A revolution against neoliberalism?
If rebellion results in a retrenchment of neoliberalism, millions will feel
cheated.
'Abu Atris' Last Modified: 24 Feb 2011 17:04 GMT
Ahmed Ezz, one of several NDP officials arrested since Egypt's revolution began
[EPA]
On February 16th I read a comment was posted on the wall of the Kullina Khalid
Saed ("We are all Khaled Said") Facebook page administered by the now very
famous Wael Ghonim. By that time it had been there for about 21 hours. The
comment referred to a news item reporting that European governments were under
pressure to freeze bank accounts of recently deposed members of the Mubarak
regime. The comment said: "Excellent news
we do not want to take revenge on
anyone
it is the right of all of us to hold to account any person who has
wronged this nation. By law we want the nation's money that has been stolen
because this is the money of Egyptians, 40% of whom live below the poverty
line."
By the time I unpacked this thread of conversation, 5,999 people had clicked
the "like" button, and about 5,500 had left comments. I have not attempted the
herculean task of reading all five thousand odd comments (and no doubt more are
being added as I write), but a fairly lengthy survey left no doubt that most of
the comments were made by people who clicked the "like" icon on the Facebook
page. There were also a few by regime supporters, and others by people who
dislike the personality cult that has emerged around Mr. Ghoneim.
This Facebook thread is symptomatic of the moment. Now that the Mubarak regime
has fallen, an urge to account for its crimes and to identify its accomplices
has come to the fore. The chants, songs, and poetry performed in Midan
al-Tahrir always contained an element of anger against haramiyya (thieves) who
benefited from regime corruption. Now lists of regime supporters are
circulating in the press and blogosphere. Mubarak and his closest relatives
(sons Gamal and 'Ala') are always at the head of these lists. Articles on their
personal wealth give figures as low as $3 billion to as high as $70 billion
(the higher number was repeated on many protesters' signs). Ahmad Ezz, the
General Secretary of the deposed National Democratic Party and the largest
steel magnate in the Middle East, is supposed to be worth $18 billion; Zohayr
Garana, former Minister of Tourism, $13 billion; Ahmad al-Maghrabi, former
Minister of Housing, $11 billion; former Minister of Interior Habib Adli, much
hated for his supervision of an incredibly abusive police state, also managed
to amass $8 billion not bad for a lifetime civil servant.
Such figures may prove to be inaccurate. They may be too low, or maybe too
high, and we may never know precisely because much of the money is outside of
Egypt, and foreign governments will only investigate the financial dealings of
Mubarak regime members if the Egyptian government makes a formal request for
them to do so. Whatever the true numbers, the corruption of the Mubarak regime
is not in doubt. The lowest figure quoted for Mubarak's personal wealth, of
"only" $3 billion, is damning enough for a man who entered the air force in
1950 at the age of twenty two, embarking on a sixty-year career in "public
service."
A systemic problem
The hunt for regime cronies' billions may be a natural inclination of the
post-Mubarak era, but it could also lead astray efforts to reconstitute the
political system. The generals who now rule Egypt are obviously happy to let
the politicians take the heat. Their names were not included in the lists of
the most egregiously corrupt individuals of the Mubarak era, though in fact the
upper echelons of the military have long been beneficiaries of a system similar
to (and sometimes overlapping with) the one that that enriched civilian figures
much more prominent in the public eye such as Ahmad Ezz and Habib al-Adly.
Despite macroeconomic gains, tens of millions of Egyptians still live in
poverty [EPA]
To describe blatant exploitation of the political system for personal gain as
corruption misses the forest for the trees. Such exploitation is surely an
outrage against Egyptian citizens, but calling it corruption suggests that the
problem is aberrations from a system that would otherwise function smoothly. If
this were the case then the crimes of the Mubarak regime could be attributed
simply to bad character: change the people and the problems go away. But the
real problem with the regime was not necessarily that high-ranking members of
the government were thieves in an ordinary sense. They did not necessarily
steal directly from the treasury. Rather they were enriched through a
conflation of politics and business under the guise of privatization. This was
less a violation of the system than business as usual. Mubarak's Egypt, in a
nutshell, was a quintessential neoliberal state.
