Photo: AFP

The fall of Hosni Mubarak was inevitable, although even hours before his departure, Mubarak declared that he was going to remain in power till the presidential election of September 2011. His vice-president asked the people to go home and to work. The people did not leave Tahrir Square. They were adamant to get rid of the autocrat who ruled the country for 30 years.
The state of emergency imposed by Mubarak at the inception of his presidency destroyed democratic norms, violated human rights, prevented normal growth of the democratic institutions, and instigated corruption by a small quarter favoured by the regime.
The 18 day protest that sacrificed 300 lives was the reflection of the people's anger and dissatisfaction over decades of misrule and autocracy, and scored a resounding triumph in less than 24 hours following Mubarak's refusal to resign. Hosni Mubarak in his last speech attempted to brand himself as a patriot. However, his handing over power to the military raises vital questions regarding his willingness to see a democratic and prosperous Egypt.
The "patriot's" duty was to hand over power in a manner whereby the danger of emergence of another authoritarian regime could be avoided. That could be done by handing over power either to a national government comprising political and social forces, or by following the constitutional provisions that do not allow for a defense council to rule the country. The Egyptian constitution allows the president to hand over power either to the vice-president (for temporary departure) or to the speaker (for permanent departure).
None of the above was followed. Rather, the power handover to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces keeps alive the possibility of emergence of another autocratic regime. The head of the defense council, Defense Minister Mohammed Hussein Tantawi (75), is famous for his anti-reform approach. Both his age and political philosophy are not in conformity with the objective of the Egyptian people's struggle.
The danger is that he may be removed, he may be unable to lead the nation to the right direction, or he may simply install another autocracy. All will ultimately make the sacrifices of the people null and void. The protest days clearly demonstrated that Egypt lacks organised political forces to lead the nation with clear mission and vision.
In Egyptian politics the army has so far played a vital role, with three presidents coming from the armed forces -- Tantawi being the latest. The great influence of the army in politics impacted adversely on the growth of political parties and political leadership, and in strengthening the democratic process as a whole.
This lack of political leadership became more evident during the 18-day protests, and especially after the refusal of Mubarak to resign. None of the politicians were seen at the square, which, till morning was jammed with general people.
Certainly it is not the army that will materialise the people's aspirations. History of military capture of power in different countries does not have any evidence that after their power capture democracy was strengthened, human rights situation improved or corruption reduced. The reverse has always been true. It would not be wise to expect that another president from the army would strengthen democratic institutions in Egypt.
Despite this, even some prominent political leaders, prior to Mubarak's departure, expressed the expectation that the army should capture power. The Nobel Peace laureate and prominent reform advocate Mohammed ElBaradei, apprehending that "Egypt will explode," said that the "army must save the country now. I call on the Egyptian army to immediately interfere to rescue Egypt. The credibility of the army is on the line."
Instead of coming forward to rescue the country, the politicians were advocating for the military to "save the nation." They hardly understood that the country had virtually been under military rule and the state of emergency for more than 60 years, which only increased the people's political, social and economic hardship.
Despite gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1922, and ending of protectorate with the United Kingdom in 1952, Egyptian politics did not experience much of democracy. Gamal Abdel Nasser, the founder of modern Egypt, was an army officer who overthrew King Farouk in 1952 and replaced General Neguib -- the first Egyptian president -- and was president during 1956-1970.
Although Nasser attempted to establish a secular Arab state at the juncture of three continents, his rule is branded as the most authoritarian, with complete concentration of powers in the hands of the president. This is evidenced by the fact that the current constitution of Egypt was promulgated on September 11, 1971, after Nasser's death. Nasser's economic policy aimed at strengthening state monopoly.
Sadat, who succeeded Nasser, made some economic and political reforms, including (re)introduction of multi-party system and "open door" policy (Infitah). However, those did not change the fundamental economic and political structure of the country, neither did the reforms of Mubarak, who had been in power for 30 years without any credible elections taking place.
The provision for presidential election was introduced in the constitution only in May 2005. The September 2005 presidential election, in which Mubarak got more than 86% votes, was the first-ever multi-party election during his 30-year rule. That election was severely criticised by the contesting candidates, parties and the media for widespread irregularities and fraud. Some parties boycotted the election apprehending electoral fraud, while some, including the Muslim Brotherhood, were not allowed to contest. Mubarak was elected for the fifth time as the president.
Mubarak's regime, similar to his predecessors', most of who were from the military, yielded little for the Egyptian economy. The average annual growth rate in Egypt during 1980-2007 was 1.3%, even lower than that of Bangladesh. The country's HDI ranking as per 2010 UNHDR is 101 compared to 15, 82, 55 and 47, respectively for neighbouring Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kwait. Almost all Arab-speaking African countries (Algeria, Morocco, Libiya, Tunisia, etc.) have better HDI ranking compared to Egypt. The per capita Gross National Income of Egypt is lower than all above countries, except Morocco.
This is evidence of the irrelevance of the myth that the army can bring positive changes in socio-economic sphere of Egyptian life. The objective of the recent uprising lies in the aspiration of the people to establish a democratic Egypt that will ensure their economic, social and political rights and freedom, ensure democracy and good governance, and ensure human rights.
The protesting people demanded "an overhaul of the political system," not only the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. Overhaul of the political system towards the right direction is not possible without judicious political leadership, and that leadership needs to come from amongst the people, not otherwise.

The writer is President, Governance and Rights Centre (GRC). E-mail: [email protected]