Germany’s foreign policy has gained global attention these days because of its efforts in the context of the Libyan crisis. Although the conference in Berlin which was held on January 19 resulted in no actual success, at least some global and regional actors have expressed their willingness to end the ongoing crisis in Libya. While Germany has been visibly decisive in boosting a peace process or ceasefire in Libya, some days after the conference the renowned Semper Opera House in the German city of Dresden announced that this year it will award the Medal of St. George to Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has ruled the country since the military coup in 2013 and with widespread violations of human rights.

The Semper Opera Ball, which is the largest classical entertainment event in German-speaking Europe, as well as one of the most important ball events in Europe, initially granted the medal to “recognize Sisi’s peace-making efforts in North Africa” and for his so-called “leadership as a statesman”. On Sunday, January 25, 2020, a German delegation handed over the Medal of St. George to Sisi, who is regarded by most Western media representatives and political circles as a dictator or at least an “autocratic leader”.

The German public harshly criticized the decision to award Sisi both on social media and in some mainstream media outlets. Furthermore, one of the renowned anchors of the upcoming ball, journalist Judith Rakers, cancelled her contract to host the event following the award.

But how was it possible to grant such an award to a dictator and to describe him as a person who looks for dialogue between all parties and a hope for Egyptians? The manager of the Opera House, Hans-Joachim Frey, initially stated that the ball was not a political event but a cultural one and that “although one is aware of Sisi and his acts”, he had described Sisi as a person standing for “stability in the region”. However, due to increasing pressure from the public and left-liberal circles, Frey, subsequently apologized and also declared that the Opera House “distance themselves from this awarding” which was “a mistake”.

The Saxony state government, though indirectly, continued to support the idea of awarding Sisi by referring to the management of the Semper Opera Ball without any consequences or sharp comments. The government’s spokesperson clearly stated that “Al-Sisi is not a democrat, there exists violations of the law (in Egypt), but this man is doing an important stabilizing job in the region”. Furthermore, despite admitting that the award was a mistake, it was not withdrawn immediately.

Additional criticism also came from the German public broadcaster MDR, which still broadcasted the Semper Opera Ball on February 7, despite criticism against the management. MDR said that despite the understandable and clear criticism regarding the award ceremony, “the Semper Opera Ball remains an important piece of culture of Central Germany, which inspires many people…freedom of the press and freedom of speech are an indispensable asset for the broadcaster.”

Consequently, nothing changed at all, and “Egypt’s dictator received a red carpet”, as Stephan Kühn, a Greens MP of Germany’s Federal Parliament, described the initial awarding of Sisi in a very critical tone in his open letter prior to the ball on February 7. In the end, the award was withdrawn only some days prior to the ball after the organizers faced obvious public pressure and harsh criticism. It seems that the organizers tried to save the remaining reputation of the Semper Opera Ball.

Actually, despite withdrawing the medal in a final moment, this is not the first time Sisi has been de facto honored in Germany. The German government’s position towards the Sisi regime is already well known and unfortunately has not changed in the years since Sisi’s bloody coup in 2013. This is despite the continuous, widespread and systematic crackdown on human rights, weak democratic mechanisms, the failure of the rule of law and the brutality of the military regime in Egypt. Germany and other nations in the EU have turned a blind eye to this and are not acting in compliance with their own Western values which espouse the importance of human rights. It even went so far that some years ago Germany’s former President Joachim Gauck openly welcomed and rolled out the red carpet for Sisi in Berlin.

Even though the Egyptian president’s brutal reputation is known among media circles and behind closed doors within Berlin’s political elites, he is still described as a partner in the “fight against terrorism”, and, of course, as one of the biggest purchasers of specific German products, namely weapons. Therefore, it does not surprise anyone that Germany’s arms exports to Egypt and to the United Arab Emirates, both who support the Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar, significantly increased in the first half of 2019, despite both countries’ involvement in the Yemen conflict. Furthermore, Egypt is now the second biggest customer in the German weapons industry with 880 million US dollars in purchases.

Now the ball is over but the questions remain as to the Medal’s future, which has been tarnished by past conferral on other autocratic figures. Abolishing this “Medal for Nothing” might be a reasonable option.

But the more crucial question is why do some circles welcome or even award anti-democratic leaders instead of putting pressure on them? The recent Semper Opera Ball case made it clear that promoting German (or Western) culture and values in conflict-ridden regions does not seem sincere. Such generic expressions hide the real, namely economic and political motives. In the case of Hans-Joachim Frey it might be also related to the likely goal of exporting the ball to the newly opened opera house in Egypt’s capital, as a local commentator and German daily pointed out.

Nevertheless, it is quite a good signal that despite the silence at the federal governmental level, many members of Germany’s political parties criticized the award decision. The media and public opinion did not welcome the honoring of such a political figure who systematically violates human rights. However, there remains a lack of action and pressure that needs to emerge on domestics and international levels whenever such a case emerges.

Given Germany’s current efforts in the Libyan crisis, honoring Sisi will not really undermine the country’s overall reputation as well as the federal government’s credibility. No doubt, realist and pragmatic moves in international politics are considered from a rather different perspective. However, while Germany, its media and public opinion distinguish their country’s stance on the Libyan crisis from those countries which support the Libyan warlord, then, one should expect a more cautious approach towards authoritarian figures, even if it is only limited to a cultural event, as in the case of the Semper Opera Ball.

During the past weeks, Egypt has witnessed unexpected anti-government protests. The demonstrations were triggered by the social media posts of businessman Mohammad Ali, who did construction projects for the Egyptian military, but did not receive payments for some time. Mohammad Ali heavily criticized the Sisi regime and the Egyptian army by revealing their serious malpractices. As his videos became popular, the interest among the youth to organize protests against the regime increased. On September 20 and 21, thousands of Egyptians took to streets to protest the regime despite the fear of arrest by the security forces. While protests didn’t last long, it was surprising for many that some people would actually go to streets and protest. The regime’s responses were harsh. Hundreds of protesters were arrested in the following days. However, the demonstrations failed to produce tangible results.

The lack of international support for the protesters and the continued backing of Sisi by global actors are the main factors behind this. Egyptians know that the increasing regime pressure on civilians will not be condemned, and human rights abuses will continue to occur. Therefore, even though Egyptians wish for the regime to topple, activists were cautious to go to the streets to protest. This applies to Muslim Brotherhood members as well. As the group experienced the harshest pressure in its history under the Sisi regime, they rightly abstained from participating in protests in order to prevent further oppression.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood’s peaceful struggle for democracy has been the main motivation for a handful of protesters who could stand up against the regime. As the movement lost the opportunity for civil opposition inside the country, it had to carry its struggle outside. The movement was keen on staying peaceful and sought every means to establish a democratic system in Egypt. 

One of the most important factors behind the protests in Egypt is the continuation of the democratic struggle of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, especially through the use of traditional and social media. One of the most important tools in this sense is the regime-critical television channels. Istanbul-based Mkemmelin and Sharq are two major TV channels that the Egyptian opposition use to broadcast critical coverage of the Sisi regime. These channels have millions of viewers in Egypt where state media allows no critical coverage. While the discussion programs broadcast on these channels reach millions of Egyptians via satellite, they are an alternative source of news for media organizations, which are one of the propaganda tools of the oppressive regime in the country. These programs, which have widespread popularity among young people, reveal the true face of the regime in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is also supported by other political and intellectual figures in its struggle for a democratic Egypt. These efforts represent a hope for the domestic masses in Egypt and encourage them to continue their struggle for democracy.

Another dynamic that triggered the protests was the use of social media. In an environment where oppositional discourses cannot be expressed in the public sphere, young people often use social media tools for political activism. While Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which were used extensively in the early periods of the Arab revolutions, remained popular, it has been observed that regime critical posts and publications have increased significantly.

In addition to criticism on social media, Egyptians have shown their dissatisfaction towards the Sisi regime in street as well. Sisi’s regime has not been able to provide political stability, find a solution to the economic crisis, and prevent deepening social inequalities. The regime’s spending on various sectors was also source of discomfort. The most obvious example of this is the expenditures in the defense industry. In an environment where inflation is increasing and purchasing power is gradually decreasing, the Sisi regime’s purchase of billions of dollars of defense industry products has been met with public reaction. A similar situation can also be said in the context of giant projects such as the construction of the new capital and the expansion of the Suez Canal. It is widely argued that these projects did not produce intended outcomes and were waste of public resources. 

