergence of workers from a broad spectrum of Tunisian society presented an

active space for organization and ideological discussion. The UGTT has "a branch in every

province as well as nineteen organized by activity, it penetrates society down to the grass roots.

Its economic clout, together with extensive mediating and negotiating experience acquired

through collective bargaining" proved valuable in the experience of the Tunisian revolution and

transition. While their members include approximately 5% of Tunisia's population, the extent of

their reach is only comparable with that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The crosssector

focus of the UGTT allowed it to be a pacifying force throughout the revolution without pursuing

solely self-serving interests as was witnessed in Egypt's military. The ability of the UGTT to

bring various groups to consensus demonstrates their unrivaled ability to influence the transition

towards democracy.

The Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF), unlike that of Tunisia's UGTT, was

officially state run and provided the government a way to manage labor parties and groups

through its own cronies. Used as a puppet of Mubarak and previous leaders of Egypt, the ETUF

assisted the government in suppressing attempted riots and block freedom of expression within

various labor classes. According to Hossam El-Hamalawy, an, Egyptian journalist who focuses

his work on labor affairs, “it [was] a federation of thugs, thieves and appointed government

bureaucrats who have helped to sabotage the labour movement and deny the Egyptian working

class any chance to mobilise for many decades.” Officially, the ETUF was intended as the only

source for labor activism in Egypt, however, over the past decade, the worsening economic

climate gave rise to an exacerbated motivation for other labor organizations to strike and protest

the regime. Upon the removal of Mubarak from office, many demanded that the ETUF be

dismantled due to a lack of trust in addition to aspiring to manage any professional associations

and labor organizations without constant supervision.

For decades, professional syndicates were also under the authority of the government and

closely monitored. However, in the early 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood developed an

increasing influence over a large number of the twenty-two existing syndicates in Egypt. As

Mubarak made attempts to introduce policies of economic liberalization, there was a vacillating

atmosphere for political openings. The Muslim Brotherhood’s presence at the head of five major

syndicates including those of doctors, engineers, pharmacists and lawyers was an impressive role

to take on under the authoritarian regime. The state’s exertion of power over syndicates came

about in various ways, first, by requiring candidates be a member of the National Union and also

with the ability of the president to abolish any syndicate at his will. The enforcement of many

restrictions on these syndicates created an environment lacking much cohesiveness or power.

Through this, the ultimate goal of President Mubarak was achieved.

While it was clear that civil society was suffering under the leadership of all previous

regimes, the Muslim Brotherhood managed to change the scene. Altering the dynamics of the

associations instead made them more religiously focused. However, even with the

implementation of Muslim Brotherhood members into many of these syndicates, they were all

equally disorganized and unable to come to cohesive agreements. The capacity of these groups

to aggregate and articulate their interests was immensely flawed. Although civil society did not

become more formidable through their role in these syndicates, there was clearly a shift in

ideologies given the power of the Islamists. From examining these professional associations, it is

possible to observe the outline of the state and the Muslim Brotherhood in civil society. Many

parts of civil society that had the means to move away from government control were often

ceded to the Muslim Brotherhood. Since Egypt’s ousting of Mubarak, it has become more

evident how this polarizing control over civil society has affected the framework for transition.

The Foundation of Political Upheavals

2008 marked the first major revolts under Ben Ali's leadership. The mobilization of the

lower class to protest unemployment, low wages, and rising costs was the largest since the bread

riots under Bourguiba in 1984. As with the prior riots against Tunisia's government, the UGTT

provided an organizational space for civil society to arrange procedures for confronting the

government. Marginalization of the working class occurred during various economic reforms,

which only diminished their chances for success. Blossoming from the rural city of

Gafsa, awareness over the revolts spread to other nearby areas and the riots turned more violent.

However, because of the relatively localized area in which the revolts took place, this limited

scope did not allow for a major change. Gafsa, a mining town on the border of Tunisia and

Algeria, had for years been a major source of employment. The collection of phosphate in this

area gradually declined since Ben Ali's economic restructuring plans, leading to the loss of many

jobs. Unemployment rates soared way above the national average of 14% up to 38% in the

mining city of Moularés. With the globally increasing food prices due to the world economic

crisis, food riots were witnessed across the Arab world. An increase in broad dissatisfaction

amongst citizens in various sectors led to incremental protests displaying animosity towards the

regimes in place. While the 2008 riots in these states did not lead to a revolution, the years

succeeding caused triggers for the population to come out in an explosive protest movement

greater than any previously witnessed. Extremely harsh responses from the police forces against

those who protested along with the many who were put on trial cut the riots short, yet ultimately

did not prevent Tunisians from once again making the decision to demand reform in 2011.

In 2004, the Kifaya movement was among the first to openly demand a change in

government, accusing Mubarak of planning to install his son Gamal Mubarak as his successor.

The group's moniker is simple, kifaya, an Arabic word translating to "enough," expressed their

clear-cut motivation behind its formation. The members who formed this group had enough of

Mubarak and his dictatorship. Due to the reemergence of a declining political atmosphere during

the 1990s due to Mubarak's fear of Islamists and political opposition gaining momentum,

oppression increased. The movement was a consolidation of various political groups who hoped

to serve the will of the people. Marking a momentous shift in the focus of most who solely

appealed to the regime to make changes from within, the Kifaya movement sought a greater feat.

The complete removal of Mubarak and his family from rule in Egypt showed the progressive

stance of the group and the developing dissatisfaction of Egyptians. Their demonstration against

Mubarak is celebrated as the first of its kind in Egypt. Through the emergence of Kifaya, a

transformation of Egyptian political ideologies began. Although it lost momentum and

ultimately disappeared from the scene in 2006, the new networks they created endured. In

forming an environment in which all Egyptians can simply understand and identify with Kifaya’s

hopes, this contributed to the success of future strikes against Mubarak.

Protests on April 6, 2008 mark another remarkable historical moment against the

Mubarak government. While the ETUF attempted to squash the protests, they were unsuccessful

in preventing small Egyptian labor movements from coming to the streets. Low wages along

with rising prices of basic goods for consumption, especially bread, meant Egyptians were facing

great hardships. Smaller protests in 2006 and 2007 grew over the anguish facing citizens all over

the country.129 With the precedent set by the Kifaya movement, people were gaining the strength

to petition the government and voice concerns over their living conditions. For many average

citizens, there was an everyday struggle to survive and deal with the worsening living conditions

provided by the government.

With the escalating workers revolts against the rising cost of living, the April 6th

Movement formed in order to organize popular protests that would reach a larger segment of

society and clearly illustrate the goals and demands of the demonstrations. A large portion of the

Egyptian population thrives off government subsidies; especially those that preserve bread prices

at a lower price. However, with the economic changes taking place under Mubarak, efforts were

often made to remove or decrease subsidies. Bread is a staple for many Egyptians who live in

poverty as we witnessed during the Arab Spring in which the people's chants demanded bread

along with freedom and social justice. For this reason, the workers revolts in 2008 demanded

increased wages in parallel with the price shifts. The group began its calls to mobilize over

social media, becoming the first to utilize this new form of addressing those who were equally

dissatisfied. The youth movement was a supporter of democracy and openly called for the

removal of Mubarak. By using social media and encouraging supporters especially within the

younger generations, the group was able to reach out to a new subset of disenchanted Egyptians.

Since its foundation in 2008 as a step to support workers, the April 6th Movement’s scope has

expanded. The movement undertook a large role in the revolution ousting Mubarak, as well as

joining with Tamarod in demanding the removal of Morsi with help from the military.

