Stuff happening in Egypt

[Mr Skeptic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#President_of_Egypt

Following the assassination of President Sadat in 1981 by army officers opposed to his signing of the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, Hosni Mubarak became the President of the Arabic Republic of Egypt, and the Chairman of the National Democratic Party (NDP). He is also the longest serving President of Egypt, his term now counting 29 years.

...

President Mubarak has been re-elected by majority votes in a referendum for successive terms on four occasions: in 1987, 1993, 1999. The referendum in itself and its results are of questionable validity^[who?]. No one could run against the President due to a restriction in the Egyptian constitution in which the People's Assembly played the main role in electing the President of the Republic. After increased domestic and international pressure for democratic reform in Egypt, Mubarak asked the largely rubber stamp^{[citation needed]} parliament on February 26, 2005 to amend the constitution to allow multi-candidate presidential elections by September 2005^{[citation needed]}. Previously^[when?], Mubarak secured his position by having himself nominated by parliament, then confirmed without opposition in a referendum.

 

The September 2005 ballot was therefore a multiple candidate election rather than a referendum, but the electoral institutions, and security apparatus remain under the control of the President. The official state media, including the three government newspapers and state television also express views identical to the official line taken by Mubarak. In recent years however, there has been a steady growth in independent news outlets, especially independent newspapers which occasionally criticize the President and his family severely^{[citation needed]}. Satellite channels beaming from Egypt such as the Orbit Satellite Television and Radio Network for example, also exhibit relative openness as exhibited in their flagship program Al Qahira Al Yawm. In the last few years however, the cabinet headed by Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif has been somewhat successful in turning things around. According to the List of countries by Human Development Index Egypt ranks 111th out of 177 countries, and rates 0.702 on the index.

 

On July 28, 2005, Mubarak announced his candidacy, as he had been widely expected to do. The election which was scheduled for 7 September 2005 involved mass rigging activities, according to civil organizations that observed the elections.^[15] Reports^{[citation needed]} have shown that Mubarak's party used government vehicles to take public employees to vote for him. Votes were bought for Mubarak in poor suburbs and rural areas. It was also reported that thousands of illegal votes were allowed for Mubarak from citizens who were not registered to vote. On 8 September 2005, Ayman Nour, a dissident and candidate for the Al-Ghad party ("Tomorrow party"), contested the election results, and demanded a repeat of the election.

 

In a move widely seen as political persecution, Nour was convicted of forgery and sentenced to five years at hard labor on December 24, 2005.^[16]

 

Mubarak has been "president" for almost 30 years now, and it seems the people are sick of him.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_protests

The 2011 Egyptian protests are an ongoing series of street demonstrations, marches, rallies, acts of civil disobedience, rioting, and violent clashes that began in Egypt on 25 January 2011, a day selected by April 6 Youth Movement organisers^[10][11] to coincide with the National Police Day holiday.^[12] The protests began with tens of thousands marching in Cairo and a string of other cities in Egypt.^[13] While localised protests had been common in previous years, the 2011 protests have been the largest demonstrations seen in Egypt since the 1977 Bread Riots and unprecedented in scope,^[14] drawing participants from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds and faiths.^[11]

 

The demonstrations and riots started in the weeks after the Tunisian Revolution, with many protesters carrying Tunisian flags as a symbol of their influence,^[15] It is part of the 2010–2011 Arab world protests that have included and followed Tunisia's revolution. Grievances for Egyptian protesters have focused on legal and political issues^[16] including police brutality,^[12] state of emergency laws,^[12] lack of free elections and free speech,^[17] and corruption,^[17] as well as economic issues including high unemployment,^[18] food price inflation,^[18] and low minimum wages.^[12][18] The primary demand from protest organizers is the end of the Hosni Mubarak regime, and a new government that represents the interests of the Egyptian people, and respects rights of freedom and justice.^[19]

 

As of 29 January, at least 105 protester deaths had been reported, and those injured number 750 policemen and 1,500 protesters.^[1][2] The capital city of Cairo has been described as "a war zone,"^[20] and the port city of Suez has been the scene of frequent violent clashes. The government imposed a curfew that protesters defied and that the police or military did not enforce.^[21] The presence of Egypt's Central Security police, loyal to Mubarak, has been gradually replaced by largely restrained military troops. In the absence of police, there has been looting, and in response civilians have self-organized watch groups to protect key sites.^{[22][23][24][25][26]}

 

International response to the protests has been mixed, though most have called for some sort of peaceful protests on both sides and moves toward reform. Mostly Western governments also expressed concern for the situation. Many governments have issued travel advisories and begun making attempts at evacuating their citizens from the country.