It is unclear how anti-Sisi protests will have an impact on the future of the regime. As a matter of fact, although there is dissatisfaction with Sisi within the army and political bureaucracy, there is no clear indication that regional and global actors have disregarded Sisi. On the other hand, these protests will strengthen the perception that Sisi’s image, which has been damaged in domestic public opinion, has become even more negative before these actors. Therefore, since 2013, the countries that support Sisi have been forced to consider an alternative name in case of a possible change in government.

Sisi was placed in power by regional and global actors led by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE with the aim of ending the revolutionary process in Egypt in 2011. Sisi fulfilled his duty by preventing the revolutionary process, prioritizing Western interests, guaranteeing the security of Israel and eliminating the Muslim Brotherhood from political life. However, given both the lack of internal stability in Egypt and the growing reaction against Sisi, it is seen that although Sisi is still a functional actor, and he has completed the mission given to him in the counter-revolution process, there may be an increasing demand for a new and more charismatic actor in Egyptian politics. Therefore, the future of Sisi will depend not only on the developments within Egypt, but also on the attitude of regional and global actors that have an impact on this country.

The six years long oppressive regime of Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi did little to prevent the growing opposition in Egypt. The country has witnessed increasing opposition towards the regime that was established in the aftermath of the July 3, 2013, military coup. Domestically, various social and political groups as well as the general public have increasingly been dissatisfied with the policies of the Sisi regime. A similar observation can be made for the perception of the Sisi regime among the international community. Major research institutions and news outlets claim that under the Sisi regime, Egypt is going towards a major breakdown that could affect not only the region, but wider geographies, including Europe.

There are two major reasons for the increasing discontent towards the Sisi regime. First, Egyptians and the international community believe that the Sisi regime is moving country to a more authoritarian stance. This is in total contradiction with what the revolutionaries of 2011 had hoped for when they managed to topple the three-decade long dictator, Hosni Mubarak. In the aftermath of the revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood leadership made a number of attempts to strengthen the democratic nature of the Egyptian state. However, the July 3 coup led by Sisi ended this short experience of democracy. Since then, the Sisi regime has been distancing Egypt from democracy and this is something that the revolutionaries would continue to stand up against.

Egyptians and the international community believe that the Sisi regime is moving country to a more authoritarian stance.

The second reason for this increasing discontent is the mismanagement of the Sisi regime. This can be observed in various fields such as the economy, security, social policy, the rule of law and foreign policy. Mistakes and wrong choices made by the Sisi regime in these fields have already caused a huge burden on Egyptians and will continue to bring additional problems in the short-term. It is widely believed in Egypt that if such policies continue to be implemented by the Sisi regime, the country will suffer both domestically and externally. This has created a political environment in which although there has been heavy pressure on the opposition, it has still achieved to stay alive.

Opposition towards the Sisi regime is not only limited with the Muslim Brotherhood organization, which suffered the most brutal crackdown in the country’s modern history. Other social forces that have different ideologies to the Muslim Brotherhood have also been dissatisfied with the policies of the Sisi regime. Egyptians are seriously disturbed by the loss of the gains made during the 2011 revolution and by the fact that the regime is increasingly becoming a repressive government. For this reason, the anti-Sisi opposition, which was largely led by the Muslim Brotherhood since 2013, has now spread to a wider audience that includes various ideological groups, including liberals, secular people and socialists.

This process is actually a result of a chain of events and policy choices that took place since 2013. In the aftermath of the military coup, the Sisi regime aimed to crash all the opposition that raised voice against the military takeover. Thousands of arrests and violent dispersals of protesters were initial signs of further repression. The Rabaa Massacre, where the Egyptian security forces killed more than a thousand protesters was the most obvious sign proving that the military regime would have no mercy for protesters who oppose the coup. In order to prevent a possible uprising, the Sisi regime gradually increased its pressure on the opposition regardless of their ideologies.

To prevent a possible uprising, the Sisi regime gradually increased its pressure on the opposition regardless of their ideologies.

Even the 6 April Movement and the Revolutionary Socialists, which supported the July 3, 2013, military coup, had their share of repressive policies of the regime. While leaders and scores of members of the 6 April Movement were arrested, a member of the Revolutionary Socialists was killed by the police during demonstrations in Cairo on the anniversary of the January 25 Revolution. The 6 April Movement was also barred from establishing a political party and was taken to court for being a terrorist organization. Following the heavy pressure, both the 6 April Movement and the Revolutionary Socialists had to step back to avoid further mistreatment from the Sisi regime.

As a result of the continuation of oppressive policies at home as well as the mismanagement of the country, Sisi has never been considered a reliable statesmen – not only in the eyes of the Egyptian people, but across the Middle East. Human rights violations, unjust court proceedings, arbitrary arrests and wide-spread torture have all caused a deep hatred towards the Sisi regime by millions of Egyptians. Despite developing good relations with regional actors, opening new initiatives in Africa and receiving the support of Western powers, Sisi has become a figure whose leadership skills and motivations are questioned by the masses and whose existence is seen as a problem for the stability of the country.

Human rights violations, unjust court proceedings, arbitrary arrests and wide-spread torture have all caused a deep hatred towards the Sisi regime by millions of Egyptians.

Finally, it can be observed that Sisi has lost the confidence of the Egyptian people. The Egyptian people no longer consider the Sisi regime as a government that can make democratic reforms, advance economic conditions, reduce poverty, bring political stability and achieve social integrity. It is also believed that the continuation of human rights violations, economic hardships and political instability will force the Sisi regime to re-consider its existence.

While relying heavily on the support of global powers, particularly from the U.S. and Israel, the Sisi regime does not take into account the fact that there is a deepening anger towards the administration domestically. The continuation of this trend may cause problems for Cairo that will have serious consequences with a devastating impact. The future of the Sisi regime is dependent on whether it will begin to address these issues and how Cairo will respond to domestic problems.

The constitutional referendum that allowed Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to extend his mandate until 2030 took place in Egypt. It is argued that the political environment in the country was not suitable for a referendum. As the apparatus of the regime and media strongly favored a “yes” vote, the advocates of the “no” vote did not have a chance to organize a campaign as opposition groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, had boycotted the referendum.

The government also took measures to increase voter turnout. Organizing free shuttles to voting centers and distributing food-packages for those who proved that they had voted were among such measures. Despite these efforts, in comparison to previous elections and referendums, voter turnout was low. Official statements displayed a voter turnout of 44 percent. However, this figure was much lower according to international observers.

The referendum was strongly criticized by local and international human rights organizations. The Egyptian Front for Human Rights, the Nadeem Center, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch criticized the vote by stating that the referendum would have negative consequences for the country’s future.

The voter turnout was low in Egypt’s referendum in comparison to previous ones. Official statements displayed a voter turnout of 44 percent.

As was the case for previous elections and referendums, the result was in favor of the regime’s plan. The constitutional amendments were adopted with 88.8% of voters approving the changes. The new articles adopted damage the principle of separation powers as the president is given the authority to appoint the heads of high judicial institutions. The military has also been granted new privileges, making the country more of an authoritarian regime.

Despite his unsuccessful tenure as president, opposition groups in the country have increasingly targeted Sisi. This is mainly due to the fact that since the military coup in 2013, Sisi has failed to achieve most of his policy objectives. His policies damaged democratic institutions, harmed social integrity among Egyptian society and deepened economic uncertainties while creating mistrust between the public and the state.

One of the most important miscalculations of the Sisi regime was the unlawful practice towards the Muslim Brotherhood organization. With its decades-long civil society activities in the country, the Muslim Brotherhood was considered as a powerful civil movement. Many Egyptians, including liberal and secular movements, criticized and blamed the Sisi regime for the brutal crackdown on the movement. Widening political pressure to other opposition groups has severely shaken the confidence of Egyptians about the Sisi regime. This has been particularly observed among the country’s youth, who have no chance to freely express their ideas.

