THE RECENT POLITICAL INSTABILITY IN EGYPT AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR THE MIDDLE-EAST

BY

WISDOM IYEKEKPOLO


A SEMINAR PAPER PRESENTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF BENIN, BENIN CITY


IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR POL 807 (THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS)



COURSE LECTURER: DR. O. J. OFFIONG





JUNE, 2011




ABSTRACT

The Middle East remains a hotspot in world politics. The sensitivity of the region draws from the dominant Arab people, through the Islamic religion, the oil wealth, the creation of the state of Israel, the types of governments, to the level of deprivation and poverty. Egypt being politically central to the region, this paper reviews the current volatile political crisis in the region with a focus on Egypt and on that bases, generalizes for the entire region. This paper focuses on the recent crisis there with an attempt to analyze the origin and likely ending with its implication on the entire region. We have done this analysis using the Conflict theory via the Social Mobilization and Collective Action theory as our guide.





INTRODUCTION
Democracy has become one of the major variable by which the level of development of a society is measured. It is common place to describe nation–states as democratic, non-democratic, democratizing or lacking democratic structures. The region of the world now commonly referred to as the Middle-East can also be measured using the tenet of democracy and the level of availability of democratic structures and conclusions reached as to how democratic the region is.
This work reviews the Middle-East region with a brief look at the history, the nation-states that make it up and their style of government. It goes further to review the role and importance of Egypt as it relates to the Middle-East. With this background information, the paper attempts to use the conflict theory in analyzing the 2011 political crisis in Egypt and how this has and will impact the democratization of Egypt and the Middle-East in general. In the analyses of the democratic implication for the Middle-East, a cursory look will be on the people involvement or participation, understanding why the Middle-Eastern people are revolting against their government, current leadership response and the response of the Western countries particularly the United States of America to the mass up-rising which has been referred to as a revolution by many analysts. Also, we will try to understand what the protests in the different countries deem to have in common, the tactics the demonstration used to display their discontent, and finally what is likely going to be the effect on governance in these countries.

THE MIDDLE-EAST: AN OVERVIEW
The Middle-East is a region that encompasses Western Asia and North Africa. It is often used as a synonym for Near East. The history of the region dates back to ancient times, and throughout its history, the Middle-East has been a major centre of World affairs. When discussing ancient history however, the term Near East is more commonly used (http://www.en.wikipedia.org Retrieved 2011-05-30).
It is worthy of mention that the area or states referred to as Middle-East has undergone different adjustments. Before the First World War, the Middle-East referred to Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, Turkestan and the Caucasus, while the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire were known as the Near East. The Far East referred to the countries of East Asia (e.g. China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong etc). With the disappearance of the Ottoman Empire in 1981, Middle-East came to be applied to the re-emerging countries of the Islamic World (http://www.en.wikipedia.org Retrieved 2011-05-30). In 1957, the United State’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles defined the Middle-East as the area lying between and including Libya on the West and Pakistan in the East Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian Peninsula to the South, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia (Davison 1960). In 1958, the State Department explained that the terms “Near East” and Middle-East were interchangeable, and defined the region as including only Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi, Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar (New York Times, 1938–08–14).
The Wikipedia listed the traditional Middle-Eastern States to include Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Also included are Gaza strip and West Bank which are not fully sovereign. The Wikipedia further listed countries it referred to as the Greater Middle-East, they include: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Algeria, Mauritania, Western Sahara, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Comoros.
Today, Middle-Eastern countries have a variety of governing systems, including traditional monarchies, autocratic republics and semi-authoritarian states that allows for some degree of political pluralism (Katulis, 2009:4). The Central Intelligence Agency, the World fact book (2007) has categorized the various forms of government in the different Middle-Eastern countries thus; Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia and Yemen are under a Republic; Bahrain, Jordan and Morocco are in a Constitutional Monarchy. The Iranians operate a theocratic republic while Oman and Saudi Arabia operates a Monarchical system of government; Iraq and Israel have a Parliamentary Democracy while Kuwait operates a Constitutional Emirate; Turkey has a Republican Parliamentary Democracy and an Emirate system of government is operated in Qatar, The United Arab Emirates offers a Federation with specified powers delegated to the UAE Federal government and other powers reserved to members of the emirate while Syria is governed under a Republic controlled by an authoritarian military-dominated regime. Libya is said to operate a Jamahiriya (a state of the masses) in theory, governed by the populace through local councils; in practice, it is an authoritarian state. Despite the various forms of government, the Middle-East remains largely autocratic and authoritarian. According to Freedom House (2008), a majority of the countries in the region remain “Not Free”.