 

Mubarak dissolved his government and appointed military figure and former head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate Omar Suleiman as Vice-President in an attempt to quell dissent. Mubarak asked aviation minister and former chief of Egypt's Air Force, Ahmed Shafik, to form a new government. Opposition to the Mubarak regime has coalesced around Mohamed ElBaradei, with all major opposition groups supporting his role as a negotiator for some form of transitional unity government.^[27] In response to mounting pressure Mubarak announced he would not seek re-election in September.^[28]

 

Definitely something to keep an eye on in the following weeks.

 

 

 

[lemur]

It sounds like there is little hope for any kind of democracy since the main interest of the protests seems to be economic. An elected CEO whose job is to secure as much economic gain as possible is not leading a democracy but a corporation. For democracy to occur, I think the protests should be directed toward economic power in the private sector and the government should be petitioned about lack of access to economic resources. I suppose that is what the accusations of corruption are about, but broadly claiming corruption can mean many different things depending on who is making the claim and why. I'm surprised that there haven't been global appeals prior to these protests, but maybe there were and they were simply ignored. Still, from reading the first article, it is hard to imagine that so much critique of an electoral system could be expressed without some ulterior political motive to shift power in a certain direction. The reason I suspect this is because any neutral-sounding critique of a political system without explicit claims of political views must necessarily be written by someone with political views and with an interest to change the kinds of outcomes the current system produces. Saying that, I realize that a likely response could be adamant reference to the corruption, etc. but this is why I point out that some level of faith in democratic discourse has to be established before an electorate will view elections as anything other than a means to install yet another dictatorial authoritarian to suppress their enemies and give them what they want socially and economically. Is that the job of a democratic leader? I don't think so.

[CaptainPanic]

I think that if the government gives up in Egypt, there is quite a big chance that they will get a real democracy.

They already have a democracy, but the elections are (very likely to be) fake. But anyway, the concept of a democracy is known, and therefore implementation should be relatively straightforward.

 

Whether they will get a real, functioning democracy - only time can tell.

There are plenty of examples (worldwide) of democracies that changed from bad to good, and from good to bad.

Germany had a functioning democracy before Hitler got to power. And the Ukraine, although a democracy, had a corrupt government before the peaceful orange revolution. In other words - it can always go two ways, in every country.

 

The best they can do in Egypt is try.

[lemur]

I think that if the government gives up in Egypt, there is quite a big chance that they will get a real democracy.

They already have a democracy, but the elections are (very likely to be) fake. But anyway, the concept of a democracy is known, and therefore implementation should be relatively straightforward.

 

Whether they will get a real, functioning democracy - only time can tell.

There are plenty of examples (worldwide) of democracies that changed from bad to good, and from good to bad.

Germany had a functioning democracy before Hitler got to power. And the Ukraine, although a democracy, had a corrupt government before the peaceful orange revolution. In other words - it can always go two ways, in every country.

 

The best they can do in Egypt is try.

That's a nice perspective, but look at what happened with the shift from Bush to Obama. Bush came in with a media aura of "strong commander in chief" with nearly extreme authoritarian repression of government critique among the citizenry. Then, as the fear (sense of threat) subsided, Bush's approval rating plummeted and nearly everyone felt comfortable criticizing him and the government again. HOWEVER, this government-critique resulted in another strong-government movement, with pressure for the government to stimulate economic prosperity by whatever means. There was no concern with freedom, democracy, anti-terror, or global problems. It became all about putting the economy and the 'national people' first. Although Obama as an individual has provided numerous sustainability ideas, these have only been popular insofar as people expect them to generate GDP growth. Few people really care about energy reforms if it means living with less income. Sorry to change the subject to US politics, but I just wanted to point out how a strong popular will to democracy against authoritarianism easily becomes transformed into economic authoritarianism where the will to prosperity overrides the will to freedom. BTW, please note how people continue to react to the idea of the president as a command-controller instead of a democratic moderator and influential but not determinant leader. You can march a parade of democratically elected leaders in front of an authoritarian public and they will reject each one in exchange for a new one that promises to be the dictator they want. What does it take for them to give up the will to (popular/benevolent) dictatorship and embrace true democracy in the form of free self-governance of the people by the people?

