The military establishment is an integral part of the state. It is responsible for its security and stability and for safeguarding legitimacy. Third World countries rely on their military establishments directly in the development process as well as in many other processes of social and economic change. The military is the most organised of the institutions of the state concerned with the advancement of the state, the defence of popular demands and the success of real opportunities for development and, indeed, sustained development. In Egypt, the military establishment as embodied in the armed forces is an ancient one that has long enabled us to realise security and stability. Since 1952, it played a pioneering role in protecting Egyptian wealth, promoting state ownership and the abolishment of all forms of feudal ownership, and supporting the redistribution of wealth in a manner conducive to the realisation of social justice. It also was instrumental in thwarting all schemes and conspiracies seeking to revive colonialist control over the Arab region as a whole. In addition to its role in the military/security sphere, as most brilliantly demonstrated by the Egyptian victory in the October 1973 War, the military establishment has always played a modernising role in Egypt, taking the initiative towards economic and social reforms and promoting the establishment and reinforcement of government institutions as a whole, whether through the provision of human resources or through technical and technological assistance. The role of the military establishment remained clear after the 25 January and 30 June revolutions in which it consistently backed the demands of the Egyptian people and sided with their will. The army acted in response to the people and for the sake of the people and it interacted with the youth and grasped its demands and aspirations in both revolutions. It is impossible to deny that the dismissal of president Mohamed Morsi and the declaration of the roadmap to the future were the product of full and close cooperation and coordination between the military establishment and the youth, especially the Tamarod (Rebel) movement, and then all other political forces and movements. The military establishment made this cooperative dynamic clear during the announcement of the roadmap. The army has continued to demonstrate its solidarity with the people by placing its resources and personnel at the service of the people in the street during the six-month curfew, by working alongside the police to help secure the referendum on the new constitution, and through other such activities intended to reassure the people and enhance their sense of security. On top of this, the military has remained fully dedicated to another basic task, which is the fight against terrorism in society, towards which cause it has and continues to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers who have become the daily targets of terrorists. In spite of all the foregoing, we hear today some belittling or minimising the role of the army after 30 June. They say it was the people who had the ultimate say and were it not for the people, the army would not have acted. Not only do they ignore the challenges and dangers that the army has faced and deny the achievements it has scored, they ignore the military establishment in order to profile persons or groups that played at best marginal roles. Whether or not this was a form of campaign propaganda, it is clear that the intent was to deliberately ignore the most decisive force and influence in the scene. In addition to those who call for the end to “military rule” — a term with which I take exception — and for the army to return to its barracks in order to effect a separation between the military and civil establishments, some have objected to the fact that a man with a military background has run for the presidency. Again, they argue that his role in the 30 June Revolution was minimal and that the people were the driving force behind that revolution. In running for office this candidate was working to reinstate “military rule” whereas Egypt needed a civil president, not a military one. In light of such outlooks, it is important to consider the stated need to effect a complete separation between the military and civilian establishments. The question applies even to modern industrialised nations. In the US, the most advanced Western nation and a symbol of liberty and democracy, 33 of its 44 presidents were military leaders and even the civilian presidents had been raised in a creed that venerated the military establishment and deferred to its wisdom. Certainly, in the US there is no sharp division between the military and civil establishments. In fact, you will find that leaders in the military establishment serve many functions in companies and other economic, political and social institutions in the US. They also influence and sometimes pressure decision-makers on both domestic and foreign policy. In addition, many research centres and think tanks are controlled by security agencies. Indeed, scientific research in all fields is supervised by the Department of Defense (the Pentagon). Every American raised on respect and esteem for their military establishment and its leaders knows full well the priority and importance of US national security. The same applies to Europe. Most European leaders hailed from the military. This did not make them repressive dictators. It helped make them great leaders who steered their countries not towards military dictatorship but towards real democracy under civilian governments and the rule of law. In none of those developed nations did rabble-rousers, anarchists and promoters of instability take to the streets shouting “down with military rule” in order to effect a total separation between the military and civil establishments which, in all events, is impossible in even the most modern and democratic nation. If armies have the noble function of protecting a country's borders and national territories, they also play a fundamental role in protecting them by participating in the development process and the modernisation of the institutions of the state and government services. In China, for example, the People's Liberation Army performs a number of civil functions, such as agricultural and industrial production. In Europe, the largest and most lucrative industries are the military defence industries. If, in Egypt, the army is the best-organised state institution and the most capable of performing its authentic functions, as well as in assisting in civilian functions, it is the duty of every Egyptian to be proud of it. They should support this establishment rather than listening to tendentious voices and persons of spurious interests and others who seek to destroy the state by mustering opposition to the army and the military establishment as a whole. This applies in particular to the current critical phase through which Egypt and the Arab region are passing. Armies are the power that halts forces that work to dismantle the state or undermine its capacities. They are truly the protectors of nations, which is a fact that our new generations of youth should believe in. The writer is a political science researcher at Cairo University.