Once again in 2010, a new spark of protest and anger was bringing Egyptians to

outwardly display their discontent with Mubarak and his brutal regime. The momentum from the

"We are all Khaled Said" Facebook page, established to demonstrate the sickening methods taken

by the regime's policemen in order to preserve order, more than agitated Egyptians. After Khaled

Said was inhumanely murdered by members of the police force for allegedly possessing evidence

of police corruption, protests over the injustice he faced were an extension of internal sentiment.

Because Khaled Said was seen as an ordinary citizen, many were able to identify with him,

which lead to the high numbers following his cause. The massacre revived antigovernment

sentiment by substantiating their judgment of the Mubarak regime. Severely provoking

Egyptians, they demonstrated all over the country, and with the continual diffusion of this

Facebook page whose creator uploaded the disturbing photos of Said’s death and provided a

space for society to share thoughts and organize revolts. Throughout the year, the group

accumulated over 473,000 members and momentum did not end. The community that formed

around this basis was strong enough to maintain support throughout the year, continuing up to

the revolution. The amount of support gained by the Facebook page created in his honor showed

numbers far greater than that of the April 6th Movement in 2008 and ultimately was seen as an

icon for the Egyptian people.

Banding together to achieve a first common goal proved to be relatively straightforward

in Egypt, especially after witnessing the revolution that toppled Ben Ali in Tunisia. Yet once this

primary goal was achieved, the united front that was made possible because of social media

became lost. There was no agreement in regards to accomplishing an end goal. While Egyptians

still seemed to want the same outcome, the polarized civil society dividing religious and secular

groups, and pro-military and anti-military groups, returned to the foreground as it had in years

past. No longer did their united front exist. The strong Egyptian population became lost and the

military took its new position at the helm by assuming the role as Egypt’s decision maker, a

position that no civil society organization was strong enough to undertake. A country whose

people manage to come together for a total of eighteen days before disengaging with one another

is ultimately not strong enough to produce lasting and effective results. While people did

continue in attempts to remove the military, their efforts were not nearly as imperative as those of

the initial ouster until the beginning of 2012.

Social Movements through Media

The economic trigger that in the subsequent years spurred the larger scale revolts was due

in a large part to the increasing field of social media. During the period prior to the 2010 and

2011 uprisings, the spread of discontent was accelerated through social media through the

dissemination of images and news regarding Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia and Khaled Said in

Egypt. In both cases, these depictions exposed the corruption of the government and a need for

change. Through the passage of these images and ideas with the use of social media, displays of

dissatisfaction with the government spread like wildfire. These nations quickly began to protest,

and consequently brought about the phase of the Arab Spring through the use of media sources,

including blogs, Facebook, news outlets, videos, and text messages. Additionally, with the

release of WikiLeaks, people were given a chance to see in even greater detail the corruption of

the regime that took place behind closed doors. Although the regimes attempted to block these

sources that allowed for the extension of ideas, the people were not stopped.

Tunisia's media under Ben Ali was one of the most restricted in the region. Operating

through his police state, traditional media sources of news were constantly monitored, as was

internet access and social media. Under his authority, “censorship and monitoring of the internet

was pervasive by the cyberpolice, known as Ammar 404.” “ ‘Ammar’ is actually the name given

to a branch of the ministry of interior that spied on citizens through social networks.” Access to

restricted articles that discussed Ben Ali and his regime negatively was completely blocked.

Even books on the subject of politics were banned from Ben Ali’s Tunisia. The fear of exposure

was a constant threat to Ben Ali’s regime. Should people understand politics, they would be

more likely to find reason for his removal from office. Through the dispersal of information over

the weeks of the revolution, his reasoning was apparent. Therefore his commitment to

monitoring use of the internet was constant and unrestrained. Beyond politically affiliated

media, religious books and sites were also concealed. This overwhelming control over Tunisia’s

broadcasting platforms was a significant measure for Ben Ali to control civil society in a severe

manner.

Media sources have long been repressed in Egypt as well. With tight government

controls determining what could be published and the practice of prosecuting anyone who wrote

defamatory words against the regime, freedom of expression was not experienced often. A large

percentage of the media in Egypt is state owned and articles were therefore presented according

to what the government chose. For a short period under Mubarak’s first years, the reins on media

were loosened slightly and the Muslim Brotherhood was even allowed to publish its own

newspaper, Al-Dawa. Yet like with many other aspects of liberalization during this period, it was

forced to end once again. Severe crackdowns, especially on Islamists took place during the

1990s and media continued to be closely monitored. The news received by Egyptians was very

one-sided and did not usually present accurate representations of events. The media was

commonly used to promote the government’s own image while vilifying the portrayal of other

groups.

With the boom of social media across various platforms, ideologies were more easily

conveyed between young Egyptians who employ this method of communication. Atrocities that

were once covered up by the regime were being spread across the web for anyone to witness.

This lead to a growing disgruntlement with Mubarak across lines that exceeded solely economic

problems faced within daily life. Through this heightened glimpse of issues that Egyptians were

confronted with, social media has provided a space for groups to form and display their

dissatisfaction, and through this approach a wider range of the population could be reached.

Ideas were constantly being spread across Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, allowing for

Egyptians to band together in a way that was previously unfeasible. Convening to spread

awareness and unify Egyptians towards the achievement of a singular goal, their aim was to

remove Mubarak.

Due to the use of social media within both of these revolutions, many have labeled the

revolts as leaderless. With this constant promulgating of ideas, there was no singular leader who

told the people to go to the streets and protest. The accumulation of resentment towards both

regimes spurred this reaction, ultimately exhibiting a strong response and encouraging others to

join. Once facing a change, Tunisia managed to incorporate a leader through the UGTT to stand

at the helm of the transition. Egypt’s leaderless revolution remained this way due to its lack of

major social organizations. Although the upsurge in social media use seems to have created a

new environment for the formation of civil society groups to protest the government, it is clear

that within the years prior to each revolution, citizens were growing increasingly discontent and

already developing riots and protests against the regime. These major turning points that

increased social movement contestation against the government began to flourish over these

years. Major instances including the self-immolation of Bouazizi and the murder of Khaled Said

created enough of an outcry to cause citizens in both Egypt and Tunisia to gather in mass protests

that had previously been unequalled. This new motivation existed across class, religious, and

social backgrounds therefore allowing for greater mobilization across these two countries unlike

the previous revolts in Gafsa or bread riots in Egypt, which were consolidated within a singular

segment of society.

Transformation and a Space for Growing Civil Engagement

Within the stage of transformation, Tunisia has made significant steps in the promotion of

civil society since removing the authoritarian presence. Since the eviction of Ben Ali, state

media was brought to a more prominent platform in which it is freer to publish articles focused

on politics. Books on politics are no longer banned, and the religious sphere is most certainly

expanding. Journalists have more freedom to a certain limit, and while libel is still grounds for

scrutiny, fewer cases have been presented since Ben Ali’s ouster. This is an indication of the

broad manner in which Ben Ali charged reporters with this offense, punishing them with fines

and imprisonment. Control over the internet has been released and “Ammar” is no longer a

security force in charge of it. New articles within Tunisia’s constitution have implemented laws

to provide freer reign for civil society organizations to form and exercise their rights

independently without constant government scrutiny. “Article 26 states that two or more

associations may establish an associations network; Article 29 that any network acquires legal

personality independent from the personality of its member associations; and Article 30 that the

network may accept branches of foreign associations in its membership.” Activism within civil

society is more supported and accepted within the transitional government, and efforts continue

to be made to support Tunisia’s growing civic environment. Civil society has been central to

Tunisia’s revolution and transition process and its proliferation will continue to aid in

encouraging democratic consolidation.