Local and international human rights organizations criticized the referendum, which will allow Sisi to extend his tenure until 2030. 

A similar observation can be made about the country’s economy. Despite its long-term repercussions, the Sisi regime signed an agreement with the IMF. The agreement brought heavy burden on Egyptians, particularly those with a low income. With increasing prices and unemployment, the living conditions of millions of people in Egypt deteriorated. Sisi’s inability to find a solution to these problems has had a negative effect on the country’s youth.

The Sisi regime has not been successful in implementing a strategy towards ending the violence and terrorism in the country. During the past years, security forces have suffered serious losses in the Egyptian army’s comprehensive operations in the Sinai Peninsula, which have caused discomfort among the Egyptians. On the other hand, the Egyptian army’s alleged attacks on civilian targets are also a source of concern.

Despite its weakness, some regional and international actors have been supporting the Sisi regime. This is mainly related to the strategic gains of these actors. Some countries that have benefited from the continuation of the Sisi regime include the United States, France, Germany, and Israel.

The constitutional amendments that were adopted in Egypt damage the principle of separation powers as the president is given the authority to appoint the heads of high judicial institutions.

Bilateral relations between Egypt and Israel have improved significantly during the Sisi period and the two countries have become strategic allies. This is of great importance for Israel in preventing the threats emerging from Arab countries in the region. As Tel-Aviv secured a reliable partner in regional politics, it has been able to expand its policies against Palestine. More, countries such as the U.S., France, and Germany benefit from Sisi’s presence in strategic and economic terms. For Washington, Sisi is a strategic ally for U.S. policies towards the Arab world. Therefore, the U.S. administration provides support for the Sisi regime in exchange for Cairo’s loyalty in regional politics.

European countries also benefit from Sisi’s rule. Despite the country’s economic crisis, Sisi has purchased French military equipment worth billions of Euros. These purchases have made a significant contribution to France’s defense industry. Germany, on the other hand, supported the Sisi regime for Egypt’s strategic position in preventing a new migration wave from Africa. Germany has additionally benefited from economic activities with Egypt.

The support that the U.S. and other European countries have shown for Sisi has encouraged Cairo to institutionalize its authoritarian rule.

Despite its oppressive policies since 2013, the support the U.S. and other European countries have shown Sisi has encouraged Cairo to institutionalize its authoritarian rule. The referendum was an important step in this regard. Despite the failures in domestic politics and economics, the Sisi regime has continued to survive especially due to the support that it has received from international powers. Therefore, it can be argued that the existence of the regime depends entirely on external support. Although there is strong discomfort within the domestic polity, the possibility of another popular uprising seems out of sight mainly due to the heavy pressure and oppression on any opposition towards the regime in Cairo.

The Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who came to power in the aftermath of the military coup on July 3, 2013, met with U.S. President Donald Trump. Since 2017, this meeting has been the sixth occasion where both leaders conducted bilateral talks. Trump’s positive attitude towards Sisi has not changed and the U.S. President continues to praise Sisi’s disputed achievements despite international condemnation and criticism of Sisi’s human rights records. During the press conference when it was asked whether Sisi should remain as president until 2034, Trump confidently said: “Sisi is a great president and is doing a great job.” This statement alone proved the fact that the Trump administration will continue to ignore the human rights abuses and undemocratic practices in Egypt in exchange to Sisi’s loyalty to U.S. leadership in regional politics.

The visit drew both attention and reaction from both the U.S. and the international audience. While many observers, experts, academics, and journalists, have criticized Trump for hosting Sisi, human rights defenders have argued that it is unacceptable for the U.S. to support such an oppressive regime. A number of U.S. senators also expressed their discomfort with Sisi’s human rights abuses. In a letter directed to Sisi, U.S. senators criticized the regime’s crackdown on dissent and argued that the continuation of this attitude would threaten U.S. support for Cairo. Democrat senators Eliot Engel and Ted Deutch and republican senators Michael McCaul and Joe Wilson signed the letter. In addition to this, some U.S. senators have also expressed their discomfort over growing ties between Egypt and Russia, with a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The senators warn that Sisi’s close relations with Russia could damage relations with the United States.

In a letter directed to Sisi, U.S. senators criticized the regime’s crackdown on dissent and argued that the continuation of this attitude would threaten U.S. support for Cairo.

On the other hand, critics emphasize that the timing of Sisi’s visit is remarkable. It should be noted that Egypt is on the wake of a constitutional referendum that would change the nature of state from “democracy” to military authoritarianism. In February, Egyptian lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment bill, which will allow Sisi to occupy the presidential seat until 2034.

The amendment also brings the judiciary under the control of the executive body and gives wider privileges to the military. The amendments propose that the military courts are a higher judicial body than civilian courts. It is also suggested that the president should allow the heads of High Courts to be Attorney Generals as well. As can be seen clearly, the proposed amendments are in direct conflict with the principle of separation of powers – which is the most fundamental principle of a functioning democracy.

It is argued that the constitutional amendment would pave the way for the institutionalization of the repressive regime in Egypt. Despite concerns and criticism, the Egyptian regime will hold a referendum in order to legalize the amendments. This is most likely to occur in early May.

The constitutional amendments proposed by Sisi will pave the way for the institutionalization of the repressive regime in Egypt. 

Another significant amendment is the establishment of a new chamber of Parliament, which would be named as the “Senate.” The Senate will have the power to propose new draft laws, pass draft laws that were received from the President and approve the general budget and international agreements. It is suggested for the Senate to have 250 seats. The president will be able to appoint one third of senators for five-year terms. If such an amendment is approved and if the president will become able to appoint such a large number of senators, he will eventually have the ability to pass anything that he wants. Critics have argued for this amendment to be unfit for a democratic system.

Despite these shortcomings and criticism, Sisi aims to adopt the constitutional amendments proposed, particularly the article that would extend his presidential term limit. It can be argued that in order to find a legitimate ground for these changes, Sisi has been trying to obtain international support that would strengthen his arguments domestically. It was due to these efforts that the main agenda of the meeting between Trump and Sisi was the constitutional amendments in Egypt. As Trump has fervently supported Sisi’s presidency in his statements, it can be argued that the Egyptian premier must have received what he wanted from the visit.

Although there is a large number of opposition in Egypt, who has criticized the constitutional amendments proposed by Sisi, their ability to prevent such changes is limited. As the regime’s crackdown on the opposition intensified to secular and liberal groups, there is hardly any incentive to raise voices against these proposals.

As Trump fervently supported Sisi’s presidency in his statements, it can be argued that the Egyptian premier must have received what he wanted from his latest visit to the U.S. 

As hopes for a democratic transition has rapidly disappeared, the Egyptian regime is clearly opting in for more authoritarian rule. Critics argue that the political and social atmosphere in Egypt is experiencing one of its worst periods in the country’s history. While pressure on the opposition in Egypt have been more severe than ever, civil society, academia, and the media have been subject to intense oppression. All kinds of voices against the government are silenced, and the ongoing political and economic instability in Egypt is pushing the patience of the public against the Sisi administration. As this atmosphere intimidates opponents for an uproar, the possibility of a social uprising in the country remains a vivid reality.

The Egyptian regime has recently executed 9 men convicted of allegedly killing the country’s chief public prosecutor, Hisham Barakat, in 2015. The executed men were among 28 sentenced to death for an alleged involvement in a car bomb attack, which targeted Barakat’s convoy in Cairo. Despite the explanation by the 9 men during their trial that their confessions were taken under torture, nothing changed and the injustice within the Egyptian regime showed its face once again.

But one point to keep in mind, as has been elaborated, these 9 young men would be alive today had it not been for the West’s support for Sisi.

As one can guess, subsequent to the executions by Sisi, neither the U.S. nor the EU took a stance against the regime. Just like the U.S. Secretary of State, EU member states also remained silent on the issue. In addition, just like an ironic joke, the EU came together with the dictatorial Egyptian regime in the context of the “EU-League of Arab States Summit” in Sharm El-Sheikh on 24-25 February. EU politicians such as Donald Tust, who co-chaired the meeting with Sisi, and Jean-Claude Juncker, High Representative Federica Mogherini, and Commissioner Johannes Hahn attended the summit as well.

