Will Egypt find 'same as the old boss'?

There is a lot of celebration in Cairo over the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, and Washington and other Western capitals seem pleased, too. The Egyptian military establishment, which has been touted in news reports as a stabilizing force and a greatly admired institution, has taken over the governing powers.

Better dial back the ecstasy just a bit. Egyptians and Americans with any memory at all will remember that the military has been in the place before. After all, all three of Egypt's previous rulers have come out of the military. Mubarak, as he reminded his countrymen before resigning his office, was a military officer. Anwar Sadat, his predecessor, also came out of the military elite. And before Sadat, Gamal Abdel Nasser was a military officer before becoming president. Each of the three was innovative and forward-thinking in his own way, but all three ruled as dictators, not fairly elected choices of a free electorate.

All three men were autocratic rulers presiding over despotic, corrupt regimes. It seems unlikely that the military that produced three despots who ruled with iron fists for nearly 60 years would suddenly produce, or give way to, a democratically elected administration. It seems more likely that the protesters in Tahrir Square will have traded one ex-military authoritarian ruler for another.

We can hope for a better outcome, for the kind of democracy that the peaceful protesters demanded, but until we see evidence to the contrary, the safer bet is for another ruler in the mold of Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak.

The right catalyst for Middle East democracy

Almost eight years ago, George W. Bush envisioned the toppling of Saddam Hussein as the catalyst for a democratic movement across the Middle East. British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a compelling speech in support, saying that all people desire democratic freedoms and that to think non-Westerners think otherwise is arrogant. Things didn't work out as Bush predicted, and Blair's analysis of universal human longing remains unproven.

Protests going on in Egypt, following the overthrow of a despotic regime in Tunisia, suggest that Blair's analysis might have been correct, and only Bush was wrong only about the right kind of catalyst. Tunisian protests have resulted in the ouster of an authoritarian but Western-leaning government, and Tunisians' success has emboldened long-simmering unrest in Egypt, which has been ruled by dictators throughout its independence. Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled since the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat, has been friendly to the United States and continued Sadat's bold relationship with Israel. He has quashed any opposition to his regime and has not allowed democratic elections. The Egyptian model has been the norm throughout the Middle East, where only Israel holds democratic elections and recognizes human rights.

American efforts to plant democracy in Iraq have had only moderate success. What exists there is a thin veneer of democracy atop a seething cauldron of sectarian and tribal violence. Iran's presidential election ended in loud protests against what appeared to be a predetermined outcome, the result of which was an affirmation that Iran has a theocracy, not a democracy.

The end result for Tunisia — and especially for Egypt — remains uncertain. Both countries could fall under the power of Islamist radicals, or they could wind up with parliamentary democracies in which bitter rivals learn to share power. The street protests that toppled Tunisia's government and now threaten Egypt's have proven to be better at ushering in democratic change than all the planning done from Washington in 2003 and afterward.