Current controversy over the existence of civil society organizations, media and personal

freedoms continues to persist in Egypt. In Tunisia on the other hand, continued development of

freedoms within society is an important element of its transition. The uncontested elections

bringing President Sisi to power in Egypt during the past year in order to follow the military’s

roadmap to democracy has not democratized the country to any extent. With only one additional

candidate, Hamdeen Sabahi, there was no real contest for the 2014 elections. It was evident prior

to this election that Sisi would become Egypt’s new president, ultimately deserting Egypt’s

attempts at a civilian government. Discrepancies over privileges that are generally seen to

accompany a democratic process have been at the forefront of major policy failures in Egypt.

Arrests of Al-Jazeera journalists, the subjection and illegality of the Muslim Brotherhood once

again, and the desire of the government to place continual control over citizens’ freedom of

speech exposes a similar environment to that of Egypt under Mubarak. With the clear role that

social media took during the revolution in uniting Egyptians, the government in Egypt is now

seeking to ban Facebook and Twitter. In a move that is stated to protect the state, citing “security

concerns and warn[ing] that the websites could be used as tools in intelligence plots against the

state,” this is a divisive move blocking personal freedom. Due to the continual efforts to

suppress Egyptian civil society, many indicators suggest that Egypt is not on the way to

democracy, rather taking a step backwards.141

In April 2014, the April 6th Movement was banned in Egypt after accusations of

espionage and defamation of the state. Although the group initially banded with the Tamarod

movement calling on the army remove Morsi from the presidency, they quickly altered their

standpoint and came out as an anti-military force. In viewing the group as a threat to the

government and stability within the new regime, the state has managed to uphold its rigorous

demeanor by removing social organizations' ability to organize freely. On the contrary, the

Tamarod movement, which organized the initial protests against Morsi and appealed to the

military in order to have them successfully take Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood members out of

the government, continually supported the army and Sisi during the post-Morsi stage. Due to

their unwavering support of this transition period, the Tamarod movement was not forced from

existence and instead had higher hopes for its own entrance into government.

The circumstances in which Sisi was brought to power mimic that of Bouteflika in

Algeria in 1999. After fifteen years, we have seen Bouteflika change constitutional laws, control

media and stifle personal freedoms while remaining in power through events that were supposed

to democratize Algeria. While Sisi is only in his first term as president, this scenario is a

plausible one considering the blatant efforts he has made to silence civil society and continue on

the path of Mubarak. In addition, events since Mubarak’s downfall have only increased divisions

within Egypt. Since the 2011 revolution, the polarity of Egyptian society has become greatly

exaggerated and ever changing. From the Egyptian society as a whole against the regime, to the

Egyptian society against SCAF, to Islamists and secularists, pro-Morsi and antiMorsi, once again

pro-military and anti-military, pro-roadmap and anti-roadmap, pro-Sisi and anti-Sisi, there has

been a never ending debate and requisite for Egyptians to choose a side. Evident from Freedom

House’s civil liberties indicator revealed in the introduction, Egypt still has a long way to go in

order to achieve its democratic goal.

Conclusions

The past decade demonstrated a slow unraveling of Tunisian and Egyptian authoritarian

rule. With social movements slowly daring to oppose the regimes that censored their every

move, a new sense of determination was launched. Both regimes saw opposition groups

displaying anti-regime sentiment for years before the revolution and imparting this upon other

factions of civil society. New organizations were forged to guide the disgruntled citizens who

sought a better life. Recognizing the UGTT's manifestation as a major secular civil society actor

throughout Tunisia's history illuminates a major distinction between Tunisia and Egypt. While

facets of Tunisian society as a whole guided Tunisia’s transformation, Egypt's attempt to bring

about a democracy was controlled by only one side of its pluralized society, either Islamists or

the military. The past ten years of rule under Mubarak saw a growing sense of disengagement

from the regime as represented by an increase in organizations that openly opposed his regime.

Nonetheless, their development was incomparable to that of Tunisia's labor organizations which

developed over decades. Singular prominent actors were present during Egypt's revolution, yet

without any substantial reinforcement by an organization that was notorious to Egyptians, these

actors would not succeed alone.

Despite the existence of political parties in Egypt apart from the NDP, very few were

cohesive and overall enjoyed little support over the decades since their legalization. Their lack

of desire to pursue any major efforts to mobilize supporters due to a fear of prosecution from the

ruling party left Egypt with the strength of only two groups in the post-revolution arena. These

include the military, which has benefited from two hundred years of integration within the thread

of almost every aspect of Egyptian society and government, and the Muslim Brotherhood with

almost a century of producing a social outlet for Egyptians to shelter themselves from the

hardships afflicted by the regime. With very big shoes to fill, and little idea of who could

successfully transform Egypt, these were the only two viable options amongst a society with

insufficient political knowledge. The scope and size of change needed to bring change to 85

million Egyptians, a large population with poor to no education, is insurmountable. Achieving

this feat requires a competence that neither the SCAF nor the Muslim Brotherhood was willing to

engage in.

While the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt both discouraged a prominent civil society

under their rule, Tunisia still managed to successfully deviate from the perceived norm of

underdeveloped civil society organizations existing under authoritarian rules. Similar scenarios

of social unrest occurred within the Tunisian experience, which saw continued protests after

former RCD member Mohamed Ghannoushi was brought to power and when Shafiq was put in

power in Egypt. Yet in Shafiq’s place, instead of the demanded technocratic government, SCAF

took his place. The pleas of Egyptians were not met, while those of Tunisians were. Egyptians

and Tunisians aspired to reach the same ultimate objective, yet it was demonstrated through these

events that Tunisia's civil society was more capable of ensuring a profitable outcome.

Again, when Egyptians demanded that Morsi be removed from his elected office, SCAF

took charge. While many Egyptians, excluding the Tamarod movement who organized initial

protests against Morsi, claimed that it was not their intention to have the army intervene in the

removal of Morsi during 2013 protests, it is unlikely that there was any other approach to

convince Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to step down. Prior to military involvement in this

second grand uprising, a stalemate between protesters and Morsi did not indicate any signs of

dispersal. The movement of Egyptians pleading his departure was not going to alter the political

deadlock that protests brought about, and only a substantial entity could force the president’s

hand.

The tremendous disparity between social movements in the Tunisian and Egyptian

transitions proved to be paramount in examining how democracy could be achieved. Through a

review of various social movements, Egypt actually displayed a larger dissatisfaction with

Mubarak over the years preceding his removal than Tunisia under Ben Ali. While the discontent

was apparent, the lack of unification and organization under a secular civil society organization

ultimately was not sufficient for Egypt to control its fate in the transition period. The evolution

of Egypt over the past one hundred years has centered largely on the military and the Muslim

Brotherhood. While new policies have changed the environment under which social movements

can function, it is those two structures that have been a focal point of all previous leaders. Where

Tunisia’s civil society managed to bridge the gap between organizations of varying interests,

Egyptian civil society failed.

6- Islamists:

Polarization vs. Coordination

Intrinsic differences in civil society brought about distinctive responses to the ousters of

Ben Ali and Mubarak. Although authoritarian suppression burdened both Tunisian and Egyptian

citizens similarly, no secular and apolitical institution in Egypt could compare to the dominant

UGTT. Taking into account religious movements, the Tunisian Islamist party Ennahda and the

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are two of the most influential and notorious social movements

within these countries. Both are comprised of members with diverse backgrounds, and have

succeeded in incorporating themselves into every class level. Where government policies often

failed to support lower class citizens, both of these religious movements succeeded in providing

social services to aid them. In delivering these services, both movements garnered respect and

an active backing from a vast array of people.