Edited February 3, 2011 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

That's a nice perspective, but look at what happened with the shift from Bush to Obama. Bush came in with a media aura of "strong commander in chief" with nearly extreme authoritarian repression of government critique among the citizenry. Then, as the fear (sense of threat) subsided, Bush's approval rating plummeted and nearly everyone felt comfortable criticizing him and the government again. HOWEVER, this government-critique resulted in another strong-government movement, with pressure for the government to stimulate economic prosperity by whatever means. There was no concern with freedom, democracy, anti-terror, or global problems. It became all about putting the economy and the 'national people' first. Although Obama as an individual has provided numerous sustainability ideas, these have only been popular insofar as people expect them to generate GDP growth. Few people really care about energy reforms if it means living with less income. Sorry to change the subject to US politics, but I just wanted to point out how a strong popular will to democracy against authoritarianism easily becomes transformed into economic authoritarianism where the will to prosperity overrides the will to freedom.

 

Of course, with some populism, or fear (or any other means to distract the population) you can have a democracy that doesn't care about the important issues in life... like freedom.

 

But the most important thing in Egypt is to first get their democracy working again (fair elections)... then get free media... and after that, they can try to make sure that the elections are about the most important issues for the Egyptians.

[lemur]

Of course, with some populism, or fear (or any other means to distract the population) you can have a democracy that doesn't care about the important issues in life... like freedom.

 

But the most important thing in Egypt is to first get their democracy working again (fair elections)... then get free media... and after that, they can try to make sure that the elections are about the most important issues for the Egyptians.

The concern I would have is that because these rebellions are motivated by material disgruntlement, there's that much more of a risk that people will come to associate democracy not with achieving political freedom but as a means to secure economic prosperity. Thus, I think it would do more to foster democracy if political reforms preceded economic reforms, so that the political progress would form a foundation for people to pursue their own economic goals. If some popular leader gets elected who becomes immediately instrumental in creating economic prosperity, how many people will care whether that leader promotes democracy or economic authoritarianism as long as their bank-accounts are growing? Hungry people will sell their votes for food, no?

[CaptainPanic]

The concern I would have is that because these rebellions are motivated by material disgruntlement, there's that much more of a risk that people will come to associate democracy not with achieving political freedom but as a means to secure economic prosperity. Thus, I think it would do more to foster democracy if political reforms preceded economic reforms, so that the political progress would form a foundation for people to pursue their own economic goals. If some popular leader gets elected who becomes immediately instrumental in creating economic prosperity, how many people will care whether that leader promotes democracy or economic authoritarianism as long as their bank-accounts are growing? Hungry people will sell their votes for food, no?

What you're saying is that someone who makes the whole country rich will get a lot of votes at the next election (even if he ruins the democracy behind the backs of the people)? I guess I totally agree with you. It's a (nearly) universal desire to gain more material wealth...

 

The lack of freedom only becomes important once you no longer like your government... When the government does not bring prosperity, or when the police state becomes oppressive.

 

I would bet that Mubarak (Egypt's current president, about to be kicked out of office) would not be in trouble if Egypt's economy was growing like China's.

[lemur]

What you're saying is that someone who makes the whole country rich will get a lot of votes at the next election (even if he ruins the democracy behind the backs of the people)? I guess I totally agree with you. It's a (nearly) universal desire to gain more material wealth...

 

The lack of freedom only becomes important once you no longer like your government... When the government does not bring prosperity, or when the police state becomes oppressive.

 

I would bet that Mubarak (Egypt's current president, about to be kicked out of office) would not be in trouble if Egypt's economy was growing like China's.

 

Lack of freedom actually became important at the height of the dot-com boom just before the time Clinton got replaced with Bush. As I recall, people were enjoying such high levels of prosperity that they were beginning to question the value of such materialistic lifestyles. Money was power, power was growing, and power always comes with resistance so resistance to money/consumerism/materialism was growing as well. Budget-cutting and recessionary trends that followed basically gave the critics of boom-economics the cooling they sought, but the resistance to economic cooling can be much greater than that to economic overheating, imo. The simple fact is that the drive to get more money and stuff tends to be more insistent than the drive for more peace-of-mind and economic security; especially when people have become accustomed to a certain level of money and stuff for the FEELING of economic security. This raises the question of how bad the economic situations of the rebelling people are. Are they lacking basic necessities or has their standard of living just been decreasing from previously high levels? My impression is that in western prosperous economies, just consistent levels of diminishing material consumption can be enough to propel the idea that there is a terrible recession that has to be fixed or the world will end. It's like when you're used to overeating and you go on a diet and it feels like you're starving even though you're getting sufficient calories and nutrients. As I said, I would like to know more about the situation with those that participated in rebellion because I wouldn't want to make assumptions without specific data.

