Not a Coup, Apparently

The whole military coup-that-we mustn't-call-a-coup in Egypt this week has left me feeling distinctly uneasy.  When all is said and done, regardless of his unpopularity, his partisanship to certain groups and failure to really get to grips with the task of creating a new civil society in Egypt, President Morsi was a democratically elected leader.  OK. he won the presidency in a run-off against a pro-Mubarak candidate, which was basically a no-contest, but the fact is that if the rest of the opposition had gotten its act together and come up with a single candidate themselves, then the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't have been left fielding the only non-establishment candidate.  Frankly, the opposition, whose protests have triggered the 'non-coup' really have only themselves to blame.  The fact that they have now entered into some kind of unholy pact with the military - their former nemesis whose post-Mubarak rule they also opposed - to unseat an elected President seems bizarre, to say the least.  Don't misunderstand me, it was increasingly obvious that Morsi was failing - if he had been unseated as a result of mass civil demonstrations and disobedience, then I wouldn't be so uneasy.  It's the involvement of the military I don't like.  It's all disturbingly reminiscent of the bad old days f the Roman Empire, when the military used to despatch emperors they didn't like, often with alarming rapidity, and replace them with their own choices, instead.

There's another parallel with the Roman Empire, of course.  Under both systems the military is as much a business as a fighting force.  In Rome, legions were more often than not privately financed, with their commanders expecting to make a profit from the spoils of conquest.  Consequently, the loyalty of soldiers was toward their commanders - who ensured they were paid - rather than the Emperor directly.  Likewise, in Egypt, the army is also a business, owning such highly profitable enterprises as olive oil factories and holiday resorts.  Again, their loyalty is toward maintaining their profits - they'll back whichever regime offers the most stable economic and social conditions for them to continue doing business.  If a regime looks like it is creating instability, they'll remove it.  Which is what the current situation is about - profits.  Believe me, the Egyptian military have no commitment to democracy.  Not that Egypt has the only economically active military.  There's a similar situation in Iran, where the Revolutionary Guard own and operate numerous large commercial enterprises, a situation which enhances their power greatly, as the government is economically, as well as militarily, reliant upon them.  All of which, as far as I'm concerned, are yet more good reasons never to trust the military.