EGYPT: ITS INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE IN THE MIDDLE-EAST
Egypt occupies a strategic position in the Middle-East, with control of the Suez Canal, the main maritime thorough fare for trade between East and West. Throughout its recent history Egypt has been at the political and cultural forefront of Pan-Arabism and the Non-Aligned movement. With the creation of the State of Israel in 1948; Egypt took a lead role in the struggle for Palestinian rights in the land occupied by the new state. Prior to the creation of the state of Israel the influence and importance of Egypt was already evident when she hosted the December 1947 Arab League meeting in Cairo to discuss the threat of a Jewish State in their midst. The States represented were Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Transjordan. In the struggle for the Palestinian rights, Egyptian army invaded Israel from the south on May 15 1948, a day after the birth of Israel. In the same struggle, the Transjordanian army invaded from the east while Syrian and Lebanese armies invaded Israel from the north.
In 1952, Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had distinguished himself in the Palestine war, became President by Egypt and was soon the unrivaled champion of Arab nationalism (Stoessinger, 2001:150). His many actions against Israel endeared him to the Arab Middle-East and the Palestinians. Anwar Sadat became the President of Egypt after the death of Nasser in 1970 and continued the onslaught towards Israel when Egypt teamed with Syria to reclaim the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights in what is now referred to as the October War of 1973. After the war, attempts were made at peace negotiation and a Peace treaty was finally signed in Washington DC between Egypt and Israel on the 26th of March, 1979 after the 1978 Camp David Accord and President Anwar El Sadats visit to Israel in 1977. This treaty has resulted in peace between the two countries till date though it has been regarded by some as a cold peace.
This passage has attempted to capture how influential and important Egypt has been since the creation of the Israeli state, Israel has been a leading force in the times of struggles and wars in the Middle-East and has also been the key to the relative peace that has existed for over 30 years by its maintenance of the 1979 peace treaty.

CONCEPTUAL ELUCIDATION
Conflict
Different scholars have put forth different definition at various times in attempts at properly define the concept of conflict. Deutsch puts that conflicts exists whenever incompatible activities occur … one party is interfering, disrupting, obstructing or in some way making another party’s action less effective. Folger, et al. defines Conflict as the interaction of interdependent people who perceive incompatible goals and interference from each other in achieving those goals. Conrad defines conflicts as communicative interactions among people who are interdependent and who perceive that their interests are incompatible, inconsistent, in tension. Pruitt and Rubin sees Conflict as perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously. Wall has defined conflict as a process in which two or more parties attempt to frustrate the others goal attainment… Coser in his exposition defines social conflict as a struggle between opponents over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rival (Walker, 2005).

Democratization
Democratization can be understood in three different ways. For one, it is the introduction of democracy in a non-democratic regime. Next, democratization can be understood as the deepening of the democratic qualities of given democracies. Finally, democratization involves the question of the survival of democracy (Welzel, 2008:74-75).

Revolution
The Wikipedia elucidates that revolution is from a Latin word “revolutio” meaning ‘a turn around’ so a revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that take place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle (1972:190) describes two types of political revolution.
1. Complete change from one constitution to another
2. Modification of an existing constitution
Jack Goldstone (2001) defines revolutions as an effort to transform the political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non institutionalized action that undermine authorities.
Generally, a revolution can be seen as the radical transformation of a society through a mass movement or a popular struggle, resulting in the reorganization of the class structure, class relations and the basic institutions affecting the daily lives of the people. It is geared towards putting an end to poverty, hunger and misery.


