Analysis of the Conflict in Egypt - Case Study Example

Conflict Life Cycle Analysis in Egypt’s Revolution The power that masses in protest possess had always been a mystery for leaders in power and is seldom understood aptly. Specially, it is true for leaders with some degree of legitimacy and hold among state power brokers like Husni Mubarak, the once Egyptian President. The conflict background is not much different from those of other conflicts resulted in successful revolutions. All common factor for a popular protest and revolution like poor living conditions, the rising socio-economic class differences, bans on freedom of expression, suppression, tyranny of forces and police have played a role in the final uprising of masses to set things right, in a way they ought to be. But there has to be an event with a potential to spark the revolution. In case of Egypt, it was the alighting of a man in front of parliament building in Cairo on 17 January, 2011 to register his protest against the untold pains that the economic conditions have caused him. (Jones, 2011) The incident caused to set dividing line between the oppressed and the oppressor and thus had set the stage for the first stage of conflict life cycle, the beginning. As a natural outcome of this incident two sides; the Egyptian government and the public takes their definite sides. As the time elapsed the government and public stances appeared to have two obvious stands points around which the opinions began to emerge and the divide began to take clear boundaries. Majority of people have a clear mindset on the issue and they have no confusion on the logic of their stance. The protesters were beefed up with masses from every walk of life neglecting their mutual differences in social values and religious thoughts. “They were students and professionals, men and women, members of both the elite and the working class, standing side by side, and standing together out of concern for their countrys future.” (Editorial, 2011). This majority began to organize their protest against the Husni Mubarak government and thus gave birth to a conflict life cycle as outlined by the Peace Pledge Union (PPU) theory, “A conflict begins to take shape as the differences between the conflicting parties become clearly defined and people begin to take sides openly.” (PPU, 2011). The protestors were peaceful right from the beginning of the conflict and successfully displayed their rationale and resolution behind the protest. However, the Egyptian government had tried nothing new but the tools and tricks what a dictator regime often has to employ. The nonviolent protestor began to formulate their demands as the government fails to reconcile in the early stages of the conflict. This was mainly due to a tyrant approach to such conflicts and the suppression and oppression could only add fuel to the fire. The public anger began to rise as the government failed pay heed to public concerns in a befitting manner. The situation clearly outlines the next stage of the conflict where conflict are grown into mature stages and some violence marks the stanch behaviors of parties involved in the conflict. The PPU identifies the situation as, “Each side increases its demands, and its sense of grievance swells. Each side looks for allies from outside the conflict area, for moral and physical support. Acts of violence begin.” (PPU, 2011). The killing of the protestors by government allies further complicated the conflict and the blood injected firm determination among the protester gather around the historic Tahrir Square to liberate their country from the Husni Mubarak regime. The violence introduced by the government allies further aggravated the situation and created the deadlock required to translate such conflicts into a successful revolution. The activists chanted popular slogans "We do not want Shafik any more, even if they shoot us with bullets, revolution until victory, revolution against Shafik and the palace.” (Sherwood & Tom, 2011). The whole Egypt went on warlike situation after this and riots spread all over the country supported by the workers and employee strikes and protests. The things begin to tighten for the government as well as for the army general who have major stakes at risk in case of a successful revolution. “The army has several advantages over entrepreneurs, including not having to pay taxes and circumventing red tape that strangles much Egyptian enterprise.” (Meo, 2011). The interests of stakeholder in the conflict underlines the complexity of the issues to be resolved if a solution is to be worked out. The protestor however were in a state of mind to trust the army any more, at the same time the protestor had not displayed any political leadership. The riots, unrest and protest were mainly fed by the general public anger against the 31 years rule of Husni Mubarak and the army milking the situation equally. The deadlock thus created however, has to be address in a way or other. The situation is aligned with PPU theory which states, “sooner or later, however, both sides decide that ending the conflict is a problem they must both solve, though it has to be done without loss of face.” (PPU, 2011). The settlement of the conflict was initiated when Husni Mubarak that neither he nor his son will contest the next presidential election. However, it was just a beginning to what the public protest had focused by now. What the Husni Mubarak has announced in his speech was not a near match to public demand of an entire social and economic reform; a natural and the ultimate outcome acceptable to the masses gathered around the Tahrir Square for last few weeks. Even when the Husni Mubarak ouster was formally announced by the Vice President Omar Suleiman On 11 February the settlement has not reached its logical destination. The conflict resolution was not an easy equation as the common man was not ready to trust the army to enforce the reforms for which they have shed their blood in Tahrir Square. Meo has voiced this public concern when he states, “The protesters are suspicious about the armys commitment to reforming a corrupt system they have propped up and personally benefited from for decades.” (Meo, 2011). However, the resolution of major public concerns were successfully address in a due course of time and a six months deadline for new elections was finally agreed upon by major stakeholders. The hard earned freedom of expression by people had given them confidence to keep tight control over the outlines future reforms and elections in due course of time. This perhaps points to what the PPU refers as settling the conflict in its conflict life-cycle, “Complete resolution of a conflict is difficult after such great hostility, but may be reached after the passage of healing time if everyone has this aim.” (PPU, 2011). The Egyptian revolution is good example of conflict life cycle theory and stages of the revolution conform to the various stages as outlined in the theory. It is important to understand that the theory does not demand a hard line connection between various stages of a conflict as conflict is a human phenomenon therefore; alterations and adoptions are always expected and accepted. References Editorial, 2011, ‘Day of violence must not defeat Egypts promise’, The National, 17 January, viewed 13 April, 2011, http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation Jones, Sam 2011, ‘Man sets himself on fire near Egyptian parliament’, The Guardian, 17 January, viewed 13 April, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world Meo, Nick 2011, ‘Egypt protests: fears that the army will install a new Mubarak to keep its power and privilege’ The Telegraph, 19 February, viewed 14 April, 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ /news/worldnews/ PPU, 2011, ‘The Life-Cycle of a Conflict’, A Peace Pledge Union Project, viewed 13 April, 2011, Sherwood, Harriet and Tom, Finm 2011, ‘Thousands join day of rage across the Middle East’, The Guardian, 17 January, viewed 13 April, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world Read More