After decades of repression against Islamist groups in Egypt and Tunisia, the Arab Spring

marked a momentous occasion in which the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda were both

legalized and granted political representation. Through this burgeoning prospect of political

participation by two previously illegal religious movements, observers of the Arab Spring

became anxious over the possibility of an Islamic democracy, questioning the compatibility of

Islam with a moderate form of government. In response to this debate, moderation-inclusion

theory would suggest that because these two groups experienced illegality and brutality for

decades, this chance to enter politics would cause the Brotherhood and Ennahda to moderate

their policies in order to conserve their new positions. Albeit the resemblances of these two

major religious movements, the aftermath of the Islamists entrance into the political arena are

quite distinct. Ultimately, Ennahda has secured their space in Tunisian politics while the

Brotherhood has once again been made illegal and labeled as terrorists by the new regime. This

chapter seeks to outline the variances in these two relatively moderate Islamist parties, which

brought them to contrasting results.

Ennahda’s Political Roots

Ennahda, founded by Rachid Ghannoushi, began as the Islamic Association in 1979 in

order to transform Tunisia’s religious forces into a sociopolitical movement. In the years prior to

the establishment of the Islamic Association, Ghannoushi began to invigorate the religious

atmosphere of Tunisia’s curtailed adherence to religion under Bourguiba. This resolve led him to

create a movement that would focus on the immense issues Tunisians faced living under a

deteriorating political and economic arena. The foundation of the Islamic Association

emphasized political freedoms and encouraged social activism. Obstacles that Ghannoushi

hoped to tackle included worker’s rights, job opportunities, wages, political participation, and the

conflict experienced between Westernization and Muslim cultural identity. The range of issues

addressed by Ghannoushi brought this Islamic movement support from the lower and middle

classes as well as the UGTT.

As Bourguiba briefly sought to liberalize the political scene in Tunisia, the Islamic

Association made the decision to form a political party, thus changing its name to the MTI.

However, Bourguiba did not legalize the party and instead Islamists faced a series of extensive

backlashes. Ghannoushi was imprisoned and the MTI persisted under a new leadership of Ali

Lareydh. During this period, the MTI experienced various contentions amongst members who

hoped extreme measures would be taken against the government, dividing them from the

organization. As other more radical Islamist groups took action against Bourguiba’s regime, the

MTI was viewed as their equal, generating a perceived correlation between the MTI and the

Islamic Jihad along with other more extremist groups in Tunisia. This led to the government’s

continual resistance against the MTI.

Again, when Ben Ali took power, discussions of liberalization were made and Tunisians

foresaw a promising environment for political adjustment, the MTI changed its name a final time

so as to remove the blatant Islamic character of the party. However, the move to a more liberal

political environment did not proceed, and instead Ennahda endured twenty years as an illegal

movement in Tunisia. During this period, the majority of its members took refuge outside the

state, and Ghannoushi spent his exile in London. These moments spent abroad undoubtedly left

him with a more developed worldview, influencing decisions he would make during the recent

political transition.

Ennahda’s ideologies are considerably democratic in nature. Because Ghannoushi sought

to create an Islamist movement that dealt with pertinent and current issues facing Tunisia, he

hoped to eliminate the “passive (‘museum’) Islam,” he deemed many other Islamist organizations

focused on. In his early years, antiquated Islamic teachings had led him away from religion, and

instead Ghannoushi was a strong proponent of Arab Nationalism. Over years of travel, study,

and exploration Ghannoushi sensed that a more suitable interpretation of Islam could be

presented. In founding an “Islam that was alive,” Ghannoushi believed that he would be able to

influence a larger segment of Muslims. By focusing on contemporary issues, Ennahda’s

dialogue and ideological background always included a democratic attitude. Accordingly,

Ghannoushi indicated that democracy provides a space to implement Islamic tenants in which

Sharia can set boundaries, but does not answer all problems of modern life. Freedom, rule of

law, and human rights are essential components to civilization and continue to be an important

focus for Ennahda. However, within this, Ghannoushi still believes that a reIslamization of

society must occur, but these values must be reinterpreted and reapplied to the present.

Ghannoushi’s opinion--that the Quran and other religious records did not need to be taken

literally as they existed within a historic context--was very progressive. Throughout the

evolution of Ennahda into a political party, Ghannoushi’s ideologies have been studied for their

moderate stances. This regard of Ennahda as a moderate religious movement automatically

caused people to believe that they would be better suited for political participation. Nonetheless,

the party still conveys Islamic ideals, and given the opportunity would perhaps implement

Sharia.

Social Activism in the Muslim Brotherhood

Whereas Ennahda was founded as an Islamic revival movement that sought to embody

what was generally considered by Islamists as two separate worlds that could not coincide, Islam

and democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded half a century prior, did not

develop substantial political policies until decades after its foundation. Under the guidance of

Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood was the epitome of the “museum Islam” that

Ghannoushi sought to avoid. While much of Ennahda’s organizational structure and social

activism is similar to the Muslim Brotherhood, as a more contemporary association, Ennahda’s

ideology adopted a distinctly more modern perspective. The founding of the Muslim

Brotherhood occurred under Egypt’s monarchy and existed for over two decades before Egypt

experienced a new system of authoritarian governance. The decades between the foundation of

these movements and the environment under which they were established would inherently

produce a dichotomy in their ideologies.

The foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood under Hassan al-Banna was meant to bring

about religious reform to the increasingly secularized Egyptian society. Displeased with the

government and social transformations, which focused largely on the monarchy and British

presence in Egypt, al-Banna made it his mission to encourage the stimulation of Islam in Egypt

and Islamicize Egyptian culture. The Muslim Brotherhood began from a social base, with a

bottom up policy to reach its goals. In these early years, the Brotherhood also instituted a

military wing that fought in Palestinian revolts. Political discourse however was not

incorporated with his goal of proselytizing at the time. Since its inception, the Muslim

Brotherhood’s priorities remained in the social sphere.

The organization did express animosity towards the monarchy leading to the group’s

disbandment and the murder of Al-Banna. The displeased attitude of the Muslim Brotherhood

towards the existing government and its advocacy for the coup did not however imply the

development of a political stance. While members of the Brotherhood promoted the Free

Officers that brought about the Egyptian transition from monarchy, they ultimately became

equally unhappy with the nationalist ideologies instilled by Nasser. Tensions between the

Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser’s government continued to grow over the following years,

escalating to the point of an assassination attempt on Nasser. In response, the Muslim

Brotherhood encountered extreme repression and illegalization that would set the precedent for

their state relations in decades to come.

Within the period of repression under Nasser, the Muslim Brotherhood saw a

radicalization of its principles. Said Qutb a prominent Brotherhood figurehead, is attributed as

being the father of this more extreme movement.156 Yet with Sadat’s rise to power and

promotion of political and economic liberalization, which he used to appease Western nations, he

also encouraged a more tolerant disposition towards the Muslim Brotherhood. In this wave of

political openings and improved cooperation, the Muslim Brotherhood sought a new political

standpoint. At this time, it departed from its radicalized tactics. Although they attempted to

demonstrate openness to democracy and political liberalization, the political platform of the

Muslim Brotherhood remained overtly focused on religion. Within their developing platform,

women and non-Muslims would be excluded from entering the government. Nonetheless, they

“suggested that this was merely a position of the Brotherhood and therefore implied that the

exclusion need not be translated to law… they could accept a defeat on the matter as long as it

came through legitimate democratic procedures.”158 Despite this indication of their willingness

to moderate if coming through democratic means, the initial proposal is already in itself

undemocratic. However, as the Brotherhood was never given political power, it remained

uncertain as to what actual policies they would implement. In June 2011, when the chairman of

the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) dismissed specific questions about

his party’s economic platform with a smile, saying that he “did not know much about the

economy,” it is possible to see that true democratic aspirations were not integral to the party.