Germany’s Chancellor also took part in the summit, where she posed for a picture with Egypt’s putschist leader. According to a piece published by the EU, the summit is seen as a chance to strengthen ties between the Arab and European world, and aimed to address “common challenges” such as multilateralism, trade and investment, migration, security, and the overall situation in the region. As one notices, these issues are concerning economic-based interests and expected steps by the regime in order to prevent a refugee influx from, for example, Libya to Europe.

With no surprise, the “value-oriented” EU states did not address topics like dictatorial military regimes within Arab states, the repression of political movements, and the abuse and lack of human rights, the number of political prisoners and the lack of freedom of speech and rule of law in the hosting country.

But with no surprise, the “value-oriented” EU states did not address topics like dictatorial military regimes within Arab states, the repression of political movements, and the abuse and lack of human rights, the number of political prisoners, particularly in Egypt, and the lack of freedom of speech and rule of law in the hosting country. None of these points, which are indispensable for millions of people in the region, have been addressed by representatives of the democratic Western world.

Beside the summit in Egypt, which should be observed as a rather meaningless political attempt to put a sign against countries such as the U.S. and to allegedly fill the vacuum in the subsequent period in the Middle East, and against Russia, Turkey, Iran on the other hand, the question arises as to what those Western representatives of “liberal democracy and the rule of law” have actually done while alone 9 young men in the last week and a total of 15 men were executed in the last one month by the Egyptian regime?

For instance, U.S. President Trump and his administration continued to attack and discredit Venezulean President Maduro, while Trump personally tweeted adoring the North Korean dictatorial dynasty’s leader. In a similar and ambivalent way, EU countries continued to make efforts to recognize Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela, while actually intervening in internal affairs. Germany’s Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Norbert Röttgen (CDU), described the Venezuelan President Maduro as a dictator while German foreign minister Heiko Maas (SPD) preferred the term “Maduro regime” – all these declarations occurred during a time when Merkel came together with Egypt’s authoritarian leader.

Ambivalent, credit-lacking, and hypocrisy-based positions of European leaders show one crucial thing: everything is politically motivated without any respect to the rule of law, universal human rights, or other democratic values.

What kind of hypocrisy level are we talking about? This was not the first time Sisi was welcomed by leading European powers, as he has previously been hosted by Germany and France – of course without any actual criticism of his regime. Thus, all these ambivalent, credit-lacking, and hypocrisy-based positions show one crucial thing. Namely, that all these positions are based on a political motivation, without any respect to the rule of law, universal human rights, or other democratic values.

Thus, even though at the end of the summit in Egypt the European Council President had a pseudo-dispute with Egypt’s President on occasion of a journalist’s human rights-related question, the situation became obvious once again. The West’s alleged values has no meaning in the eyes of Sisi. In fact, he was as confident as to answer with the meaningless words, “Respect our values and ethics, as we do yours.” It is also meaningless to address “his values,” which do not exist. Nevertheless, despite the Western civilized world’s general silence and alleged pragmatist steps in order to build dialogue channels with so-called “strongmen,” it is hopeful to see countries that still stand against such authoritarian and putschist regimes. In this sense, President Erdogan’s clear statements with regard to the totalitarian Sisi regime and the nonsense of the Egyptian judiciary still remains a sense of hope in the eyes of millions.

The Egyptian resort city of Sharm Al-Sheikh hosted the League of Arab States-European Union (LAS-EU) Summit, which gathered the presidents, prime ministers, kings, and high-ranking officials from 49 European and Arab states on 24-25 February, 2019. The Summit was the first ever of its kind and hosted by the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. 24 EU member states attended the Summit with either their PMs and heads of states, in a show for Sisi’s initiative. The main agenda of the Summit included security, counter-terrorism, and trade and investment issues, in addition to the migration problem, which is of great importance for Europe. EU member states, especially Germany, Italy, and Greece, requested the North African countries to tackle the migration problem more sufficiently, and praised Egypt’s efforts in this regard.

However, each party had a different agenda. For the Arab League countries, the Summit is likely to produce constructive results. This is mainly because of the fact that the differences between foreign policy priorities of the member states has increasingly deepened. The Arab League’s weak response in the Palestine issue, the Syrian conflict, and the civil war in Yemen proves the ineffectiveness of the organization. For this reason, it is unlikely that EU countries will be in full cooperation with the Arab League, as there is no reliable and unified political actor.

However, the European Union strategically supports such meetings with countries in the Middle East in order to increase interactions with the region. The EU’s main aim with the Summit was to address the security concerns arising from the Arab world and to find solutions to eliminate them. In response to their cooperation for tackling these problems, EU countries offer Arab leaders political, diplomatic, and economic support in order for them to secure stability back home. This is probably the reason why the Summit was titled, “Investing in Stability.”

The EU considers Egypt’s stability as a vital dynamic that would create a much safer southern border with the Middle East and North Africa. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco are regarded as a buffer to prevent the flow of migrants from Africa to Europe.

Egypt has been a key actor for Europe’s vision towards the region. The EU considers Egypt’s stability as the most important dynamic that would create a much safer southern border with the Middle East and North Africa. Regional countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco, can be the buffer in preventing the flow of migrants from Africa to Europe. In this regard, Brussels and other European capitals have requested bold steps from these countries in order to prevent migration. More recently, Germany has concluded an agreement with Egypt in order to provide financial assistance to Cairo in return to their utmost effort to prevent further migration. The EU seeks to sign similar agreements with other regional actors.

Being aware of Europe’s sensitivity on the issue, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi put pressure on EU countries during the Summit and emphasized that his government needs financial support for better and bolder steps in preventing migration. In justifying this request, Sisi argued that Egyptian coast guards have detained at least 11,000 illegal migrants who were traveling to Europe.

It is not only the migration issue that Sisi prioritized in the Summit. Another importance of the meeting is related to Egypt’s political stability and economic development. In order to achieve his political and economic goals, Sisi aims to garner support from European leaders and attract investment from both governments and companies. This has actually been Sisi’s main priority since the July 3, 2013, military coup. On the other hand, Sisi has been increasing his grip on power domestically. A recent constitutional change, which aims to allow Sisi to become President until 2034, was accepted by Egypt’s Parliament two weeks ago. European leaders did not object to this constitutional change, which many considered as utterly undemocratic.

Despite the recent execution of 9 young men who were accused of taking part in the killing of Egypt’s chief prosecutor in 2015, EU leaders rushed to attend the LAS-EU Summit. 

This was not the only grave mistake by European capitals. They have kept a blind eye to ongoing human right abuses and executions in Egypt. Such an attitude of the Egyptian regime did not even prevent European leaders from cooperating with the Sisi regime. Despite the execution of 9 men who were accused of taking part in killing Egypt’s chief public prosecutor in 2015, EU leaders rushed to attend the LAS-EU Summit in Sharm al-Shaikh. In a further show of European support for Sisi, the final declaration of the Summit stated that Egypt is a vital country for the stability of the region. European Commission President, Jean Claude Junker, also thanked Sisi and offered cooperation by stating, “We will build the future together.”

EU countries’ policy towards Egypt may have negative consequences for the country as well as for the wider region. Sisi’s harsh stance against the civil opposition in the country and the increasing brutality may push opponents to radicalization, which will eventually lead to further cycles of violence. Such an undesired scenario would also affect Europe as the increasing chaos would spill over to the continent through various ways and methods. It is therefore of great importance for the EU to re-consider its policy towards Egypt’s authoritarian regime.

On Wednesday (February 20) Egypt executed 9 men over allegations of killing the country’s chief prosecutor, Hisham Barakat, in 2015. Nine young men told the judges during their trial that their confessions were taken under torture. One told the judges that he was threatened by his torturers saying that they would take his parents and do what they want. Another young man told the jury “give me a taser, and I will make someone confess that he killed Sadat.” The country has executed 165 convicts since Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s coup that toppled the democratically elected president of the country in 2013.