CONFLICT THEORY AND MIDDLE-EAST CRISIS. THE 2011 EGYPTIAN POLITICAL CRISIS IN FOCUS
Conflict theories are perspectives in social sciences which emphasizes the social, political or materials inequality of a social group, which critique the broad socio-political system. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies (http://www.en.wikipedia.org).
Karl Marx is one of the classical founding fathers of social sciences commonly associated with the conflict theory. Based on a dialectical materialist account of history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction (Baird and Walter, 2008). Marx posits that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history class struggle… either in a revolutionary re-construction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes (Marx and Engels, 1998).
More recent scholars in conflict theories include Lewis Coser, Randall Colins, Ralf Dahrendorf, C. Wright Mills, Gene Sharp, Alan Sears, Max Gluckman etc.
It is worthy of mention at this point that conflict theory does not refers to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused as such. No single general theory of conflict exists that is acceptable to social scientists in their respective disciplines, or to authorities in other field from which social scientists borrow insights (Dougherty and Pflatzgraff 1990:187).
The term conflict usually refers to a condition in which one identifiable group of human being (whether tribal, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious, socio economic political or other) is engaged in conscious opposition to one or more other identifiable human groups because these groups are pursuing what are or appear to be incompatible goals (Doughterty and Pfaltzgraff 1990:187).
Conflicts seem to have the ability to occur anywhere and anytime but it could be of different shade and sizes, some are violent which others are not, some last relatively long while others are for a short while. Scholars over the years have attempted to answer the fundamental question of why conflict occurs or in other words what is the cause of conflict? Scholars have been diverse in their views on this fundamental question. These diversity has been categorized by Doughterty and Pfaltzgraff (1990) into the Microcosmic and Macrocosmic theories of conflict, where the Microcosmic theories include conflict theories that centers on humans as the basic cause of conflict these theories includes example like Biological and Psychological theories, instinct theories of Aggression, Frustration-Aggression theory and other psychological theories. The macrocosmic theories views institutions as the origin of conflict. The Macrocosmic theories examine conflict at the level of groups, collectivities, social institutions, social classes, large political movements, religious or ethnic entities, nation-states, coalitions, and cultural systems. Theories at this level encompasses those of sociologist, anthropologists etc.
Kenneth Waltz in his work, man, the state and war has identified three level of analysis or set of explanations for the occurrence of conflict. The first analysis rest upon the assumption that the causes of conflict; is to be found in the nature and behaviour of man. The second explanation operates on the assumption that conflict depends on the type of national government or the character of a national society. One implication of this perspective is that while human nature may be changeable, social and political institutions are. The third level of analysis finds the cause of conflict to lie not in men or states but in the nature of the nation-state system itself. It holds that the ultimate cause of conflict or warfare inheres in the very condition of the international system which Waltz and many others have identified as one of the international anarchy (Lieber 1972:100-104).
A. Oberschall, 2010 in his work “Conflict theory” has done a three level categorization of conflict. The first level which he referred to as the Human nature; sees the human nature as the roots of inter-group violence and warfare. He cites psychologist like Robert Hinde (1997) who postulates that “certain behavioural propensities, including the capacity for aggression, are common to virtually all humans. In Oberschall second level of categorization, he looked at conflict from what he referred to as the ‘New wars’ he analysed insurgencies, ethnic cleansing, civil wars, genocide, ethnic riot etc. He argues that unlike war between States, these “new wars” are undertaken by organized armed group against their governments or other groups with guerrilla tactics, bombings, hostage taking, and population expulsion. In his third categorization, he reviews Social Movements and Collective Action for explaining regimes, how the dynamics of confrontation escalates to civil strife, what outcomes results and whether violence is necessary for change (Oberschall, 2010:177). The theory consists of five components; issues, framing, mobilization, confrontation and outcomes. Analysis in this work will employ the use of conflict theory via social movement and collective action theory.




ASSUMPTIONS OF CONFLICT THEORY
Dr. Scott Plunkett and Professor Scott Williams provide some basic assumptions of conflict theory. They include:
1. If you have interaction, you have conflict
• No human society or group exists which does not possess conflicts of interest
• Conflict is necessary for growth and social change
2. Conflict and change are normal, inevitable and ubiquitous (i.e., everywhere) in family relationships and society
3. Conflict is endemic
• Goal is to manage conflict so it does not escalate to damaging levels to reduce the group to totally separate individuals.
• The problem with allowing conflict to increase to damaging levels is the couple or group will inevitably split apart and individuals will become separate.
• Oftentimes this is what occurs in a divorce with chronic unresolved anger and conflict.
4. There is a scarcity of resources
A. With surplus of resources, humans pursuing self-interest would not pursue conflict.
B. Our conflict arises because there is not enough resources for all to have what they want.
C. If everyone could get what they want, there would never be conflict.

