President Mubarak has spoken once more. Amid a peak of demonstrations against him, and widespread anticipation that he would step down, he let it be known that he would continue to guide the country as a father guides his children, until the end of his term in September. The crowds were not pleased, but that is not likely to change his course. Even larger demonstrations are to be expected along with the announced general strike, certain to stir up renewed trouble where the army has to step in as peacemaker and with increasingly impatient (and violent) groups still supporting the regime.
President Obama, who yesterday more or less ordered the Egyptian President to step down, has learned the limits of American power the hard way - incredibly, just the way his predecessor did! Where do US Presidents get their notions of power from? The effect of Mr. Obama's statement was (surprise!) the direct opposite of that desired. A so-called stable US ally is now more unstable than ever, given the falling out between the two countries' leadership.
If Egypt has turned out to be unstable, that is first of all the fruit of Hosni Mubarak's policies over 30 years. A firm hand and a strong executive, yes - a favored army and a clear eye on what the price of it all would be: Peace with Israel. But how a man in that position has managed - for three decades - to "forget" his people's needs with all the money washing over him from abroad, this is inexplicable. While Mubarak is hardly likely to be the richest man in the world, as some reports had it on Wednesday, according to a more sober assessment by msnbc.com his worth may be as high as 2 billion dollars. (http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/10/6025656-mubarak-could-leave-with-2-billion). In any case, Mubarak's regime has been stability itself, and no wonder - given those terms.
Yet stability is only meaningful if it endures the test of time. The challenge of stability is to keep the balance even as changes (for the better) are carried out. The recent events in Egypt demonstrate well the delicate difficulty of maintaining stability in a poor and populous country where ordinary people have not been given the experience of the slightest improvement over the long run. To suddenly meet the erupting demands from the raging demonstrating masses in the short run is of course impossible. This is what a stability-concerned government would have methodically done in the years before. Easy to say now, of course, but such views about Egypt have been raised for years. Stay tuned to Cairo for the next chapter in this familiar tale of old dictators' follies.