Despite this noncommittal attitude towards democracy, the movement has remained relatively

moderate. This becomes more apparent with the departure of Muslim Brotherhood members to

more extreme Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir due to the more lenient nature of the

Brotherhood’s policies.

Through the Brotherhood’s history, the relevance of moderation theory is apparent in the

cyclical nature it took on within the Muslim Brotherhood. Initially the group began with an

apolitical stance, and involvement in the government was not their ultimate goal. Through this

period, the Brotherhood did not see huge opposition and existed solely in order to promulgate

Islam throughout Egypt and provide social services. Once they encountered repression from the

government, becoming viewed as an opposition force, they employed more extremist behaviors.

This transformation exemplifies the adverse effect of moderation theory; once the group was

suppressed, they became more radical. Subsequently, once the state began to liberalize under

Sadat and the Muslim Brotherhood had further opportunities to expand, they moderated their

stance once again, renouncing violent tactics. Hence, the group’s implementation into society

once again led them to moderate their stances, and even brought them into the political arena

epitomizing what scholars allude to in moderation theory. While attempts to formulate a

democratic political platform were feeble at best and did not actually result in a profound

ideological adjustment for the Brotherhood, it is still evident that their changing status did

produce a significant effect on the process of moderation.

In addition to becoming more active within the political sphere and their development of

a political ideology during parliamentary elections, “the Brotherhood made efforts to join forces

with other opposition actors to develop a national platform for democratic reform and exert

meaningful pressure on the government to accept a greater degree of political competition and

pluralism.” This limited interaction reveals the moderation of the group’s policies, when the

movement needed to cooperate with other parties. This political involvement under which unity

partially occurred took place within an entirely distinct environment from the recent attempt at

democratic transition. Many of the group’s democratic ideologies depended on its attachment to

other political parties to fully be democratic, and it is evident that this collective space did not

develop within the transition. The power generated by the Muslim Brotherhood over generations

brought it out as a singular authority. Ultimately, when the Muslim Brotherhood came to play a

significant part in politics, the movement previously in opposition became the state’s majority

power holder and therefore moderation was not necessary.

Splinters within the Muslim Brotherhood

Through its development of a political ideology, the Muslim Brotherhood began to split

in the 1990s. The Brotherhood did not bother developing formal political institutions,

policymaking procedures, and policy orientations that would come into effect beyond the realm

of religious ideologies. Due to the organization’s meager political position, many members

comprising of the middle generations did not acquiesce to the older traditionalists and their

perspective on current political issues. It was clear that there was no admirable effort made by

older Brotherhood members to deliberate necessary political policies. In 1996, a separation

occurred in which followers of the Muslim Brotherhood renounced their membership in order to

form Al-Wasat, which hoped to be more politically inclusive than the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to one of the founders, Al-Wasat represented “a civic platform based on the Islamic

faith, which believes in pluralism and the alternation of power.” This group that branched off

from the Muslim Brotherhood showed the clear inclination of younger generations towards

democracy and a more attentive view of political preferences. Although the new party was still

founded on a religious platform, it was committed to succeeding as a more impartial and

inclusive party than the Brotherhood. Splinters within the Muslim Brotherhood indicate a

dissociation of principles that younger generations found to be more crucial than Islamicizing

society. While this modern approach aggravated older members, the move did not motivate them

to formulate any substantial political shifts within the organization. The prevailing ideologies

developed by younger generations of the Brotherhood demonstrate the significance of the

moment in history during which Ennahda and the Brotherhood were established.

Since the revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood has continued to cope with numerous

internal discrepancies. Various new organizations have spurred from within the Brotherhood’s

ranks. Like with the Wasat party, many of the youth were unhappy with the path of the

Brotherhood during elections, viewing their policies as ominous. This pre-revolution to post

revolution stage has shown a shift in the Brotherhood mentality. The continuing disengagement

from the Brotherhood indicates a transformation towards democratic policy among newer

members of the group and the knowledge that its antiquated policies could not be maintained. In

addition to the Wasat party, four newer parties were developed, including, the Al-Nahda party,

the Peace and Development Party, the Exploration Party, and the Egyptian Current. Additionally,

long time member Abdel Moneim Aboul Fatouh branched off from the movement in order to run

as a presidential candidate in the 2012 elections, continuing the Muslim Brotherhoods political

disenfranchisement from within its ranks.164 Within these new constituencies, each took on its

own program with regards to the value placed upon Islam and democracy.

The Brotherhood’s weak attempts to merge both religion and politics, moderating Qutb’s

prior conclusion that there cannot be harmony between Islam and party politics failed. The

movement stated beliefs that democracy and Islam are in fact compatible, in order to substantiate

their involvement in politics. While the Brotherhood may have altered the earlier notions of an

Islamic state, in restructuring the role of rulers, religious scholars, sharia, women and education,

they did not incorporate true democratic policies. The choice between whether to revert to a

more basic premise of Islam, and implement Sharia at its harshest, or maintain a more open

society remained. Their political platform may have changed in order to maintain a place within

the transitional space, but intrinsic ideologies were not forgotten. It is clear that the Brotherhood

politically misrepresented their political party in order to appeal to Egyptian citizens outside of

the Islamic society.

Comparably Moderate Islamists

While the Muslim Brotherhood has continually transformed ideologies in order to fit

within the political current, Ennahda has endured with a singular opinion since it began as the

Islamic Association. The inception of Ennahda within a newer atmosphere in which

authoritarianism, Westernization, and democracy were a clear impediment to any Islamic way of

life signified to Ghannoushi that he must find a find a way to enable his movement within these

confines. After years of authoritarianism, people would not aspire to live under a similarly

oppressive force; therefore the development of a more politically open and accepting ideology

was key. Concurrently, it was clear that democracy and Westernization were not unavoidable

forces. Although Al-Banna’s reasoning behind the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood was

similar in that he saw Islam at odds with Western influences, the political goals at the time

greatly differed from those fifty years later. The extent of Westernization expanded through

means other than colonization, and democracy was beating out communism and other forms of

government. These disparate state conditions had a huge effect on the strategies of each Islamist

movement.

Over the years of political tyranny against Ennahda and the Brotherhood, unlike many

Islamist groups, these two movements did not deviate towards more radical ideologies.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood went through a period in which it exercised militant activities,

this was not equivalent to those of many Islamists and did not endure. Slowly this activism

disappeared and they emerged with new political aspirations under Sadat. Many have argued

that Ennahda’s intrinsically moderate stance from the outset is what led to their more accepting

position within Tunisia’s new government. In reality, both movements have historically been

considered moderate as far as Islamist groups are concerned. The major distinction of these two

movements falls along political and democratic lines rather than religious and social.

Jillian Schwedler defines moderation “not as a behavioral change, but as a change in

ideology from a rigid and closed worldview to one relatively more open and tolerant of

alternative perspectives.” This requires further analysis because comparatively, both movements

could already have been described as moderate when discussing Islamist groups.