5. Human societies consist of varying degrees of inherently unequal elements
• Therefore hierarchies emerges since power is not distributed equally
• Individuals and groups usually try to maximize their own positions within the hierarchies instead of completely changing the society. (www.csun.edu)
6. Revolution: Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through adaptation. It is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
7. War: Even war is a unifier of the societies involved, as well as war may set an end to whole societies.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION: EGYPTIAN 2011 POLITICAL CRISIS IN FOCUS
Oberschall 2010 argues that a theory of conflict has coalesced in the past 30 years in social movement and collective action research. He provides some basic assumptions of the theory.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY:
1. Social movement begins with small group networks, crowds, leaders, activists and ascends to ethnic groups, social movement organizations and regimes.
2. Social movement views contentious politics as necessary for social changes and reforms.
3. It views the states as a social control apparatus.
4. It has sophisticated theory of mobilization and confrontation for challenger, consisting of social infrastructure, repertoires, campaigns diffusion, framing, polarization and escalation (Oberschell, 2010:190).
In the study of social movement and collective action theory, five levels or stages of development is highlighted. These include the issues, framing, mobilization confrontation and outcome stages. These five components are going to be used in the analysis of the 2011 political crisis that erupted in Egypt after that of Tunisia and a consequent overflow to other Middle-Eastern States.
1. 1. Issues: In this analysis, issues are assumed as the beginning of social movement, collective action and conflict. There are existing issues, these issues may be new or long in existence in that particular society. In a regime or government, organized groups with low cost privileged access to political institutions are members of the polity, but less privileged groups and diffuse public are excluded (Tilly 2003; Tarrow 1998). Contemporary social scientists and policy makers generally look upon the high conflict potential of Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a function of widespread frustration traceable to economic deprivation (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 1990:323). Ted Robert Gurr argues that the necessary precondition for violent civil conflict is deprivation; define as actors’ perceptions of discrepancy between their value expectations and their environments apparent value capabilities (Gurr, 1970:36).
There are some clear issues that had ignited the conflict in Egypt. It has been observed by experts that there has been wide spread discontent among the urban Egyptian masses and host of socio-economic factors that bred the political instability. Jeremy M. Sharp (2011:6) has pointed out four (4) issues that apparently kick started the Egyptian crisis. Firstly, was the recent sectarian violence, then an apparently rigged parliamentary election, a third issue was the uncertainty surrounding the Presidents succession and lastly the success of the Tunisia “Jasmine Revolution” All these combined were some of the immediate issues that necessitated the crisis. Remote issue included the Hosni Mubaraks government stance on Arab-Israeli relation and the issue of Egypt–Israeli 1979 Peace Treaty. Also, the significantly declining well being of all income groups since 2005, with only the richest 20% of the population trending positively since 2009 (Gallup, February 2, 2011).
2. Framing: As dissatisfaction and discontent mount, adversaries frame the issue within rival belief system, shared folk knowledge, and ideologies –inequality, human rights, democratic norms etc. The organizing frames transform individual discontent into shared public grievances and call for relief through public actions. The adversaries organize around identity symbols expressed in slogans, songs, dress and hair styles, uniforms, flags, colours and other visible markers for identity and commitment (Oberschall, 2010:177). The Egyptian issues were framed around ideology. The masses wanted democratic norms entrenched in their government and on this democratization request, they hinged their identity symbols which they expressed as slogans like ‘Down Mubarak’ and the lifting of their shoes as a mark of disrespect for the government. Young Egyptian professionals like Wael Ghonim, a google executive were useful in the framing of the Egyptian issues.
3. Mobilization: Oberschall 2010 explains that competitive mobilization erupts with leaders and activists formulating an agenda for change with modes for resistance by the opposition. The Egyptian mobilization was carried out using social media networks like Twitter and Facebook. These were also used in the organization process. The protest started on January 25th with an unprecedented number of protesters. The protesters agenda for change was the sacking of the government along with President Mubarak but the leadership by Mubarak had another agenda for change. In the early morning of January 29, President Mubarak made what some described as a desperate attempt to cling to power in a televised speech to the nation in which he defiantly insisted that he would remain as president to protect the nation. During the speech, President Mubarak announced that he was dissolving the government and later that day, he appointed National Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman as his Vice President, the first time anyone has held that office under Mubarak. He also appointed Civil Aviation Minister Ahmed Shafiq as Prime Minister. This agenda for change failed to clam the public anger (Sharp, 2011:7).
Mancur Olson Jnr (1965), has observed that because social movements advocate on behalf of large group (masses) and their goals are collective goals (legislation, reform, regime change), they are vulnerable to free rider i.e. those who expect the benefits but do not contribute to the cost of attaining the goals. Political figures like Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei; former head of the IAEA and leader of Egypt’s National Association for Change, Mohammad Baltagi; Head of Muslim Brotherhood bloc of law makers from 2005 to 2010 etc. Who were not initially in the protest had joined later as leaders of the opposition in an anticipation of benefiting from the process.
In the Egyptian political tension, without planning, huge crowds gathered in Tahrir Square in Cairo from January 25th 2011 and chanted slogans and the display the soles of their shoes lifted with their hands and demanded leadership change; this process triggered similar confrontation of provincial cities and towns. Young activists bonded together by social media network like Facebook and Twitter emerged as pace-setters and leaders and some bore the highest cost of participation. Oberschall 2010 has pointed out that in collective action mobilization, small groups of activists bonding in close knit social milieus emerge as pace-setters and leaders and bear the highest cost of participation in long campaigns and inspire a larger group of part-time activists (called “transitory teams”) for short and low cost events (weekend demonstration), and an even larger sympathetic public (called a “conscience constituency”) who contribute funding but are not exposed to any physical danger or risk of arrest.
4. Confrontation: This is characterized by the tactics of strategic actions the adversaries use for reaching a favourable outcome. A pivotal variable of confrontation is violence because it is likely to change the issues, players, strategies, and other parameters of conflict. The confrontation of the Egyptian struggle in the centre of Cairo on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 was on live global television. Supporters of President Mubarak went on the offensive against opposition protestors in Tahrir (Liberation) square, and the army, while not deliberately hurting anti-government demonstrators did little to help them. In fact, the army had earlier called on protestors to leave the streets in an appeal for calm; a move some observes believe was really intended to deflate protestors’ momentum (Sharp, 2011: 11). Oberschall argue that faced with disruption, the authorities are under pressure to restore orderly routines in daily life. The authorities’ response becomes a new issue: If the authorities ban marches, it is a free speech, freedom of assembly issue for the banned group; if the authorities intervene coercively, they risk being accused of police brutality, protests to free those “unjustly” arrested and for punishing the police who “repressed” peaceful demonstrators become a new confrontation campaign (Oberschall, 2010: 189). The Egyptian police had been accused of Police brutality prior to this unrest so the use of police to intervene in this protest was avoided and the government decided to withdraw the police from the streets of Egypt and in what appeared to be an orchestrated show of force, a huge crowd of pro-Mubarak strongmen, some riding on horses and camel, stormed, Tahrir Square on Wednesday, Februrary 2, and attacked anti-government protesters with metal rods, stones, and sticks. A storm of stones rained down on both sides of battle. Eyewitness account from Egyptians and international journalists suggested that the attacker were made up of active supporters of the embattled President and its group known in Egyptian Arabic as “Baltagiya” or gangs. Some reports suggest that plainclothes police officers were among them (Sharp 2011:11). There are conflicting reports on the number of dead as a result of the confrontation but certainly lots of deaths were reported. The measures employed by the government to stem the protest became a new issue for continued confrontation, for example, the curfew, attacks by gangs in support by Mubarak, killings etc all resulted in the escalation of the protest for a regime change. Doug McAdam (1983) has observed that a variety of tactics, both conventional politics and unconventional protest, are engaged in confrontation as the challenges and their adversaries test each others strengths and weakness and the public responds.
5. Outcomes: At this level of analysis, the impact of collective action is measured or identified. Measures of success distinguish ‘acceptance’ (also called ‘recognition’) of the challengers from advantages gained (also ‘goal achievement’) (Gamson 1990, Oberschall 1973: 342-343). Acceptance is measured by the social movements elected or appointed officials in government, while advantages are clearly observed at the short run as in changes in issues that resulted in collective action or a change in regime/government. At the long-run though, measurement of advantages becomes relatively difficult. There was a form of recognition in the Egyptian collective action when the opposition figures were called for negotiation by the then ruling government and the advantages on the short run is very obvious which includes the overthrow of government, constitutional reform, higher level of political participation etc., but the long run advantages may include a better society and government performance in the economy. This is not as obvious as the short-run achievements.
The analysis of conflict via the social movement approach has assisted us in the understanding of the dynamics of the Egyptian 2011 political crisis from the stage of Issue to that of Output as it stands today. While these categories may not be as distinct or mutually exclusive as presented, they all exist and help shape a social change. It is suggested via the conflict theory that the division between social classes is ultimately a power struggle, a competitive force in which one group seeks domination and control over the weaker group. The ironic component of this thought process is that even within the weaker group, there may still exist a power struggle. The gap is not required to be as wide as it is not necessarily an issue between capitalism and working class. Also, if conflict is a natural segment of humanity, then topics on conflict resolution or peace integration are obsolete and void of meaning. With that consideration, conflict theory is only applicable in situations of war, famine and political strive. Not in situations of peace and social equality (www.ehow.com). Despite these limitations, the conflict theory has provided basis for analysis of conflicts and its dynamics in various society.

