The first round of parliamentary elections in Egypt has diverted attention from the growing protests against the ruling military council. The council has been accused by pro-democracy activists of rolling back the February revolution that led to the ouster of autocratic President Hosni Mubarak. For the military, the elections come as a relief as, in the last few weeks, it has had to combat protesters, leaving at least 42 civilians dead and thousands injured. The lull seems temporary, and before long, the military will again have to confront protesters disappointed with the pace of transition to democracy.

When Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power in February this year, it was widely described as a revolution. The popular uprising that ejected him captured the imagination of people across the globe, for its sheer implausibility. Activists and otherwise apolitical Egyptians applauded one another for a job well done. The manner in which mainstream media projected the event after he fled gave the impression that Egypt had arrived, was free, and that democracy was just across the threshold.

ARMY UNSCATHED

Since then, the optimism has evaporated, the revolution has gone stale, and activists now realise they have all along run on a political treadmill, or the illusion of moving ahead, only to realise they have been on the same spot.

Most, including the media, in February, seemed to be in a haste to describe the ouster of Mubarak as a revolution. While, undoubtedly, there is a natural domino effect when describing such an event, with journalists from everywhere picking up the description, one suspects there were vested interests that wanted to call it a revolution, as that would involve a closure, and activists could go home and bask in their success. This would ensure there would be no demands for more political changes of a fundamental kind.

Mubarak was only a figurehead. His support and power base came from Egypt's military establishment. While the autocrat became a fall guy, the military, by letting him go, ensured its infrastructure escaped unscathed. Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, under a former Mubarak associate Mohammad Hussein Tantawi, was ably-assisted by its close and powerful ally, the United States.

Tantawi, playing to the gallery, announced a series of pro-reform measures after Mubarak's ouster. But Egyptians, during these last few months, have gradually realised that nothing has really changed. Even the three-phased elections, first to the lower house, then to the upper house, and ending with a Presidential election in March, have been so strangely framed by the military rulers — they go on for four long months in a complex exercise. The outcome at the end of it may not be very different from the Mubarak regime. Fuelling the fears, the military has announced that it will have the prerogative to choose the cabinet, not the elected representatives.

That the military leadership is unwilling to give in to pro-democracy activists in their thousands is no surprise, as any replacement or alteration to the existing arrangement is potentially cataclysmic to entrenched political interests in the region, which are inextricably linked to Egypt's ties with the United States and Israel.

Egypt's contentious relations with Israel, and its client status with the US, are not backed by popular mandate. Egyptian policies have helped contain Arab anger and distress at the increasing marginalisation of Palestinians, in their fight against Israel for an independent homeland. Egypt also played a major role in defusing Arab outrage when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

Egyptian street anger against Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas is real and intense. Many activists have condemned the export of gas from Egypt to Israel, stating that the price is cheap, and below global market rates. Since February, protesters have also repeatedly attacked gas pipelines to Israel. The stakes for Israel are high, as it depends on Egypt for 40 per cent of gas requirements.

BUSINESS INTERESTS

Pro-democracy activists are realising that the second round of the “revolution” may not be as easy as the first. It was easy to knock off the figurehead, but dismantling the extensively-networked military establishment is another matter.

Already, the military's aggressive reaction to the protests has kicked up a controversy. The use of a lethal variety of teargas is suspected to have caused at least 38 deaths, and wounded 3,000 in the recent clampdown. The military in Egypt is not what one would generally expect a defence corps to be. Its activities go much beyond ensuring security and defence of the country. Under the legendary President Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptian military won appreciation for its triumph in overthrowing the erstwhile colonial British and French in the conflict regarding control of the Suez in 1956. Since then, the military, cashing in on the people's goodwill, has firmly entrenched itself, growing roots and extending its hold on myriad civilian activities. So much so, a large swathe of businesses in Egypt are controlled by military personnel, both serving and retired.

Military-run firms reportedly control key industries, including food processing, petroleum products, cement, vehicle manufacture, resorts and hotels. The estimates of military ownership of civilian businesses range from five to 40 per cent.

Obviously, the military fears that if, and when, a genuinely civilian government comes to power, its hold on the country will be diluted in more ways than one. More importantly, this will hurt the investments and business interests of top-ranking military officials.

In addition to the US and Israel wanting political status quo, this makes for a potent hurdle in the way of pro-democracy activists.

(The author is an independent journalist and formerly an editor at Al-Jazeera.)

Related Topics