Simultaneously, when compared with secular parties at the time of election, both parties would

be identified as extremely conservative, with uncompromising ideologies based completely on

their religious background, and therefore not moderate. In being engaged with the new system of

government, both the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda would be required to rearrange portions

of their ideologies in order to fit within democracy and coincide with secular parties. While

these states are both comprised of a Muslim majority, it was evident citizens would not want

Sharia to be imposed and hoped a relatively open society would transpire within the

postauthoritarian transition. Ultimately, as religious parties, their conservative cultures would

need to take a backseat to promoting other politically democratic ideas. This is eventually where

the moderation of Ennahda prevailed over the Muslim Brotherhood.

Inclusion or Annexation

Elections in Tunisia and Egypt brought Islamists to the forefront of politics in systems

where they had previously been excluded. Parliamentary elections produced a majority win for

Islamists. For Ennahda in Tunisia, this was only a relative majority of 37% in which it gained 89

out of 217 seats, while the Islamists in Egypt earned a total majority. The Muslim

Brotherhood procured 235 of 498, or nearly half the seats, and was nudged to over half with the

inclusion of Salafists into the political system. Final results brought Islamists to power with two

thirds of the legislative branch in Egypt. In addition to these parliamentary wins, Ennahda

secured the position of Prime Minister and the Muslim Brotherhood the Presidential seat.

Although these results demonstrate the impressive standing of Islamists in both states, the overall

proportion attained by the Muslim Brotherhood and fellow Islamists secured its total control over

Egypt.

Through the implementation of Islamists into the developing democratic order of Tunisia

and Egypt, moderation theory suggests that they tame their behaviors to fit into the state

structure. In spite of this, the resulting dynamics of Islamists rise to power in Tunisia and Egypt

varied drastically. The new environment allows us to see where exactly moderation came into

play within the two political parties. While Ennahda was the overall majority winner of

parliamentary elections, the manner in which the political scene was set forth meant that they

must share power with the two other parties that gained the second and third largest percentage

of votes; the Congress for the Republic (CPR) and Ettakatol. CPR, the second place party,

earned around one third the number of seats as Ennahda, but still maintained a large standing

within the government. Under this new system, the most prominent government positions were

delegated by this new parliament. Moncef Marzouki, the founder of CPR, was chosen to serve

as Tunisia’s President and the position of the Speaker of the Assembly was designated to

Ettakatol’s Mustafa Ben Jafaar. These two major positions in combination with Habadi Jabali

from Ennahda serving as prime minister signified that the troika government would be compelled

to collaborate. Through this method of assembling Tunisia’s new democratic system, it was

ensured that no single party could command complete control of the government. This method

of power sharing symbolizes the strength of civil society. Ennahda’s inclusion into the National

Constituent Assembly (NCA) obliged them to exercise power in a way that would not exclude

themselves from the other parties, and therefore compromise became their only option.

In this regard, it was Ennahda’s inclusion into party politics which occurred because of civil

society’s role in the organization of the political structure that guaranteed its moderate stance.

Proponents of moderation theory generally point to inclusion leading to moderation. As

we can see from Ennahda’s experience, this is a convincing argument. Yet in this capacity, many

similarly indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood, after being brought into politics, should have

become more moderate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, inclusion is defined as “the action

or state of including or of being included within a group or structure,” and to include suggests

one is only “part of a whole.” Within these definitions, the case of the Muslim Brotherhood

must be analyzed again. While initially agreeing to remain separated from the political transition

for the most part, indicating that the FJP would not run for more than one third of the seats in

parliament and no presidential candidate would be endorsed, their approach quickly reversed.

Upon attaining a majority in the parliament, bolstered further by the Salafist Nour Party and the

eventual win of Morsi, the Brotherhood was not genuinely included into politics. Instead of

becoming “included within a group or structure,” or taking only a “part” of the new government,

the Brotherhood’s FJP actually became the entire system. The FJP succeeded in achieving

complete authority over the executive and legislative branch while encroaching further into the

judicial branch and even municipal administrations. This overarching power provided to the

Muslim Brotherhood through the electoral process meant that they did not have to moderate their

positions.

There are two manners in which moderation must be analyzed: politically and religiously.

In contrast with what many believed would occur, the FJP did display religious moderation while

ignoring any political moderation. Through this, there is the possibility that the FJP was building

their political power in order to slowly implement religious laws at a later point in time. The party

needed the political space to control the religious space. With a total grip on control of Egypt, the

power hungry Muslim Brotherhood took a shot at increasing its reach across Egypt in every facet

and presumably would have continued in this manner. The Muslim Brotherhood’s election was

meant to bring about a legitimate transition to democracy, but instead the party did not take the

moderate path moderation theory suggests. This does not however imply that the theory be

abandoned; instead more determinate terms should be measured.

Civil Society and the Development of Political Islam

Under the circumstances in which these Islamist parties came to power, bringing one to

moderation and one to a more authoritarian role, the importance of civil society is key. Tunisia’s

civil society played a major role in devising the electoral conditions and the arena for political

parties under their transition to democracy. Due to the participation of nonpartisan actors, the

result brought together various parties in a more harmonious manner. Despite various hurdles

that the leading troika confronted, the management of the NCA was one that allowed parties to

confer openly. The decision to remove the ruling NCA and instead implement a technocratic

government was accepted with relative ease. The three leading parties permitted the

implementation of a new constitution and interim government in order to set the stage for new

elections in 2014. In agreeing to allow fresh elections to take place, Ennahda revealed an

important distinction from Egypt’s Morsi. The Muslim Brotherhood’s unwillingness to

cooperate and follow true democratic measures triggered their placement back into a position of

opposition. The inability to moderate its political standpoint by grasping at complete power

severely damaged the Muslim Brotherhood politically and socially. As the Muslim Brotherhood

became an illegal movement once again, Ennahda garnered respect internally and internationally

for their distinct approach.

The basis of social support for the Muslim Brotherhood came across all levels and an

increasingly Islamicized Egyptian society indicated their success over decades. Vast social

programs that focused on areas where the government was failing to support lower classes gave

the Brotherhood a prominent status within the poor. Their involvement in business associations,

NGOs, and Islamic investment companies also bolstered their image within higher classes.

Overall, the Muslim Brotherhood’s support system seemed advantageous leading into the

election period. It was no shock when Morsi secured his seat as president in 2012. As the largest

social movement in Egypt, the Brotherhood faced no coinciding rival organization that would

lead it to tame its political stances. This is observed through the extreme polarization of

Egyptian society and the reversal of politics back into the hands of the military. Yet the decades

of religious integration into Egyptian society was not enough for the people to allow a state ruled

by Sharia, and the half century of authoritarian suppression meant people would not be willing to

live under the subjection of a single party again. By participating in politics, the Muslim

Brotherhood left behind their social activism of ninety years and manifested itself into a failing

regime. Years of success for the Brotherhood came from their integration into society at all

levels, but once given a larger space for power, their opportunity was squandered. Electoral

victory proved yet again the prominence of the movement, but in the end, their focus was better

suited for social activism rather than political development.

Within a movement that flourished for almost a century, its demise was fairly shocking.

The removal of Morsi after a year in office demonstrates the true aspirations of the Egyptian

people and their unfamiliarity with how to achieve it. The Muslim Brotherhood’s reluctance to

share power and incorporate secular or leftist parties within their new power structure promoted a

greater focus solely on the Brotherhood. Had Egypt’s civil society been stronger and another

segment of society produced enough value during transition, dialogue would have been more

open and compromise more necessary. In the absence of another central civil society

organization, the Muslim Brotherhood was left to bear the burden of transition to a political

system in which it had no experience and attempted to do so alone.