THE EGYPTIAN CRISIS AND MIDDLE-EAST DEMOCRATIZATION
The Middle-East may have a variety of governing systems but one thing is sure of these governments and earlier analysis has shown that they are more autocratic than democratic. Most of the governments are not directly elected or are not popular choice of the people but have held sway for decades. The economic statistical data of the region does not show improvement in the well being of the people even in the midst of so much crude oil and its returns in the international market. The gap between the ‘have’ and the ‘have not’ has expanded over time and the well-being plummets despite GDP gains (Gallup, February 2, 2011). There appears to be gross abuse of government office and corruptions on high places. This situation and other had driven the Tunisian then the Egyptian to the streets in a protest for better condition of living. Haven analyzed the important influence Egypt has in the region it is almost definite that anything that affects Egypt or any situation in Cairo will have a ripple effect on other countries in the regions. The rise of the Egyptian youth against their dictatorial government of three decades sent signals in the entire Middle-East that the masses could cry out in the face of deprivation, corruption and oppression. The Egyptian continued protest in the face of death and a consequent ouster of the Mubarak regime showed to the oppressed masses of the entire Middle-East that persistence on social change has advantages and a repressive regime could be removed via a collective civil action.
This paper view some issues present in the Egyptian revolt and its society to see how common it is to other countries in the region and on that basis tries to predict the outcome of political situation in the Middle-East.
PEOPLE PARTICIPATION
In the wake of the Tunisian/Egyptian uprisings other countries of the region immediately followed suit. Countries like Qatar, Bahrain, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Algeria etc. commenced protest for better standard of living, constitutional reforms, government change etc. In no distant time, mass protest swept through the region a situation that has been viewed as revolutionary and a drive towards democratization of a predominantly Arab society. Democracy is about people participation in the process of governance and this has been absent in the region. The Egyptian uprising showed to the Middle-East that it was possible for the people to decide on whom not to rule them. When a people become aware of their power to decide on who governs them and then begins to utilize it, then the democratization process has started. The rise to political dominance of the Egyptian people has prompted a reawakening of the masses of like countries and they are now more than ever before willing to take their rightful place in the governmental process and therefore causing a democratic revolution. This democratization process is grounded in the Arab public own aspirations for democracy and human right. It is likely that the outcome of the revolt in Egypt will be the same expectation of the people of the other countries. In the advent of a full fledged democracy in Egypt, the other revolting countries will accept nothing less.