What is neoliberalism? In his Brief History of Neoliberalism, the eminent
social geographer David Harvey outlined "a theory of political economic
practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by
liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an
institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free
markets, and free trade." Neoliberal states guarantee, by force if necessary,
the "proper functioning" of markets; where markets do not exist (for example,
in the use of land, water, education, health care, social security, or
environmental pollution), then the state should create them.
Guaranteeing the sanctity of markets is supposed to be the limit of legitimate
state functions, and state interventions should always be subordinate to
markets. All human behavior, and not just the production of goods and services,
can be reduced to market transactions.
And the application of utopian neoliberalism in the real world leads to
deformed societies as surely as the application of utopian communism did.
Rhetoric vs. reality
Two observations about Egypt's history as a neoliberal state are in order.
First, Mubarak's Egypt was considered to be at the forefront of instituting
neoliberal policies in the Middle East (not un-coincidentally, so was Ben Ali's
Tunisia). Secondly, the reality of Egypt's political economy during the Mubarak
era was very different than the rhetoric, as was the case in every other
neoliberal state from Chile to Indonesia. Political scientist Timothy Mitchell
published a revealing essay about Egypt's brand of neoliberalism in his book
Rule of Experts (the chapter titled "Dreamland" named after a housing
development built by Ahmad Bahgat, one of the Mubarak cronies now discredited
by the fall of the regime). The gist of Mitchell's portrait of Egyptian
neoliberalism was that while Egypt was lauded by institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund as a beacon of free-market success, the standard
tools for measuring economies gave a grossly inadequate picture of the Egyptian
economy. In reality the unfettering of markets and agenda of privatization were
applied unevenly at best.
The only people for whom Egyptian neoliberalism worked "by the book" were the
most vulnerable members of society, and their experience with neoliberalism was
not a pretty picture. Organised labor was fiercely suppressed. The public
education and the health care systems were gutted by a combination of neglect
and privatization. Much of the population suffered stagnant or falling wages
relative to inflation. Official unemployment was estimated at approximately
9.4% last year (and much higher for the youth who spearheaded the January 25th
Revolution), and about 20% of the population is said to live below a poverty
line defined as $2 per day per person.
For the wealthy, the rules were very different. Egypt did not so much shrink
its public sector, as neoliberal doctrine would have it, as it reallocated
public resources for the benefit of a small and already affluent elite.
Privatization provided windfalls for politically well-connected individuals who
could purchase state-owned assets for much less than their market value, or
monopolise rents from such diverse sources as tourism and foreign aid. Huge
proportions of the profits made by companies that supplied basic construction
materials like steel and cement came from government contracts, a proportion of
which in turn were related to aid from foreign governments.
Most importantly, the very limited function for the state recommended by
neoliberal doctrine in the abstract was turned on its head in reality. In
Mubarak's Egypt business and government were so tightly intertwined that it was
often difficult for an outside observer to tease them apart. Since political
connections were the surest route to astronomical profits, businessmen had
powerful incentives to buy political office in the phony elections run by the
ruling National Democratic Party. Whatever competition there was for seats in
the Peoples' Assembly and Consultative Council took place mainly within the
NDP. Non-NDP representation in parliament by opposition parties was strictly a
matter of the political calculations made for a given elections: let in a few
independent candidates known to be affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in
2005 (and set off tremors of fear in Washington); dictate total NDP domination
in 2010 (and clear the path for an expected new round of distributing public
assets to "private" investors).
Parallels with America
The political economy of the Mubarak regime was shaped by many currents in
Egypt's own history, but its broad outlines were by no means unique. Similar
stories can be told throughout the rest of the Middle East, Latin America,
Asia, Europe and Africa. Everywhere neoliberalism has been tried, the results
are similar: living up to the utopian ideal is impossible; formal measures of
economic activity mask huge disparities in the fortunes of the rich and poor;
elites become "masters of the universe," using force to defend their
prerogatives, and manipulating the economy to their advantage, but never living
in anything resembling the heavily marketised worlds that are imposed on the
poor.