Ennahda, like the Muslim Brotherhood had many social programs that it developed over

decades. However, the Islamist party did not enjoy as widespread influence as the Brotherhood.

However, the election results still made it clear that the party was respected and boasted a large

support group within Tunisia. Additional prominent organizations also existed within Tunisia as

seen in the previous chapter, and provided a major influence on the transition period. Due to the

secular, impartial, and broad based nature of civil society organizations beyond Ennahda,

especially the UGTT, their position in the transition was integral. In Egypt, the only civil

organization comparable in scope and influence to the UGTT is the Brotherhood. The

Brotherhood’s one-sidedness brought about a drastically different result within the transition

process.

Salafist Implementation

Within the field of moderation, looking at the Salafist movements in both countries can

further expand on this theory. Egyptian Salafists have a long history, predating the rise of the

Muslim Brotherhood. There are various groups of Salafists with each segment supporting a

distinct method of action and change. According to the majority, combining Islam with politics

is not possible, and does not do justice to Islam, believing that they must turn to Sharia for

solutions. The most politically important school of Salafists within Egypt now is the Dawa

Salafists. This segment of Salafists deviated from the model and formed its own political party,

Al-Nour, which supplemented Islamist support in the legislative branch. These Salafists

promoted a contemporary outlook in order to be relevant in modern society and they emphasize

the notion of collective action.174 This change in political ideology brought about several issues

of controversy among the Salafist schools since the removal of Mubarak. Many Salafists have

accused the Dawa Salafists of becoming impure, resulting in excommunication. Unlike the

changing ideologies of the Muslim Brotherhood in attempting to keep up with system dynamics,

the majority of Salafists hoped to continue the promotion of a more pure form of Islam.

As noted previously, the Al-Nour party’s decision to enter politics greatly improved the

Muslim Brotherhoods position in government. The combination of both the Salafists and the

Muslim Brotherhood lead to an overriding majority of Islamists in power, giving them ultimate

control over the state. While Al-Nour attempted to persuade the Brotherhood to implement more

strict Islamic laws in Egypt’s constitution, the Brotherhood did not follow these guidelines.

Through this we can see that because the Salafists were combined with another Islamist faction

in Egypt they did not see a need to moderate religiously, and instead attempted to bring the

Brotherhood to implement more radical reforms. The Muslim Brotherhood was the more

religiously moderate force within this bipartisan government, but exhibited no moderation

politically. Because the power sharing in Egypt occurred solely within two Islamic groups with

no involvement of secular groups, collaborative efforts to bring about moderation did not occur.

Nevertheless, once the FJP was ousted, Al-Nour bandwagoned with other parties in

formulating the new roadmap for Egypt and represented an impressive force for Muslims within

this new formation. This change in behavior represents the Salafists more moderate

transformation in two ways. The first came with their initial decision to form a political party, in

a compromise that rejected all former ideals of Salafists and their notion that politics and Islam

could not unite. Although the group moderated in this way, their eventual entrance into the

parliament did not prove to moderate them as there was no motive. Within distinct points in time

during Egypt’s transition, moderation theory can be applied. While a weak civil society

attempted to form political parties and it was believed that a new and openly democratic system

would ensue, the party’s first move towards moderation tactics followed. Once Islamists secured

the control over the government, there was no longer a need for the Salafist group to moderate

their stance, and instead they were able to push more hardline initiatives. The same principle

applied to the Muslim Brotherhood at this time. The second alteration came when Salafists

moderated their stance again during a period in which Egypt needed to regroup its political

environment and construct a new electoral path. At this point, inclusion into society altered the

position of the Salafists who hoped to preserve their position in the government and garner

respect for doing so. The Al-Nour party ultimately succeeded in this regard although religious

parties have been banned due to the culminating challenges with the Brotherhood.

The rise of Salafism in Tunisia has demonstrated a great challenge to the more democratic

Ennahda. Due to the rise in Salafist movements in Tunisia undermining the Islamic ideals of

Ennahda, tension between the two Islamist groups was often the focal point of political concerns.

The Salafists claim that the Islam practiced and incorporated by Ennahda through democracy is

impure. Unlike in Egypt, Salafists in Tunisia have not experienced a strong show of support, and

inclusion into politics did not occur. Despite the Salafists unwillingness to enter into the political

field in Tunisia, Ennahda did make attempts to communicate with the more radical group and

include them in their political agenda. Efforts taken by Ennahda to create ties with Salafists

failed and led to dwindling opinions of Ennahda due to their attempt to moderate the groups’

behaviors. The more radical nature of the Salafists thus became a key concern of the more center

Ennahda party and leftist groups. This fanatic character of Salafists in Tunisia was not restrained

during the transition period, and instead we witnessed a period of intensified conflict between the

government and hardline Islamists.

Islamist Failures

By and large, Islamists within the Middle East have experienced extremely hostile

environments. Islamist parties have dealt with constant repression and leaders express constant

fear of Islamist power. Within the past twenty years, there have been two major attempts to bring

Islamists to power democratically that have failed considerably. These include Algeria in the

1990s and Egypt within the past two years. The major clashes between the state and Islamists in

both cases have exemplified to Ennahda situations to be avoided in order to successfully manage

its political presence. In the first case, the democratic election of FIS in Algeria was never fully

implemented. In response to being cut off from their elected institutions, many of these Islamists

radicalized and the country saw a bloody ten-year civil war. The Algerian case shows the

consequences of suppressing the fanatics. Initial inclusion into politics lead to a moderate

Islamist party hoping to play a part in politics, but after their dismissal, the opposite affect

occurred. This experience of violently suppressing rather than negotiating with Islamists had a

greater impact on both Islamist and anti-Islamist Tunisians than on their Egyptian counterparts.

This suppression contributed further to the very different outcomes of the 20132014 protracted

negotiations between the two sides in Tunisia, the violent suppression in Egypt of the Islamist

opposition and the Brotherhood’s refusal to leave power. As previously mentioned, Ennahda’s

formation differed greatly from that of the Muslim Brotherhood in that it hoped to cultivate Islam

within the existing space rather than completely ignore the current trends. This suggests that

Ennahda would place a greater importance on the results of other

Islamists in the region than the Muslim Brotherhood would.

Throughout many points of contention between Islamists and state factions, Ghannoushi

has intervened as a moderator between the two sides. This indicates his insurmountable

importance to both secularists and Islamists when confronted with contentious political issues.

Throughout elections in Egypt during 2012, Ghannoushi was aware of the impenetrable

momentum of the Brotherhood and attempted to impart his own wisdom upon the group in hopes

that a power sharing arrangement could be made. Again, in the days leading up to Morsi’s

ouster, Ghannoushi attempted to discuss with Morsi a plan to step down and allow a new election

process to take place.180 Within the past year, Ghannoushi was also attributed to playing a major

role in the reconciliatory efforts of Hamas and Fatah in Palestine. Conciliatory actions of

Ghannoushi and Ennahda in this regard have also been implemented within its own internal

attitude. When Ennahda was faced with its own growing opposition Tamarod group, it took the

advice previously given to Morsi and agreed to amendments within the political power structure,

ultimately removing themselves from the coalition government and transferring power to the

technocratic government. The attentive reactions of Ennahda towards opposition that came from

secular movements as well as more radical Islamists can be largely attributed to a greater

understanding of the modern political system. Adaptation continues to be an essential attribute

that Ghannoushi imparted on Ennahda and has attempted to demonstrate to other Islamists in

order to aid their success. Moderation continues to be a process for Ennahda through

compromise with secular parties.