Egypt is one of the scenes where the Arab Spring ended up with an Arab Winter. Egyptians overthrew a military-backed dictator, Mubarak, only to be crushed by another, Sisi. The story started happy as hundreds of thousands gathering in Tahrir Square protested Mubarak, the man who ruled the country for nearly three decades. Mubarak resigned on 11 February 2011, a process led to the 2012 presidential elections in which Mohamed Morsi was elected. Morsi was removed from power with the coup on 3 July 2013, which was led by the army chief general Sisi. As a result of his hijacking of the regime with the coup, Sisi is still the president of the country. Morsi is still in prison and many of his supports have shared the same fate. Egypt put thousands behind bars and the Egyptian courts did not hesitate to give death penalties in hundreds. Torture has become an ordinary method of interrogation and many, most recently last week, were executed based on confessions under torture.

Egypt is one of the scenes where the Arab Spring ended up with an Arab Winter. Egyptians overthrew a military-backed dictator, Mubarak, only to be crushed by another, Sisi.

Despite all the humanitarian crimes the Sisi rejime has been committing, Sisi has kept his good relations with the West undamaged from the coup up until today. What Sisi mas managed so far is to crush the democratic forces of the country thanks to his ongoing war with Daesh militants in the Sinai Peninsula. He whitewashed all his abuses under the guise of fighting against extremism and terrorism. The country has executed at least 165 people up to now since the 2013 coup with hundreds more in the death row. Nevertheless, this is just an invisible detail in Sisi’s relations with the West, particularly the U.S. The people on the Arab streets know very well that Sisi’s repressive regime cannot survive without the U.S. support. It is this Western hypocrisy that drives the masses in the Middle East against the West. It is the relentless Western support for Arab dictators that radicalize those suffering under such horrible rules.

And such a hypocrisy, once again, is seen after the execution of 9 young men in Egypt. We heard very little about it compared to what the Western outlets were pumping against Morsi during his presidency. People are being electrified in masses, being forced to confess the crimes they did not commit, and being executed yet the world seems to be happy with Sisi’s fight with extremism(!)

People on the Arab streets know very well that Sisi’s repressive regime cannot survive without U.S. support. It is this Western hypocrisy that drives the masses in the Middle East against the West. It is the relentless Western support for Arab dictators that radicalize those suffering under such horrible rules.

Of course we heard about the executions, if not from the politicians then from the media outlets. Yet, many established outlets tried their best to distract the readers from this vast scale of atrocities. This is how the Washington Post concluded its piece on the executions: “Egypt has been battling Islamic militants for years. Last year, the government launched a broad security operation focused on northern Sinai, where an Islamic State [Daesh] affiliate has carried out many attacks in recent years.” You open the page in order to read the brutal executions of nine young men yet the ending lines plant the Daesh threat in your mind although the executions have nothing to do with it.

The hypocrisy is not limited to politicians or media outlets, but even the most needed organizations like Freedom House. This Egypt has the same score with Turkey on civil liberties (6 out 7, 7 being the lowest). All this anti-Erdogan rhetoric in the Western press is louder than the tortures and executions of Sisi. Sisi, on the other hand, like Mohammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, is the hope of the West against extremism in the Middle East.

The reality is the opposite though as tortures, executions, and all this repression is fueling radicalization and extremism in the Middle East. And all these complaints about the West is not about asking them to be fair in their opinions of the Middle East. Personally I do not care what individual Western politicians think of Sisi or other political leaders of the region. Nor it is about some big empty kind words from the West for human rights. This is not about words or opinions. And this is not about blaming the West for anything bad occurring in the Middle East. This is about the concrete and tangible Western support for dictators like Sisi. Unlike the toppled president Morsi, Sisi has nothing else other than Western support. Those nine young men would be alive with their families today if only the West had not supported Sisi.

8 years after the Arab Uprising, which sought radical institutional reform, the primary obstacle to the just rule of law in Egypt is ‘political.’ The entrenched military elite have remained reluctant to any alternative judiciary system that attempts to create a center of authority beyond their control. The political transition, indeed, created a possibility of institutional reform, where the state and society would be equally accountable to the rule of law. However, Egypt’s judiciary erected barriers to any practice that fiddled with the traditional impunity and supremacy enjoyed by the authoritarian institutions.

Since the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, on July 3, 2013, the Egyptian judiciary has operated under severe authoritarian strain. While the judiciary exercised limited checks over the executive bias, the executive interference has undermined all other state institutions. This helped to contain, at least marginally, the authoritarian coercion during the Mubarak regime and during the Muslim Brotherhood’s brief government.

A day after the coup against the elected MB government, Military General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi appointed the Chief of Supreme Constitutional Court, Adly Mansoor, as interim president. On July 5, 2013, Mansoor dissolved the Shura council, allowing the executive to manipulate the rule of law. This was the first judicial misconduct after the overthrow of Morsi. Morsi, no doubt, attempted to consolidate power – at least, misuse the people’s mandate. But Egypt enjoyed considerable space for dissent. On September 23, barely two months after the coup, the Cairo Court for Urgent Matters dissolved the Muslim Brotherhood and ordered for the confiscation of its assets. A month later, on November 24, the interim government issued the Demonstration Law, essentially criminalizing any organized form of dissent “at the slightest indication of disorder.” Such unlawful action axed whatever pluralism was left in the political chaos of Egypt.

After Sisi assumed power on June 8, 2014, the Egyptian judiciary became complacent to cumulative degrees of injustice and oppression. The judges that remained in service either voluntarily abided to authoritarian dictates or didn’t dare to raise their voice for judicial impartiality. Take for example the case of Judges for Egypt – a group of judges who challenged the authority of Sisi in overthrowing the elected president. In March 2016, the Supreme Disciplinary Board forcefully removed 47 judges who were part of a group being charged of being “pro-Islamist.” However, adherence to any political idea is the right of a citizen devoid of the professional position one holds. The explicit muzzling of this right and the conspicuous silence of the judiciary shows the extent of compromise Egypt’s judicial system has fallen for. It also explains Sisi’s authoritarian insecurity towards religio-political dissent.

But in the case of Egypt, religio-political discourse is essential – not only because it serves as a counterbalance to state structures, but also because it propagates the idea of equality and accountability, a notion that the ruler is not above the law. These are the basic premises that uphold human dignity. Thus, the intent of central actors of transition considerably determines how religion is allowed to shape the political discourse thereof. Egypt failed to strike a balance, partially given to the miscalculation given to the miscalculation of the street and partially because of ‘external factors,’ whose interests lie in authoritarian Egypt. Sisi and his regional allies understood that the Muslim Brotherhood is the only force capable of re-emerging and taking an independent decision or challenging the existing norm. Hence, the decision to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood was to eliminate any possibility of opposition and to legitimize the authoritarian brutality against any form of dissent.

The Egpytian Criminal Court sentenced Muslim Brotherhood supporters to death in masses in “unfair trials.” Such “grotesque parody of justice” further strengthened the institutionalized authoritarian coercion.

An explicit judicial disparity reigns the court proceedings. The Criminal Court sentenced Muslim Brotherhood supporters to death in mass in “unfair trials.” Such “grotesque parody of justice” further strengthened the institutionalized authoritarian coercion. Not all these death sentences were to be carried out, but the message went out very clear – no institution is above the authoritarian norm, not even the judiciary. These mass convictions and the uncensored enthusiasm of the Egyptian executive to crackdown upon any form of opposition shows the level of irrelevance the Egyptian judiciary enjoys.

The activists detained for opposing the government have been “unnecessarily” held for lengthy periods before their court proceedings. In October 2014, Sisi expanded the jurisdiction of military courts to “public and vital” facilities. This further manipulated the ambit of judicial impartiality; thousands of civilians were referred to military trials based on media reports; hundreds of “suspected” MB supporters were tried in mass and “unfair” judicial proceedings. On the other hand, members of the security forces, those affiliated to Hosni Mubarak, and the supporters of the Sisi regime were freed on bail.

The renewed Anti-Terrorism Law in August 2015 drew curtains over whatever miniscule space for dissent and the rule of law remained in Egypt. The law bestows the security forces with unrestricted impunity from persecution and penalizes the press for negating the official version of military attacks.