Edited February 3, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

Some of you may remember when in the mid-1980s the whole world was screaming with one voice that if only Cory "People Power" Aquino could come to power in the Philippines to replace the evil old General Marcos then everything would be great. Well, she came and went, and nothing changed, and now in fact more people in the Philippines will tell you that Marcos was better than Aquino. Perhaps more will remember in the mid-1990s when the whole world was screaming with one voice that if only Aristide would come to power in Haiti and replace the evil Baby Doc Duvallier then everything would be great. Well, he came and went, and nothing changed, and now it looks as if Baby Doc may even be able to return to power -- or at least he seems to think he has some prospect of that.

 

So now for some reason everyone looks at Mubarak and thinks that if this one person is replaced there will be democracy, respect for human rights, and finally a non-corrupt system of public administration. Well, travelers were complaining while Egypt was still a province of the Ottoman Empire that the officials there were all corrupt, so it seems naive to expect much to change just because a single leader or even a form of government changes. The fact is that societies have an insitutional character which persists through time and changes of government. I lived in Germany for seven years and even though the country now has extremely liberal laws and a strong rights-affirming constitution, every bureaucratic official you have to deal with will find an excuse to scream at you and the people just quietly accept this as 'the way things are done.'

[lemur]

Some of you may remember when in the mid-1980s the whole world was screaming with one voice that if only Cory "People Power" Aquino could come to power in the Philippines to replace the evil old General Marcos then everything would be great. Well, she came and went, and nothing changed, and now in fact more people in the Philippines will tell you that Marcos was better than Aquino. Perhaps more will remember in the mid-1990s when the whole world was screaming with one voice that if only Aristide would come to power in Haiti and replace the evil Baby Doc Duvallier then everything would be great. Well, he came and went, and nothing changed, and now it looks as if Baby Doc may even be able to return to power -- or at least he seems to think he has some prospect of that.

 

So now for some reason everyone looks at Mubarak and thinks that if this one person is replaced there will be democracy, respect for human rights, and finally a non-corrupt system of public administration. Well, travelers were complaining while Egypt was still a province of the Ottoman Empire that the officials there were all corrupt, so it seems naive to expect much to change just because a single leader or even a form of government changes. The fact is that societies have an insitutional character which persists through time and changes of government. I lived in Germany for seven years and even though the country now has extremely liberal laws and a strong rights-affirming constitution, every bureaucratic official you have to deal with will find an excuse to scream at you and the people just quietly accept this as 'the way things are done.'

 

There seems to be a pattern of leaders holding up a mirror to their constituents. When these leaders display the most socially dislikable aspects of their constituents, they become unpopular and are targeted to be overthrown or killed. Ironically, I think this attitude of eliminating the leader is not so much due to a desire among the constituents to change the culture they dislike seeing but to render it invisible, i.e. make it disappear from sight. Thus, imo, the hated qualities that these leaders exhibit often become a covert attitude among those that hated them. It doesn't have to be constituents of the formal jurisdiction of the leader. Hitler, for example, is hated for his screaming, anti-Semitism, and hate of various other kinds of people than Jews. Thus it has become taboo to be openly/explicitly vocally aggressive, anti-semitic, and expressive of prejudicial hate (all of which were openly expressed prior to WWII, I think). Yet, if you pay close attention you can see how aggression, anti-semitism, and prejudicial hate have all continued and are often even strengthened in a more covert or implicit form. The reason, I think, is because these cultural qualities emerge in response to deep-seated roots of culture generally, so they have a certain function for people.

Edited February 4, 2011 by lemur

[JohnB]

Marat, it isn't the same world now.

 

One of the reasons things didn't change much with a change in government in the past was a lack of communication. People got used to corruption because there was nothing to measure it against. Any stories about how it was elsewhere were just that, stories from far away places. In the modern interconnected world this no longer applies. For a nation to work even partly in the global economy it requires a proportion of it's people to be educated and in touch with other nations in real time.