Conclusion

The Arab Spring brought about a chance for Islamists to model Islamic democracy and

demonstrate its possibility. Three major factors played a role in the ability of Ennahda to

maintain its prominence within Tunisia. The first includes its overall more democratically

oriented policies. Ghannoushi was aware that Qutb’s ideologies for the Muslim Brotherhood

could have been appropriate for the time, but should not be a basis for other nations or societies

at different stages. Within this, he sought answers for the problems facing Tunisians politically

and religiously. This democratic orientation should not be misconstrued as what constitutes the

movement’s moderate attitude. Secondly, the inclusion of Ennahda into the political formation

was imperative. Despite being known as a moderate political party, given the chance, Ennahda

still may have taken a more aggressively Islamic approach or, just as the Muslim Brotherhood

did, they may have annexed complete control. Thirdly, Ennahda’s international perspective and

interpersonal relations with Islamists in the region gave it a

stronger perspective on how to manage their own party. The last two factors both led to the

party’s moderate stance once reaching a political opening.

The Muslim Brotherhood while also upholding a relatively moderate stance over the past

few decades did not benefit from the same politically budding environment as Ennahda.

Originally viewed as an asset, the affluence garnered by the Brotherhood over almost a century

that managed to carry it into the political scene, was truly a drawback. Its predominant control of

civil society left the Brotherhood as Egypt’s only choice in the election period, and with a

scattered political platform, there was little guidance. The archaic nature of its ideologies

remained unwavering under the older leadership. As seen throughout the past few decades, this

brought about an internal rupture within the Muslim Brotherhood, through which generations

brought up under significantly different historical conditions sought change through more

political measures. Without obliging the Brotherhood to merge with other prominent civil

society organizations, due to their nonexistence, there was no prospect for the movement to

successfully moderate its behavior. The Muslim Brotherhood’s inward focus left it stagnant and

without a successful political model or guide.

7- Conclusion

The failure of Egypt to move successfully towards democracy over the past four years is

often attributed to the overarching power taken by its military throughout the course of transition.

However, this military impediment was due to the lack of a significant civil society alternative.

Over the course of transition in both Egypt and Tunisia, both states envisioned a transformative

move towards democracy. In this, a place for moderate Islamists to govern the countries was

established. Moderation theory suggests that within the scenarios faced by Egypt and Tunisia,

these Islamists would find a way to moderate their policies in order to be accepted by the people

and included in the new political process. As countries with relatively moderate Islamist parties

existing, the general sense was that the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda be allowed to

participate in the new political atmosphere.

These two states saw declining economies with a government that backed only a small

subset of elite. Both had repressive systems that allowed for minimal civic engagement in the

past. Both states had militaries that violated orders that directed them to protect the regime and

instead intercepted police brutality against peaceful protestors. Both states witnessed the

placement of a former regime member into the new provisional government, and both pressed for

the subsequent eradication of the departed regime and impeded the ability of its members to take

part within the new government. Both voted Islamists to power within elections, giving them

major power in parliament and the executive branch, and both demanded the removal of

Islamists after there came no sense of improving conditions. Although these many similarities

exist within the few years since the removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak, today’s results could not be

more different.

While there were many setbacks on the road to transition for Tunisia, they have

maintained a path that has lead them to what many see as a consolidated democracy in an

approach that became accepted by its citizens. Through this process, the democratic system

seems to have emerged with a combination of Islamists and secularists, giving a voice to a

varying spectrum of ideologies. Egypt on the other hand, perceived as following this democratic

process as well with the election of Morsi, has a society that has become divided more than ever

and a government that continues to repress its people regardless of the democratic election of

Sisi. Within this case, Islamists did not prove to moderate their ideologies sufficiently enough to

appease Egyptians. This variance is largely due to Egypt’s lacking secular civil society.

Throughout this period, there has been one major difference within the transition and this

was the existence of a prominent civil society that through checks and balances continually

enforced a stable direction for Tunisia's new government. In the absence of such a vehicle within

Egypt, the transition was directed back to the two prevailing elements that exhibited strength

over centuries of Egyptian history; the military and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Though many argue that the Egyptian military impeded the country’s ability to

successfully democratize by placing themselves at the helm during two distinguished points in

time, we can see that this argument is not completely valid. The major role played by the

military over the course of transition did not come about through its own will. In both instances,

it was Egyptians that pleaded to SCAF and demanded their intervention in order to prevent what

they saw as a much worse fate: the continuation of the Mubarak regime through members of his

political party taking charge or the continuation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s sequestration of

power. The strength accumulated by the military over decades of close ties with the government

gave them the ultimate power in the scenario of transition in Egypt, but in a largely different

capacity than most give it credit. The implementation of Ahmed Shafiq as the head of

government immediately following Mubarak’s removal could have been avoided from the get-go

had the military’s true goal been to garner control of Egypt. However, Tantawi only took charge

and agreed to head the transition as requested by Egyptian protestors. Had there been another

strong materialization of civil society that could have played an equally robust role, as was the

case in Tunisia, the direction of transition in Egypt may have taken a drastic turn.

With the ensuing disagreeable atmosphere in Egypt because of the military’s command

and the perceived notion that they would not give up control along with harsh actions they took

on protestors over the following year, the only other major social movement in Egypt was able to

take advantage of the circumstances and secure control over all government offices. Ultimately,

the Muslim Brotherhood’s succession to power led to devastating results for Egypt’s transition.

Rather than formulating a power-sharing role for the government, members of non-religious

political parties were not included into the country’s new attempt at democracy. This only

brought about a new environment where Egyptians saw authoritarianism encroaching on their

aspirations for freedom. As their capacity to accomplish democracy seemed to dwindle, the

population again tried to remove their leader from office. The resulting environment only made

room for the military to once again take charge, abiding by the wishes of those who instigated the

protests against Morsi. While the second rise to power by the military saw them attempt to

implement a more civil government that would be accepted by the people, the military retained

its predominant power. Due to the weakened and polarized environment in Egypt, the military

remained the only force strong enough to guide the country. Thus, it was not the military that

prevented a transition towards consolidated democracy, but rather the states continual reliance on

the military in the absence of its own apolitical alliance with the strength to unify Egyptians and

organize a political structure free from authoritarian remnants.

The evolving political environment in Egypt saw extreme polarization rather than the

convergence of a diverse civil society. In contrast with this, it was Tunisia’s UGTT that came out

as a major player throughout its own transition. As previously examined, it is possible to

envision where this role came from. While Tunisia and Egypt had similar moments of

progression and deterioration of their economies, Bourguiba and Ben Ali both placed a higher

importance on education than the leaders of Egypt. Due to this advancement, although people

did not necessarily enjoy a better quality of life in Tunisia versus Egypt, the levels of education

developed a more firm background for Tunisians to enter the political scene. Repression against

political and religious study undoubtedly influenced the atmosphere of Tunisian transition in a

deep way, yet the overall knowledge and ability of Tunisians to participate in the election process

was significantly improved through education. Overall, economic conditions of the two

countries did not make one more likely to succeed with a transition to democracy, but Ben Ali’s

focus on schooling did have a major effect on boosting Tunisia’s civil society in a way that

would consequently encourage improved political discourse.

Just as the Muslim Brotherhood had suggested it would do during the first round of

presidential elections in Egypt, Ennahda indicated it would not place a candidate for Tunisia’s

2014 presidential elections; A promise that, unlike the Brotherhood, Ennahda has kept to the

people. This action, like many others taken by Ennahda, has shown that Ennahda is more

cooperative, and hopes to maintain respect with the people of Tunisia and adhere to Tunisian

aspirations unlike the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. A large part of this is due to the pressure

Students also viewed