The renewed Anti-Terrorism Law in August 2015 drew curtains over whatever miniscule space for dissent and the rule of law remained in Egypt. The law bestows the security forces with unrestricted impunity from persecution and penalizes the press for negating the official version of military attacks. It sets a fine of up to $64000 for journalists who publish or spread news reports contradicting that of the state’s version. Such expansion of surveillance established the consolidation of an absolute authority within the executive. It also illustrated that legal reform is pursed in order to protect the regime rather than the citizens of Egypt.

Then came Law No 13 of 2017, which amended the Judicial Authority Law (Law No. 46 of 1972). This law stipulates that the President of Egypt must directly appoint the Chief Justice for each of the main four judicial bodies of the country. The silence of the Egyptian judiciary over this legislation explained that the judiciary preferred allying itself with the regime at the cost of institutional dignity.

The greatest low of the judiciary came in early December 2018, when a group of Egyptian lawyers filed a petition seeking to amend Article 140 of the constitution in order to grant Sisi a “lifetime” presidency. Though courts are yet to take any substantial decision on this petition, such endeavors explain another judicial misconduct aiding authoritarian sustenance in Egypt.

A just political system cannot be consolidated without a strong and impartial judiciary; thus, in the absence of a judicial system supportive of the principles of democracy, the rule of law will always remain subject to authoritarian manipulation.

Around 6 years after overthrowing the democratically elected government, Sisi managed to establish a brutal authority, but not a secure government. A just political system cannot be consolidated without a strong and impartial judiciary; thus, in the absence of a judicial system supportive of the principles of democracy, the rule of law will always remain subject to authoritarian manipulation.

Egypt’s judicial reform has neither been indigenous, nor comprehensive, nor locally supported. Any successful reform aims to restructure the social and political variables exogenous to the judiciary that promotes judicial independence and the superiority of the “rule of law.” This “decisional” independence requires, essentially, that judicial ranks are not staked in advance through the appointment or promotion of people that approve a particular set of ideas. Since Sisi assumed power, the Egyptian judiciary has served to legitimate and facilitate the authoritarian rule. Other than a feigned opposition against the transfer of two islands – Sanafir and Tiran – to Saudi Arabia in 2016, the Egyptian judiciary has served as a channel through which Sisi presses his oppression.

Egypt’s foreign policy has been actively engaging with Africa in the past couple of years. Cairo’s increasing diplomacy traffic has shown that the Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi regime aims to become a leading actor in the region. Sisi has employed various mechanisms in order to become a central actor in Africa. These activities bear fruit as Egypt was awarded with the African Union Presidency for 2019. The country is taking this role for the first time since the establishment of the 55-member organization in 2002. Rwandan President Paul Kagame handed the presidency to Sisi at the 32nd African Union Summit held in Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, on February 10. In his acceptance speech Sisi emphasized the importance of Africa in global politics and argued that during his presidency he will work to contribute to Africa’s prosperity.

To become a leading actor in the African politics, the Sisi regime has employed various mechanisms and activities that bear fruit as Egypt was awarded with the African Union Presidency for 2019. This move aimed at overcoming its ongoing legitimacy problem.

Egypt’s increasing interest in Africa during the past years is not a coincidence. Since the military coup in 2013, the Egyptian regime has been dealing with domestic problems such as instability, terror, and economic issues. In its foreign policy, the Sisi regime’s priority has been given to countries that provided political, diplomatic, and economic support for the regime in the post-coup period. For this reason, Egypt’s diplomacy focused on countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates in the region, and the U.S., France, Germany, and Russia on the global spectrum. These countries significantly contributed to the Sisi regime to overcome its legitimacy problem. Once the regime in Cairo established itself as a legitimate power, it began to engage with other regions such as Africa and Asia. This process was further accelerated after Sisi was re-elected to the presidency in a controversial election in early 2018. Since then, Africa has played a more important role in Sisi’s foreign policy agenda.

Since his election to presidency in 2014, Sisi has made around 20 visits to countries in Africa, which accounted to 30% of all foreign visits. The Egyptian premier increased this intense diplomacy especially in 2017 and 2018, aiming to be a more effective foreign policy actor in the African continent by engaging with regional countries and implementing new political tools. Since 2017, Sisi has visited Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Chad, Gabon, and Sudan, while hosting the leaders of South Africa, Congo, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda in Egypt.

Sisi has made around 20 visits to countries in Africa, which accounted to 30% of all foreign visits. He has visited Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Chad, Gabon, and Sudan, while hosting the leaders of South Africa, Congo, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda in Egypt.

These interactions provided positive comebacks in January 2018 and Egypt was elected to the presidency of the African Union, with the support of the majority of member countries. This was considered as a diplomatic success for Egypt. However, it brought along many criticisms as well. It has been argued that Sisi’s chairmanship of the African Union could lead to a further diminishing of the credibility of the institution. The African Union had initially suspended Egypt’s membership after the military coup in 2013, which was led by Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. The organization controversially reinstated Egypt’s membership after Sisi was elected President in the 2014 elections, which led to many disputes. The Union emphasized that democratic institutions in Egypt were in place and that a civilian leader was elected in the country, and that therefore the regime in Egypt could no longer be considered as a military rule. However, human rights abuses and the undemocratic practices of the Egyptian regime continued after Sisi’s election as president in 2014 and still continue today. With Sisi’s election to the Presidency of the African Union, an authoritarian leader who oversees a total crackdown on the political opposition at home would effectively run an international organization. Therefore, it has been argued that Sisi’s election to the African Union presidency will significantly damage the credibility of the organization.

Another activity that shows the Egyptian regime’s interest in Africa was the organization of the African Business Summit, which was held in December 2018 in Sharm Al-Sheikh. The Summit witnessed high-level participation, which included Sisi, and the leaders of Rwanda, Togo, Zimbabwe, and Niger. In addition to political leaders, the Summit also hosted business leaders of the African continent, such as Isabel dos Santos, known as the richest woman in Africa, Issad Rebrab, the wealthiest businessman in Algeria, and Abdulsamed Rabiu, a Nigerian businessman. With around 1,500 delegates from 40 different countries, the Africa Business Summit was a significant opportunity for the Egyptian government to sign a number of cooperation agreements with African countries and companies.

Egypt is regaining its powerful position in Africa’s political, social, and economic landscape. A reason behind Egypt’s renewed interest in African politics is to prevent other regional actors such as Turkey and Qatar – Egypt’s two main rivals – to have any influence in the continent.

Egypt also has attempts to reach Africa on a societal level. In this regard, Cairo was very eager to host the African Cup of Nations in 2019. Cameroon was originally the host nation for 2019, but the country was unable to successfully complete preparations for Africa’s most important football event. Following this failure, the Confederation of African Football decided to relocate the tournament. Following this announcement, both South Africa and Egypt announced their candidacies, and Egypt made significant effort to win this candidacy. On January 8, 2019, Egypt beat South Africa by 16 votes to 1 with a CAF Summit in Senegal. This result was joyfully welcomed by Cairo as the Egyptian regime had achieved a timely success, increasing its political and economic presence in Africa.

Finally, Egypt is obviously regaining its powerful position in Africa’s political, social, and economic landscape. One of the reasons why Egypt has been giving priority to Africa is to prevent other regional actors such as Turkey and Qatar – Egypt’s two main rivals – to have an influence in the continent. Therefore, it can be argued that Egypt’s interest in Africa will further increase in the upcoming period and the Sisi regime will try to develop closer relations with the countries of the region.

Following the military coup in 2013, the new regime in Egypt has taken serious steps to limit the activities of civil society. The regime led by Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi took the initial attack on the Muslim Brotherhood movement, the largest non-governmental organization in the country. During 2013 and 2014, the Sisi regime targeted NGOs, health institutions, religious and educational centers, which were claimed to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The number of organizations that were closed in the post-coup period reached to over 10 thousand at the best estimate.

Non-governmental organizations and activists with secular and liberal ideology such as the 6 April Movement, Revolutionary Socialists, the Kefaya movement, and even the Tamarod movement became the targets of the Sisi regime.

On the other hand, non-governmental organizations and activists with secular and liberal ideology were also the targets of the Sisi regime. The 6 April Movement, Revolutionary Socialists, and the Kefaya movement as well as members of these organizations were subject to pressure from the regime and some were arrested for long prison terms. Even the Tamarod movement, which supported Sisi during the coup, failed to receive support from the post-coup regime that has been in place since July 2013.

