{"id":4626,"date":"2011-02-17T12:19:39","date_gmt":"2011-02-17T11:19:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.zeit.de\/joerglau\/?p=4626"},"modified":"2011-02-17T12:20:35","modified_gmt":"2011-02-17T11:20:35","slug":"agypten-keine-revolution-bloss-ein-coup","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.zeit.de\/joerglau\/2011\/02\/17\/agypten-keine-revolution-bloss-ein-coup_4626","title":{"rendered":"\u00c4gypten: Keine Revolution, bloss ein Coup?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ich bin bekanntlich ziemlich enthusiatisch, was den Wandel in \u00c4gypten angeht. Darum muss ich mir zum Abk\u00fchlen Texte wie diese Analyse von Stratfor-Chef George Friedman<\/a> reinziehen, der kaltbl\u00fctig Wasser in den revolution\u00e4ren Wein sch\u00fcttet:<\/p>\n

What happened was not a revolution. The demonstrators never brought down Mubarak, let alone the regime. What happened was a military coup that used the cover of protests to force Mubarak out of office in order to preserve the regime. When it became clear Feb. 10 that Mubarak would not voluntarily step down, the military staged what amounted to a coup to force his resignation. Once he was forced out of office, the military took over the existing regime by creating a military council and taking control of critical ministries. The regime was always centered on the military. What happened on Feb. 11 was that the military took direct control.<\/p>\n

Again, as a guess, the older officers, friends of Mubarak, found themselves under pressure from other officers and the United States to act. They finally did, taking the major positions for themselves. The demonstrations were the backdrop for this drama and the justification for the military\u2019s actions, but they were not a revolution in the streets. It was a military coup designed to preserve a military-dominated regime. And that was what the crowds were demanding as well.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

Therefore, we face this reality. The Egyptian regime is still there, still controlled by old generals. They are committed to the same foreign policy as the man they forced out of office. They have promised democracy, but it is not clear that they mean it. If they mean it, it is not clear how they would do it, certainly not in a timeframe of a few months. Indeed, this means that the crowds may re-emerge demanding more rapid democratization, depending on who organized the crowds in the first place and what their intentions are now.<\/p>\n

It is not that nothing happened in Egypt, and it is not that it isn\u2019t important. It is simply that what happened was not what the media portrayed but a much more complex process, most of it not viewable on TV. Certainly, there was nothing unprecedented in what was achieved or how it was achieved. It is not even clear what was achieved. Nor is it clear that anything that has happened changes Egyptian foreign or domestic policy. It is not even clear that those policies could be changed in practical terms regardless of intent.<\/p>\n

The week began with an old soldier running Egypt. It ended with different old soldiers running Egypt with even more formal power than Mubarak had. This has caused worldwide shock and awe. We were killjoys in 2009, when we said the Iranian revolution wasn\u2019t going anywhere. We do not want to be killjoys now, since everyone is so excited and happy. But we should point out that, in spite of the crowds, nothing much has really happened yet in Egypt. It doesn\u2019t mean that it won\u2019t, but it hasn\u2019t yet.<\/p>\n

An 82-year-old man has been thrown out of office, and his son will not be president. The constitution and parliament are gone and a military junta is in charge. The rest is speculation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ich bin nicht der Meinung, dass das alles ist. Etwas ist passiert am Tahrir-Platz, und die alten M\u00e4nner in Uniformen werden es nicht r\u00fcckg\u00e4ngig machen k\u00f6nnen. Ich hoffe es jedenfalls. Man sieht es in diesem Clip, der auf dem Platz aufgenommen wurde.<\/p>\n