Unemployment was a major grievance for millions of Egyptian protesters [EPA]
The story should sound familiar to Americans as well. For example, the vast
fortunes of Bush era cabinet members Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, through
their involvement with companies like Halliburton and Gilead Sciences, are the
product of a political system that allows them more or less legally to have
one foot planted in "business" and another in "government" to the point that
the distinction between them becomes blurred. Politicians move from the office
to the boardroom to the lobbying organization and back again.
As neoliberal dogma disallows any legitimate role for government other than
guarding the sanctity of free markets, recent American history has been marked
by the steady privatization of services and resources formerly supplied or
controlled by the government. But it is inevitably those with closest access to
the government who are best positioned to profit from government campaigns to
sell off the functions it formerly performed. It is not just Republicans who
are implicated in this systemic corruption. Clinton-era Secretary of Treasury
Robert Rubin's involvement with Citigroup does not bear close scrutiny.
Lawrence Summers gave crucial support for the deregulation of financial
derivatives contracts while Secretary of Treasury under Clinton, and profited
handsomely from companies involved in the same practices while working for
Obama (and of course deregulated derivatives were a key element in the
financial crisis that led to a massive Federal bailout of the entire banking
industry).
So in Egyptian terms, when General Secretary of the NDP Ahmad Ezz cornered the
market on steel and was given contracts to build public-private construction
projects, or when former Minister of Parliament Talaat Mustafa purchased vast
tracts of land for the upscale Madinaty housing development without having to
engage in a competitive bidding process (but with the benefit of state-provided
road and utility infrastructure), they may have been practicing corruption
logically and morally. But what they were doing was also as American as apple
pie, at least within the scope of the past two decades.
However, in the current climate the most important thing is not the
depredations of deposed Mubarak regime cronies. It is rather the role of the
military in the political system. It is the army that now rules the country,
albeit as a transitional power, or so most Egyptians hope. No representatives
of the upper echelons of the Egyptian military appear on the various lists of
old-regime allies who need to be called to account. For example, the headline
of the February 17th edition of Ahrar, the press organ of the Liberal party,
was emblazoned with the headline "Financial Reserves of the Corrupt Total 700
Billion Pounds [about $118 billion] in 18 Countries."
A vast economic powerhouse
But the article did not say a single word about the place of the military in
this epic theft. The military were nonetheless part of the crony capitalism of
the Mubarak era. After relatively short careers in the military high-ranking
officers are rewarded with such perks as highly remunerative positions on the
management boards of housing projects and shopping malls. Some of these are
essentially public-sector companies transferred to the military sector when
IMF-mandated structural adjustment programs required reductions in the civilian
public sector.
But the generals also receive plums from the private sector. Military spending
itself was also lucrative because it included both a state budget and contracts
with American companies that provided hardware and technical expertise. The
United States provided much of the financing for this spending under rules that
required a great deal of the money to be recycled to American corporations, but
all such deals required middlemen. Who better to act as an intermediary for
American foreign aid contracts than men from the very same military designated
as the recipient of the services paid for by this aid? In this respect the
Egyptian military-industrial complex was again stealing a page from the
American playbook; indeed, to the extent that the Egyptian military benefited
from American foreign aid, Egypt was part of the American military-industrial
complex, which is famous for its revolving-door system of recycling retired
military men as lobbyists and employees of defense contractors.
Consequently it is almost unthinkable that the generals of the Supreme Military
Council will willingly allow more than cosmetic changes in the political
economy of Egypt. But they could be compelled to do so unwillingly. The army is
a blunt force, not well suited for controlling crowds of demonstrators. The
latest statement of the Supreme Military Council reiterated both the legitimacy
of the pro-democracy movements demands, and the requirement that demonstrations
cease so that the country can get back to work. If demonstrations continue to
the point that the Supreme Military Council feels it can no longer tolerate
them, then the soldiers who will be ordered to put them down (indeed, in some
accounts were already ordered to put them down early in the revolution and
refused to do so) with deadly force, are not the generals who were part of the
Mubarak-era corruption, but conscripts.