In 2017, the Sisi regime took a step to institutionalize pressure on civil society with a new law that re-arranged the activities of civil society organizations. However, rather than liberalizing the functioning of civil society, the law further restricted their activities. The law made it difficult for 47,000 NGOs in the country to carry out their activities. In addition, the law stipulated that foreign NGOs need to pay $16,500 in order to start their operations in Egypt – a requirement that attracted concerns in regards to the motivation of the law. It is also requested that both domestic and foreign NGOs be approved by the committee established by this law and that they carry out their activities following this approval.

Following the NGO law of 2017, many civil society organizations were shut down and some foreign NGOs had to stop their activities in Egypt. Egyptian police stormed some of their offices.

Despite pressure from the government, NGOs have tried to remain active. However, following the NGO law of 2017, many were shut down and some foreign NGOs had to stop their activities in Egypt. In this context, on February 9, 2017, Egyptian police stormed the office of the country’s leading human rights organization, the Al-Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence.

In addition to Nadeem Centre, Nazra for Feminist Studies and the Center for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance (CEWLA) also suspended their activities due to pressure from the government. The Cairo Institute of Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) relocated to its new headquarters in Tunis. Organizations such as the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE) and the Arab Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) have limited their activities and tried to avoid government pressure due to their critical coverage. However, they continued to remain visible in the public sphere.

The Sisi regime’s repressive policies towards civil society continue in different ways. Recently, the arrest of 31 people, including workers of the human rights organization called Egyptian Coordination for Rights and Freedoms, attracted the reaction of many civil society movements both inside and outside of the country. It is reported that one of the detainees is Aisha Al-Shater, the daughter of Hairat Al-Shater, who was one of the leading businessmen and influential figures in the Muslim Brotherhood organization before he was arrested in the post-coup crackdown on the movement.

Civil society in Egypt is far worse than it was during the Mubarak era. Government pressure has been increasingly limiting the activities of local and international civil society organizations in the country.

Meanwhile, many human rights organizations in the country have issued a joint statement against the operation, demanding the release of the detainees. The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, Al-Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence, the Adala Center for Rights and Freedoms, the Cairo Center for Human Rights Studies, the Egyptian Front for Human Rights, and the Community for Justice have jointly stated that the Egyptian government’s policies towards civil society is unacceptable. Amnesty International also condemned the raid and called for the release of human rights activists.

Civil society in Egypt is far worse than it was during the Mubarak era. Government pressure has been increasingly limiting the activities of local and international civil society organizations in the country. Many experts also agree that the situation of human rights, rule of law, and freedom of expression in Egypt is worse than that of the Mubarak era. From this point of view, it’s clear that the current regime in Egypt – far from any form of democratization – dragged the country into a more totalitarian rule.

Repressive regimes in the Middle East often practice various methods to silence the dissent. One of these increasingly utilized methods is “enforced disappearance.” Enforced disappearance is defined in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State.” Article 5 of the Treaty labels enforced disappearance as a “crime against humanity” and urges all signatory states to prevent such actions.

Jamal Khashoggi: A silenced Saudi journalist

A recent example of such a case took place at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi journalist and influential figure in Saudi Arabia, disappeared after he entered the Consulate General of Saudi Arabia. It’s widely argued that the Saudi administration might have played a role in the disappearance of the journalist, who is also a columnist for the Washington Post. In an attempt to divert against the backlash, in an interview he gave, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman stated, “the Saudi government have no information on the whereabouts of Jamal Khashoggi.”

Those who followed the incident however, claim that the Saudi regime is responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance. Some even fear that Khashoggi may have been a victim of an unsolved murder. This case has created international outrage as the journalist has close relations with influential figures in world politics. There have been a number of numerous calls from state representatives, media organizations, and human rights campaigners for the immediate release of Khashoggi, and Turkey has begun an official state investigation.

If the Saudi government is responsible for the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, this event can be accepted as a case of enforced disappearance. However, even if it is so, a sanction would not be possible for Saudi Arabia in the context of international conventions, as the Kingdom is not a signatory of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons, just like other countries in the region, including Egypt.

Enforced disappearance cases in Egypt

Egypt has kept the lead in the Middle East with the most cases of “enforced disappearances” during the past couple of years. After the military coup in 2013, the Sisi regime targeted activists and dissent that opposed the military regime. In many cases, the regime directly arrested opposition figures on claims of supporting terrorist organizations, spreading false news, and supposedly threatening public order. In other cases, a number of activists disappeared without the knowledge of anyone, including their families and lawyers. In these cases, the missing person is usually found in prison – usually months after their “enforced disappearance.”

One of the most horrendous events in this regard took place in 2016. Italian citizen and PhD candidate at Cambridge University, Giulio Regeni, disappeared in Cairo on January 25, 2016. 9 days later, he was found dead with signs of heavy torture. Although the Egyptian security authorities took no responsibility for his death, human rights campaigners and the family of Regeni claimed that the regime was responsible for his death.

These enforced disappearance cases in Egypt showed a rapid increase especially after the military coup in 2013. According to a report by the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, at least 378 people disappeared in-between August 2016 and August 2017. The total number of disappeared persons since 2013 would go well beyond 1000. In many cases, the government initially denies having any information on the whereabouts of the person that has disappeared. However, most of the people reported missing are usually found in prison weeks or even months later. Some of them, though, have never been found.

The practice of “enforced disappearance,” which has been employed by countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, against the dissidents of the regime, is against human rights and is considered a crime against humanity under international law. Therefore, both human rights campaigners and the international community have to put pressure on governments that practice “enforced disappearance” as a method of silencing the dissent.

Egypt has been witnessing a new wave of political oppression against civil opposition figures. The pressure has intensified following the election of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to presidency in the last election in March. What’s different with the current wave of arrests in Egypt is the fact that the Egyptian regime has been mainly targeting the Muslim Brotherhood so far. However, this time the regime is focusing on secular or socialist activists. This is mainly because of the fact that these activists have been criticizing the Sisi regime and its domestic and external policies. Their successful use of social media and the Internet allowed these activists to spread their criticism to a large audience. The wave of arrests, therefore, could be interpreted as the regime’s new strategy of dealing with the opposition. As the Sisi regime has completed its destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood, it now directs its iron-fist on the secular and socialist opposition.

In early May, the secular activist Shadi al-Ghazali Harb and the revolutionary socialist Haitham Mohamedeen were arrested in the raids on their homes with the accusations of insulting the president and spreading false news with the intent of destabilizing social peace and national security. In another incident a housewife, Amal Fathy, was arrested along with her family for joining a terrorist organization, promoting terrorist acts over the internet, and spreading false news that harms national security and public order. Fathy became popular after she posted a YouTube video in which she detailed how Egyptian men sexually harassed her. Another person arrested with similar charges was the comedian Shadi Ebu Zeyd. He was taken into custody following a raid on his home with around 20 policemen.

As the Sisi regime has completed its destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood, it now directs its iron-fist on the secular and socialist opposition.

Finally, the most prominent activist who was taken into custody during the latest wave of arrests was Wael Abbas, a prominent figure during the 2011 revolution. As a secular activist Abbas was known with his critical stance against corruption, torture and human rights abuses. He severely criticized the government both before and after the revolution of 2011. His criticism towards the Sisi regime was on the basis of human rights issues and mistakes in foreign policy. It is announced that Abbas, who was arrested during the police raid on his house in Cairo, will be tried on charges of spreading false news and forming an illegal organization. In December 2017, Twitter shut the account of Wael Abbas, arguing that the account was violating Twitter’s rules. It is suspected that Twitter may have taken the decision on the request of the Egyptian regime.

Another indication of oppression against regime opponents is the 10-year prison sentence for Ismail Alexandarani, a researcher at the Wilson Center in the United States, known for his work on the North Sinai region. Alexandarani, who was detained at the airport when he was entering Egypt in 2015 and remained in pre-trial detention for 2.5 years, was sentenced by a military court to 10 years in prison for joining a terrorist organization and reporting false information.