INTERNAL ECONOMIC/POLITICAL CONDITION
This subsection tries to review the level of unemployment, the years the oppressive government has spent in power and the root of unrest in Egypt, and analyses if similar situation exist in the other Middle-Eastern countries.
We will rely on statistical figures as provided by Cable News Network web page in our analysis. The Mubarak led regime stayed in power for about 30 years, Gadaffi of Libya has held Sway for about 42 years, Tunisians Zine EL-Abidine Ben Ali was in power for about 24 years and King Abdullah II of Jordan has been Chief of State since 1999. President Bashar al–Assad of Syria has been president since 2000 while Bahrain’s Royal family has been in change since the 18th century though King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa has been monarch since 1999 and Prime Minister Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalfa has been there since 1971. President Saleh of Yemen has been in power since 1978 in North Yemen and upon Merger with South Yemen in 1990 he continued as president. Some other Middle-East countries have been under a family for centuries.
A look at the issues resulting in the revolt shows a great deal of similarities. Just like in Egypt others have also clamoured against their sit-tight government police brutality, corruption of the government and abuse of power, rising prices, discrimination, human right abuse, political freedom and civil liberty, high unemployment etc. The unemployment rates in these countries shows, Egypt – 9.7% (2010 est.), Libya – 30% (2004 est.), Tunisia – 14% (2010 est.), Jordan – 13.4% (2010 est.), Syria – 8.3% (2010 est.), Yemen – 35% (2003 est.) and Bahrain – 15% (2005 est.).
Another issue worth mentioning is the fact that youths are spearheading these revolts in the different countries. On these analyses we conclude that other Middle-East countries are most likely wishing for a change of government like Egypt and will wish for nothing less as their domestic economic and political issues are similar.