Pro-democracy demonstrators and their sympathisers often repeated the slogans
"the army and the people are one hand," and "the army is from us." They had the
conscripts in mind, and many were unaware of how stark differences were between
the interests of the soldiers and the generals. Between the conscripts and the
generals is a middle-level professional officer corps whose loyalties have been
the subject of much speculation. The generals, for their part, want to maintain
their privileges, but not to rule directly. Protracted direct rule leaves the
officers of the Supreme Military Council vulnerable to challenges from other
officers who were left on the outside. Also, direct rule would make it
impossible to hide that the elite officers are not in fact part of the "single
hand" composed of the people and the (conscript) army. They are instead
logically in the same camp as Ahmad Ezz, Safwat al-Sharif, Gamal Mubarak, and
Habib al-Adly precisely the names on those lists making the rounds of regime
members and cronies who should face judgment.
Ultimately the intense speculation about how much money the Mubarak regime
stole, and how much the people can expect to pump back into the nation, is a
red herring. If the figure turns out to be $50 billion or $500 billion, it will
not matter, if Egypt remains a neoliberal state dedicated (nominally) to
free-market fundamentalism for the poor, while creating new privatised assets
that can be recycled to political insiders for the rich. If one seeks clues to
how deeply the January 25th Revolution will restructure Egypt, it would be
better to look at such issues as what sort of advice the interim government of
generals solicits in fulfilling its mandate to re-make Egyptian government. The
period of military government probably will be as short as advertised,
followed, one hopes, by an interim civilian government for some specified
period (at least two years) during which political parties are allowed to
organise on the ground in preparation for free elections. But interim
governments have a way of becoming permanent.
Technocrats or ideologues?
One sometimes hears calls to set up a government of "technocrats" that would
assume the practical matters of governance. "Technocrat" sounds neutral a
technical expert who would make decisions on "scientific" principle. The term
was often applied to Yusuf Butros Ghali, for example, the former Minister of
the Treasury, who was one of the Gamal Mubarak boys brought into the cabinet in
2006 ostensibly to smooth the way for the President's son to assume power.
Ghali is now accused of having appropriated LE 450 million for the use of Ahmad
Ezz.
I once sat next to Ghali at a dinner during one of his trips abroad, and had
the opportunity to ask him when the Egyptian government would be ready to have
free elections. His response was to trot out the now discredited regime line
that elections were impossible because actual democracy would result in the
Muslim Brotherhood taking power. Conceivably Ghali will beat the charge of
specifically funneling the state's money to Ahmad Ezz. But as a key architect
of Egypt's privatization programs he cannot possibly have been unaware that he
was facilitating a system that enabled the Ezz steel empire while
simultaneously destroying Egypt's educational and health care systems.
The Egyptian army controls a range of businesses, ranging from factories to
hotels [EPA]
The last time I encountered the word "technocrat" was in Naomi Klein's book The
Shock Doctrine a searing indictment of neoliberalism which argues that the
free-market fundamentalism promoted by economist Milton Friedman (and immensely
influential in the United States) is predicated on restructuring economies in
the wake of catastrophic disruptions because normally functioning societies and
political systems would never vote for it. Disruptions can be natural or
man-made, such as
revolutions.
The chapters in The Shock Doctrine on Poland, Russia, and South Africa make
interesting reading in the context of Egypt's revolution. In each case when
governments (communist or apartheid) collapsed, "technocrats" were brought in
to help run countries that were suddenly without functional governments, and
create the institutional infrastructure for their successors. The technocrats
always seemed to have dispensed a form of what Klein calls "shock therapy"
the imposition of sweeping privatization programs before dazed populations
could consider their options and potentially vote for less ideologically pure
options that are in their own interests.
The last great wave of revolutions occurred in 1989. The governments that were
collapsing then were communist, and the replacement in that "shock moment" of
one extreme economic system with its opposite seemed predictable and to many
even natural.