A recent arrest of a PhD researcher from Washington University also caused concern. Walid al-Shobaky was conducting field research on the judicial system of Egypt when he suddenly disappeared. On the forth day of his disappearance, the state prosecutor informed his family that he was taken into custody. Following initial investigation the prosecutor decided to arrest al-Shobaky for a 15-day detention. Despite the fact that there was hardly any clear information on the case, he was reportedly arrested with the charges similar to other opposition figures that were previously arrested.

The wave of recent arrests in Egypt is a clear indication of the regime’s intention for continuing oppression against dissidents.

This event reminded another brutal incident that took place three years ago. Giulio Regeni, an Italian citizen and doctoral student at Cambridge University, disappeared in January 2016, while he was conducting field research on trade unions and workers’ associations in Egypt. About a week later, Regeni’s body was found on the roadside outside Cairo. It turned out that Regeni was subjected to torture and was killed. During the investigations, it was alleged that intelligence services had killed Regeni. Egyptian authorities deny allegations.

The wave of recent arrests in Egypt is a clear indication of the regime’s intention for continuing oppression against dissidents. Unlike previous initiatives that were mainly focused on Islamic movements, the Sisi regime will be targeting secular and socialist opposition, hoping to permanently eliminate all kinds of opposition towards the regime. However, such a policy would lead to unification of opposition groups, increasing human rights violations and deepening instability caused by the distrust between state and society.

Over the past few years, the political arena in Egypt has witnessed an unprecedented period of oppression. The leading indicators of this situation can be listed as Abdel Fattah al-Sisi administration’s harsh stance towards the peaceful opposition after seizing control of the state with a military coup in 2013, the exclusion of the civilian agents in the country from political processes and growing human rights violations. One of the main reasons for the Sisi regime’s ease in practicing such oppressive policies is the silence of the leading Western democracies to the Cairo administration, as has been clearly observed throughout the period running up to the presidential election, that is to be held on 26-28 March, 2018.

Egyptians will vote for one of the two candidates, President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and Moussa Mostafa Moussa, the leader of liberal Al-Ghad Party, who has been a strong supporter of Sisi regime. It is observed that Moussa does not pose any threat to Sisi in the presidential race. All possible rivals of Sisi have been eliminated in varieties of ways by the state authorities in the pre-election period. What is shocking with this process is that no Western democracy issued a condemnation of Sisi regime’s ruling out all its possible rivals in the election by arresting or intimidating them. In order to illustrate the situation in a more explicit way, it would be useful to take a look at the events leading to the election period.

Several candidates stood out as potential candidates for the presidential election in Egypt, including Ahmed Shefik, who is among the prominent actors of the old regime and was a resident of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the past five years, the former Chief of General Staff Sami Anan, the lawyer and activist Khaled Ali who is known for his remarks opposing the Sisi regime, and Egypt’s former top auditor Hisham Geneina, who was discharged from duty in March 2016, following his statement that he would unravel the corruption in the country. After the National Elections Commission announced the election schedule, these names kicked off their efforts to officially run for the election, during which people had a glimmer of hope that different names might compete for the presidential seat. But what happened during the candidacy application period displayed the Sisi regime’s determination to hold on to the ruling power.

Sisi purges the dissidents

Ahmed Shefik, a candidate for the election, returned to Egypt from the UAE, where he has lived for the past five years, after he published a video announcing his candidacy on social media. Brought under the surveillance of security apparatus as soon as he entered the country, Shefik had to waive his candidacy following the contacts he made with intelligence officials. It was alleged that the pressure of the Sisi regime’s intelligence service has been instrumental in Shefik’s decision.

Sami Anan’s candidacy application was also rescinded as he was taken into custody because of his intention to run for the presidency. The ground for the cancellation is shown as “political engagement during his military service.” Although Egyptian authorities issued statements in line with this justification, it can be said that the cancellation of Anan’s candidacy has impeded one of Sisi’s strongest rivals.

Meanwhile, Khaled Ali and Hisham Geneina, who also attempted to run for the election, decided to withdraw after considering the judicial and physical assaults against them, the experiences of the other candidates and the political oppression prevalent in the country. Ali announced in a press statement that he would not become a candidate whereas Geneina announced his withdrawal after he was subjected to a knife attack.

On the other hand, another development that occurred in February showed that the political oppression in the country targets not only those running for the presidential election, but all the dissidents. Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who adopted a conservative-liberal political stance after leaving the Muslim Brotherhood following the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 and achieved a considerable popular support with the Strong Egypt Party he initiated, was detained after his house was raided following his criticisms of the Sisi administration in a TV broadcast. It is argued that Aboul Fotouh was detained only because of his criticisms to the regime. This incident is noteworthy as it clearly illustrates the extent the political oppression in Egypt has reached. Arrest of Aboul Fotouh drew reactions from various dissident groups in the country and human rights organizations.

The West is silent to the violation of rights

Another noteworthy aspect with regard to this oppressive environment throughout the Egyptian presidential election is the silence of the Western countries in the face of the incidents. As a matter of fact, this situation is parallel to the Western political attitudes towards Egypt in the aftermath of the coup d’état in 2013. It has been observed that many Western countries displayed a positive approach towards the Sisi regime despite the antidemocratic practices, violations of rights and economic instability in Egypt. Western countries and the Sisi regime organized many official contacts, signed partnership agreements and engaged in coordinating activities in many fields after the coup, all of which are concrete indicators of their support to Cairo.

Sisi paid an array of official visits to Italy, the Vatican and France in November 2014 as part of his European tour. Having paid visits to Germany and Hungary in June 2015, Britain in November 2015, and Greece in December 2015, Sisi also made official contacts in Portugal and France in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Similarly, many European leaders visited Egypt and contributed to the recognition of the Sisi administration as a legitimate government despite all the human rights violations it engages in. A number of politicians including the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern, Vatican Leader Pope Francis, former French President Francois Hollande and the U.S. Vice President Mike Pence paid visits to Egypt in the post-coup period.

Among these countries, France has provided a considerable degree of support to the Sisi administration in many respects. During Sisi’s France visit in 2014, Paris approved the selling of high-tech defense products, including fighter jets and battleships, to Cairo, which stirred a reaction among human rights groups. Having gained profits corresponding to multi-billion dollars from the agreements, France has maintained this approach up until today. The incumbent French President Emmanuel Macron also hosted Sisi in Paris in October 2017 and expressed his pleasure in the continuation of the cooperation between the two countries.

In response to the criticisms made on the violation of human rights in Egypt, Macron said the following words at the joint news conference with Sisi: “I believe in the sovereignty of states, and therefore, just as I don’t accept being lectured on how to govern my country, I don’t lecture others […] My deeply held conviction is that it’s in President Sisi’s interest to accompany the defense and consolidation of human rights by the Egyptian state, in the context that only he can be the judge of.” His remarks stirred controversy both in France and abroad.

Although thousands of dissident civilians have been jailed, democratic values have been breached and a strict policy that disregards the freedom of expression and press has been pursued since 2013, Macron avoided issuing any criticism on these matters, which is significant in terms of displaying the Western countries’ general approach on Egypt and the Islamic world.

Western countries have also provided economic support to the Sisi administration. Several giant financial institutions such as IMF and World Bank, credit rating agencies, global capital owners and international corporations displayed a positive approach to Egypt in the aftermath of the coup in order to consolidate the power of the Sisi regime. Long-term loans were granted to the country whereas efforts have been exerted to create a positive image for the Egypt’s economy, and attempts have been made to create an impression that global capital is eager to enter the Egyptian market. Therefore, various engagements corresponding to multi-billion dollars were contracted in the economy and investment forums organized to that end.

Along with the actors in Egypt and the Middle East, the Western democracies have a major role in the oppressive regime’s increasing anti-democratic practices that do not allow any dissident voice. Considering the stance of these countries after the Egyptian coup, it can be contended that they do not have any concerns regarding democracy or human rights and are shaping their policies in line with certain economic and political interests. It is more accurate to regard the Egyptian presidential elections as a new step toward consolidating the oppressive regime, which was established with a global political support rather than a step towards democratization, indeed the country is far from it.