THE WEST AND DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE-EAST
In his second inaugural address in 2005, President George W. Bush proposed the United States foster democracy on a global level beginning with this Middle-East. In his speech he stated …it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. President Bush also reflected the way democracy has to emerge in any nation, from within and rooted deep in the soul of its people, “freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities and when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own…. Our goal is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way (Timmos, 2011). It seems that in Egypt and several other Middle-East countries, people have finally spoken. The same vein as his predecessor, President Obama has continued to call for democratic reforms in the Middle-East. This he has done through the offer and promise of aids and grants, even debt relief for democratizing Middle-East countries. He recently highlighted Egypt and Tunisia saying “First it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia where the stakes are high-as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world’s largest nation… And we’re going to start with Tunisia and Egypt. Firstly, we’ve asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt… Second… we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation… Third, we’re working with congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt…” President Obama’s speech shows US policy towards the Middle-East and the Democratization of its governments (www.hizb-america.org). Some scholars have argued that the US is not committed to democratic reforms in the Middle-East as they favour any government that will favour peace and stability in the region –whether autocratic or democratic- as long as the government maintains stability that is important to the US interest in the region. This interest includes the recognition and maintenance of the state of Israel and the unhindered access to oil etc. Despite these arguments, the speeches from Bush and Obama have clearly highlighted the United States interest in the democratization of the Middle-East. The clear incentives from the US for a democratizing Middle-East country are capable of encouraging democratic reforms.



















CONCLUSION
Egypt’s historic position in the heart of the Arab world means that what happens in Egypt does not stop in Egypt. Regardless of the form the new government eventually takes, it will have a powerful resonance/reverberation across the region (Bell, 2011). Change in other Middle-East countries may not be a replica of that of Egypt. For some, changes might occur methodically as the autocratic governments are to relinquish power systematically, allowing for a gradual transition to democratic rule. Other countries may fall into Civil war or a slow, burning series of violent outbreaks designed to wear down the government into submission (Timmons, 2011), but it is certain that a change has come to the Middle-East and it is the start of the Middle-East democratization. A fundamental question posed by the current Middle-East revolution is if this revolution will come to an end quickly with the establishment of new governments –hopefully democratic one- or will a much more radical, long-lasting revolution process develop? Will this revolution possibly be taken over by Islamic extremist (as happened in Iran more than 30 years ago), with unpredictable consequences fro the region and the world?
The answer to these fundamental questions not withstanding, it is the view of this paper that a democratizing Egypt will cause democratic reforms in the entire Middle-East region because of the historic antecedence, similarities in domestic conditions and Egypt’s political influence in the region.