One of the things that make the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions potentially
important on a global scale is that they took place in states that were already
neoliberalised. The complete failure of neoliberalsm to deliver "human
well-being" to a large majority of Egyptians was one of the prime causes of the
revolution, at least in the sense of helping to prime millions of people who
were not connected to social media to enter the streets on the side of the
pro-democracy activists.
But the January 25th Revolution is still a "shock moment." We hear calls to
bring in the technocrats in order to revive a dazed economy; and we are told
every day that the situation is fluid, and that there is a power vacuum in the
wake of not just the disgraced NDP, but also the largely discredited legal
opposition parties, which played no role whatsoever in the January 25th
Revolution. In this context the generals are probably happy with all the talk
about reclaiming the money stolen by the regime, because the flip side of that
coin is a related current of worry about the state of the economy. The notion
that the economy is in ruins tourists staying away, investor confidence
shattered, employment in the construction sector at a standstill, many
industries and businesses operating at far less than full capacity could well
be the single most dangerous rationale for imposing cosmetic reforms that leave
the incestuous relation between governance and business intact.
Or worse, if the pro-democracy movement lets itself be stampeded by the
"economic ruin" narrative, structures could be put in place by "technocrats"
under the aegis of the military transitional government that would tie the
eventual civilian government into actually quickening the pace of
privatization. Ideologues, including those of the neoliberal stripe, are prone
to a witchcraft mode of thinking: if the spell does not work, it is not the
fault of the magic, but rather the fault of the shaman who performed the spell.
In other words, the logic could be that it was not neoliberalism that ruined
Mubarak's Egypt, but the faulty application of neoliberalism.
Trial balloons for this witchcraft narrative are already being floated outside
of Egypt. The New York Times ran an article on February 17th casting the
military as a regressive force opposed to privatization and seeking a return to
Nasserist statism. The article pits the ostensibly "good side" of the Mubarak
regime (privatization programs) against bad old Arab socialism, completely
ignoring the fact that while the system of military privilege may preserve some
public-sector resources transferred from the civilian economy under pressure of
IMF structural adjustment programs, the empire of the generals is hardly
limited to a ring-fenced quasi-underground public sector.
Officers were also rewarded with private-sector perks; civilian
political/business empires mixed public and private roles to the point that
what was government and what was private were indistinguishable; both the
military and civilians raked in rents from foreign aid. The generals may well
prefer a new round of neoliberal witchcraft. More privatization will simply
free up assets and rents that only the politically connected (including the
generals) can acquire. Fixing a failed neoliberal state by more stringent
applications of neoliberalism could be the surest way for them to preserve
their privileges.
A neoliberal fix would, however, be a tragedy for the pro-democracy movement.
The demands of the protesters were clear and largely political: remove the
regime; end the emergency law; stop state torture; hold free and fair
elections. But implicit in these demands from the beginning (and decisive by
the end) was an expectation of greater social and economic justice. Social
media may have helped organise the kernel of a movement that eventually
overthrew Mubarak, but a large element of what got enough people into the
streets to finally overwhelm the state security forces was economic grievances
that are intrinsic to neoliberalism. These grievances cannot be reduced to
grinding poverty, for revolutions are never carried out by the poorest of the
poor. It was rather the erosion of a sense that some human spheres should be
outside the logic of markets. Mubarak's Egypt degraded schools and hospitals,
and guaranteed grossly inadequate wages, particularly in the ever-expanding
private sector. This was what turned hundreds of dedicated activists into
millions of determined protestors.
If the January 25th revolution results in no more than a retrenchment of
neoliberalism, or even its intensification, those millions will have been
cheated. The rest of the world could be cheated as well. Egypt and Tunisia are
the first nations to carry out successful revolutions against neoliberal
regimes. Americans could learn from Egypt. Indeed, there are signs that they
already are doing so. Wisconsin teachers protesting against their governor's
attempts to remove the right to collective bargaining have carried signs
equating Mubarak with their governor. Egyptians might well say to America
'uqbalak (may you be the next).
'Abu Atris' is the pseudonym for a writer working in Egypt. The views expressed
in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al
Jazeera's editorial policy.
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