 

It's not stories any more. It's what you see in real time on the net, or the news, or what you are told by people that you work with every day but live in other nations. Educated people see that the police and courts don't have to be corrupt, that fair and free elections do occur and that other people can say what they like about their government without being visited by the "Special" police. People accept the status quo because they can't imagine that it could be any other way. In the interconnected world they are being shown every single day how it can be and is different elsewhere. And those who see it talk to others, who talk to others, and so on.

 

Oppressive regimes use problems in other nations to bolster their hold. I have no doubt that the many protests about the Iraq invasion were broadcast often in the Arab world. The problem with doing this is that it demonstrates to the people that others can demonstrate against their government without fear of reprisal. The fact that such protests can even exist is telling. Why is so hard to believe that these people want the same rights for themselves?

 

The Soviets made the same mistake. I read interviews with Victor Belenko years ago. He was the pilot that defected with a shiny new Mig 25. As people may or may not know, privately owned cars were not that common in the old USSR. One of the reasons Belenko gave for wanting to see the West was a presentation by a Political Commisar. He showed a photo of American workers eating hot dogs to demonstrate how poorly treated factory workers were in the USA. However in the background was the factorys parking lot full of cars. This led Belenko to wonder "If the workers are so poor, who owns all those cars?"

 

I find there is almost a racist slant to many commenting on the goings on in the middle east. Looking for deep and dark meanings rather than simply accepting the reason that the protestors themselves have put forward. Honest government and fair elections. They know that with honest government and political freedom then economic freedom will follow. They have said this, why is it so hard to believe? Is there some underlying reason that arabs can't "understand" democracy? Or is it that they "aren't ready" for it?

 

The Americans rebelled in 1776 because they wanted a government that responded to the wishes and needs of the people. I've yet to see anybody argue otherwise. So why is it so hard to believe that Tunisians, Egyptians and others are protesting for exactly the same reasons?

[lemur]

The Americans rebelled in 1776 because they wanted a government that responded to the wishes and needs of the people. I've yet to see anybody argue otherwise. So why is it so hard to believe that Tunisians, Egyptians and others are protesting for exactly the same reasons?

It's not. What's hard for me to imagine is that it is possible for people to become independent farmers in the sense that the pilgrims who travelled from Leiden to Plymouth rock did when the land they have to work with is dessert? Is there sufficient agricultural means to become self-sustaining or is trade required to attain basic food? I have the feeling that much of the world is dependent on trade for even basic nourishment, so how can people expect to attain social-economic stability by asserting political independence? If you are dependent on trade for basic necessities, you have to have some means of securing that trade in a way that guarantees basic welfare. This may require labor-exchanges where people agree to participate in the labor that sustains them, even if distant migration is required to perform that labor. Sometimes the problem is that large-scale farms produce enough food but fail to provide sufficient labor opportunities for people to work for their own nourishment. In that case, people have to seek income-opportunities to make the money that is required to purchase the food. Then what are they supposed to do with those income opportunities are not available? The first priority of anyone who is concerned about poverty globally should be food-resources - second only to potable water. No one should be without water or food. Then you get to the issue of shelter. Once people are protected from the elements, you have health-care issues to deal with. How do you deal with sickness? Amazingly, these issues are not limited to the global poor. They are present in every developed economy. Even the most socially-conscious economies have people who are undereducated regarding nutrition and health-practices. They expect public medicine to take care of them when they get sick so they fail to put sufficient effort into maximizing health through exercise, good nutrition, etc. People need to get educated about basic necessities so they can maximize their health first. Healthy bodies are the foundation for economic development. The rebels have the world's attention. Now they need to create global understanding of what is needed for them to prosper.

[JohnB]

Sorry, what?

 

I can't even work out if you are agreeing or disagreeing with the quoted sentences.

[lemur]

Sorry, what?

 

I can't even work out if you are agreeing or disagreeing with the quoted sentences.

It's tempting to attack you in an insulting way for saying something so unconstructive in a thread as this, but it's against forum rules. I just don't understand why you wouldn't just PM me if you didn't understand my post. Otherwise you're not really responding to anything because you didn't get anything from reading it in the first place.