REFERENCES

Aristotle, 1972. The Politics cited in http://www.en.wikipedia.org

Baird, Forrest E. and Walter, Kaufmann. 2008. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall cited in http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory

Bell, David. 2011. Cited in Hall, Rod. Egypt’s Revolution: Will it unsettle the Middle East? An article in World News and Prophecy: Biblical Perspective on Current Affairs. March/April 2011, Vol. 14 No 2

Central Intelligence Agency: The World Fact Book. 2007. Cited In The Middle-East in Transition:Appendix-Statistical Information. Available online at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook

Conflict Theory. Available online at http://www.csun.edu/~whw2380/542/Conflict%20theory.htm

Davison, Roderic H. 1960. Where is the Middle East? Foreign Affairs 38 (4): 665-75 cited in Middle East available online at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

Dougherty, J.E and Pfaltzgraff, R.L (1990): Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. Third Edition, Harper Collin Publishers Inc, New York

Freedom House data. 2008. Available online at www.freedomhouse.org

Gallup, February 2, 2011 cited in Sharp, Jeremy M. 2011. Egypt: The January 25 Revolution and Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy. http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL33003/2011-02-11/download/1005/

Gamson William. 1990. The Strategy of Social Protest. Belmont CA: Wadsworth cited in Oberschall, A. 2010 Conflict Theory in Leicht, K.T and Jenkins, J.C (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, Handbook of Sociology and Social Research, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Goldstone, Jack. 2001. Towards a fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 4, cited in http://www.en.wikipedia.org

Gurr, Ted Robert. 1970. Psychological Factors in Civil Violence cited in Dougherty, J.E and Pfaltzgraff, R.L (1990): Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. Third Edition, Harper Collin Publishers Inc, New York

Hinde, Robert. 1997. The Psychological Bases of War. Paper presented at the Study of War Conference, Wheaton II cited in Oberschall, A. 2010 Conflict Theory in Leicht, K.T and Jenkins, J.C (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, Handbook of Sociology and Social Research, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

History of the Middle East available online at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of _the_Middle_East

Katulis, Brian. 2009. Democracy Promotion in the Middle East and the Obama Administration. New York: The Century Foundation Inc.

Lieber, R.J 1972. Theory and World Politics, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers Inc.

Limitations of the Conflict Theory available online at http://www.ehow.com/info_8042572_limitations-conflict-theory.html#ixzz1O7XriwM0

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. 1998. The Communist Manifesto, introduction by Martin Malia. New York: Penguin group cited in http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory

McAdam, Doug. 1983. Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency. American Sociology Review 48, 735-54 cited in Oberschall, A. 2010 Conflict Theory in Leicht, K.T and Jenkins, J.C (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, Handbook of Sociology and Social Research, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Middle East available online at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

Obama’s New Colonial Vision for the Middle East available online at http://www.hizb-america.org

Oberschall, A. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall cited in Oberschall, A. 2010 Conflict Theory in Leicht, K.T and Jenkins, J.C (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, Handbook of Sociology and Social Research, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Oberschall, A. 2010. Conflict Theory in Leicht, K.T and Jenkins, J.C (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, Handbook of Sociology and Social Research, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Sharp, Jeremy M. 2011. Egypt: The January 25 Revolution and Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy. http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL33003/2011-02-11/download/1005/

Stoessinger, John. 2001. Why Nations Go to War. London: Palgrave Macmilian

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement. Social Movement and Contemporary Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press cited in Oberschall, A. 2010 Conflict Theory in Leicht, K.T and Jenkins, J.C (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, Handbook of Sociology and Social Research, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

The New York Times – A Country-by-Country Look available online at Middle East available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world.middleeast/middle-east-hub.html?scp=4&sq=middle%20east%20demonstrations%20timeline&st=cse

The New York Times 1958-08-14. Near East is Mideast, Washington Explains. Cited in Wikipedia Middle East available online at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

Tilly, Charles. 2003. The Politics of Collective Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press cited in Oberschall, A. 2010. Conflict Theory in Leicht, K.T and Jenkins, J.C (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, Handbook of Sociology and Social Research, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Timmons, Greg. 2011. The Impact of Egypt’s Political Revolution on the Middle East and Northern Africa. PBS News Hour Extra. Available online at www.pbs.org/.../NorthAfrica_MidEast_03-29.html - United States

Walker, Greg. 2005. Definitions of Conflict: An Academic Sampler. William C. Warters & WSU. Available online at
http://www.campus-adr.org/cmher/ReportResources/Definitions.html

Waltz, Kenneth. 1959. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis cited in Lieber, R.J. 1972. Theory and World Politics. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers Inc.

Welzel, Christian. 2008. Theories of Democratization. Available online at www.worldvaluessurvey.orgwvsarticlesfolder...OUP_Ch06.pdf -