Mubarak out--what's next for Egypt?

Cautious optimism seems to be the consensus among news anchors, political pundits, and politicians this afternoon as it was announced that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had resigned.

For now, the Egyptian military is in control of the country. It is unclear at this point if this is a temporary measure or a long-term arrangement.

Now that citizens living under an oppressive regime have succeeded in removing an iron-fisted dictator, the key question becomes, what's next for Egypt?

Clear answers to that question are difficult to come by.

Several scenarios, any one of which are distinct possibilities, come into play.

First, the Egyptian military could well decide to maintain control of the country as it has since the early 1950s. Military officials, however, have stated that they intend to support the concept of open and free elections. If this is the case, then it is entirely possible that an eventual election could result in a complete change of the country, for better or worse.  

The military, however, is engaged in an intricate balancing act, attempting to accommodate the desires of the Egyptian people while recognizing that chaos, anarchy, and mob rule would be counter-productive. Military officials could well decide that the situation is so volatile that such open and free elections must be put off until cooler heads prevail.  Naturally, great uncertainty characterizes this scenario.

Second, extremist factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Marxist workers' unions could well seize the opportunity to amass centralized power.  In previous reports it has been noted that the Muslim Brotherhood has been laying the groundwork for decades to one day initiate a power-grab in the country.  It has also been noted that extremist Islamic groups have aligned themselves with Leftwing causes, and vice-versa, in order to promote the common goal of implementing centralized government planning, which would include a curious mixture of Sharia Law and the 'empowerment of workers' as understood by Marxist movements.

Third, elections in September could proceed as planned, and Epypt could well vote itself into even more oppression under a fundamentalist Muslim government, or alternatively, elect leaders who are committed to moving the country toward 'democracy' as it is defined and understood by the American experience.

Unfortunately, the latter option within the third scenario is unlikely in a nation where extremist Islamic ideas are held by a majority of the population.  Iranian Islamists, for example, are reportedly celebrating in the streets of Teheran over the course of events in Egypt--a bad omen given that Iran underwent similar circumstances in 1979 and found itself under the control of a group of extremists with a clear disdain for Israel and the West.

Revolutions are historically a mixed bag.  In the best of circumstances, liberty prevails. In other cases, however, a vacuum is created that is used by extremists to unleash even more tyranny. The course that Egypt will take remains to be seen, and thus, the country is entering its most dangerous phase.

It is therefore a huge mistake to refer to today's events as the equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  By the time the Wall fell it was clear the nations of the former Soviet Union truly desired liberty as understood by the American experience.  It is yet entirely unclear if Egypt actually wants this kind of liberty as opposed to mere 'self-determination.'  Knowing the distinction is critical.      

Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

Subscribe by clicking the subscribe box beside my picture at the top of the page, or below, and an email will be sent to your inbox each time a new article is published.