 

Ok, I get it now. You think I am talking about something different than the post I quoted. To explicitly respond to the quote: you said, "they wanted a government that responded to the wishes and needs of the people." But the goal was economic independence, not a government that would ensure people's economic interdependence and a prosperous system of business and trade. The pilgrims, for example, sought land to independently farm. This was possible because the land available was fertile. The question is whether these mid-East rebellions are geared toward independent cultivation of the land or government control/stimulus of business and trade in a way that benefits them more financially (i.e. raises their monetary income). I don't want to re-type my whole post now. I was trying to point out that it twists things a little to say that the US revolution was geared toward financial prosperity. I think it was more about economic independence from colonial rule.

Edited February 6, 2011 by lemur

[Pangloss]

John's very honest about stuff like that; I wouldn't read anything into it.

 

Sometimes I have a hard time following your train of thought as well. Usually worth the effort, though, as you often have something interesting to say. Might help if you broke up your paragraphs a bit more? Just a suggestion, though (I've seen a lot worse).

[JohnB]

Lemur, if I didn't understand your post then it's a fair bet that others couldn't either, so a PM wouldn't have added to the ongoing conversation of the thread. A post that isn't easily understood isn't very constructive either, wouldn't you agree? I would suggest that if people find your meaning unclear then it would be more worthwhile to structure posts in a clearer and more methodical manner than to be tempted to be insulting. Miscommunication can be from a number of factors and indistinct writing techniques is one of them. Why be angry at me because you didn't express yourself clearly?

 

Put bluntly, I couldn't follow your train of thought and the interconnections therein. In response to a comment about a desire for government to be responsive to the desires of the people you brought in water, food, housing, labour markets, lack of individual responsibility in health care and the pilgrims. I'm having great trouble seeing the connections here. Especially WRT the pilgrims. The motivating forces that made them colonize America are very different from the motivating forces that led to the American revolution and I really can't see a connection at all. Colonization is not revolution.

 

"Independent cultivation of the land" has nothing to do with the situation developing in the middle east. It's about fair and just government. Any reasonably educated person in the region is well aware that under an unjust and biased system his or her chances of economic progress are severely curtailed. It doesn't matter how good or right you are if your opponent (or business competitor) has the ear of the government and can shut you down. I have yet to read anything from Egypt etc that even implies that the people believe that getting rid of the current government will solve all their problems. They simply want the chance to improve economically. There can be no dreams of a better future for your children if their future and lives can be taken arbitarily by the government.

 

A government that is elected by the people and is responsive to the wishes of the people does not guarantee economic prosperity for the individual or the nation, but it is the one that offers the best chance of both. Because it is accountable to the people, there is responsibility for governmental actions. It is this responsibility that is being demanded.

 

I'm uncertain as to why you think I'm "twisting" the causes of the American revolution. I never said it was about economic prosperity. Although you could perhaps argue that I'm referring to people demanding a fair chance at economic prosperity. I thought it was about "No Taxation without Representation" and "Government of the People, for the People and by the People". These aren't food protests, or job protests, they are protests about how their nation is run and the form of government that it has, and a demand to have a say in both.

 

Exactly the same factors that led to popular support for the American revolution. Nobody argues that these weren't strong underlying factors in America and other places where Democracy has come from revolution, yet people seem to be incapable of believing that the same desires are the underlying cause of the unrest in the ME. Even though these are the reasons given to the world by the protestors themselves. Nobody questions the motivation of the Americans back then, so why do they question the motives now? I can only assume that for some reason people in the ME are viewed as "inferior" in some way because there must be some deep, dark motivation rather than the one that is plainly stated.

Edited February 7, 2011 by JohnB

[Mr Skeptic]

lemur, to be honest I too have great difficulty reading some of your posts.

 

About economic well-being and freedom: people deprived of certain freedoms could quickly lose their economic well-being at the whim of another person. If they do not trust the person or institution largely responsible for their economic well-being, they would value the freedom more since then they can be responsible for their economic well-being. But I agree that well-off people are probably going to be content with their leader even without freedom.

 

About food security: the climate of Egypt does not preclude self-sufficiency for food, and food self-sufficiency is extremely important to countries from a national security standpoint. Egypt used to be largely self-sufficient in the 1960's but not in 1980's. This is for specific staple foods, and I don't know how it applies to food overall. As one of the countries giving food aid to them, I suppose this food shortage of theirs was probably a political/diplomatic advantage for the USA.

http://countrystudies.us/egypt/84.htm