What Mubarak was better at than Sisi

Mohammed Nosseir
Mohammed Nosseir

Mohammed Nosseir

By : Mohammed Nosseir

People may believe that authoritarianism is a standardized practice – on the contrary. There are several degrees and functionalities of authoritarian rule, wherein autocrats’ personalities play an essential role in shaping their respective ruling mechanisms.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has always envied his late predecessor Gamal Abdel Nasser’s leadership style – which was bereft of the slightest glimpse of democracy – has accused Hosni Mubarak of being too soft on the Muslim Brotherhood. However, Mubarak – a thoroughly authoritarian president who was overthrown by his people in Feb. 2011 – was substantially better than Sisi at a number of tasks.

Mubarak was always surrounded by a close group of trustworthy, qualified political executives and advisors who served him well, whereas Sisi trusts no one. The latter uses a fill-in-the-blanks approach to political appointees, assigning bureaucrats to fill ministerial and parliamentary positions with little concern for their merits and qualifications as long as they can implement his ideas in the shortest possible time span.

Mubarak was a strong manipulator who had the ability to induce people to meet his needs by skillfully communicating his political goals. Sisi, with his inadequate communication skills, is not influencing anybody; he is not even controlling his own people, in my opinion. Appropriate use was made of ‘political clowns’ under Mubarak, yet they remained firmly within the ‘clown’ bracket. Sisi, however, in my opinion, has given them more room to perform their antics. As a result, they have managed to dominate the political scene.

Mubarak used a divide-and-rule strategy, establishing a number of political power entities while making sure to create friction among them. Sisi’s complete reliance on military and security forces has diffused Mubarak’s traditional power entities.


Because Mubarak was aware that politics is an obsession, he allowed many citizens to become involved in politics – either as regime supporters or by assuming the role of a fake opposition – as long they did not exceed their designated roles and persistently expressed their loyalty to him. Sisi has been working on depoliticizing Egyptians, maintaining politics as his own private domain.

Despite differences, the two leaders share most of the fundamental qualities of authoritarianism: a policy of repression, widespread injustice and inefficient government

Mohammed Nosseir

Mubarak used to reach out to everyone, which entailed listening to his opponents. Like all authoritarians, he did what suited him at the end, but listening to the perspectives of a diversity of citizens did influence his thoughts to a certain degree. Sisi gives no indication that he listens to either his supporters or opponents.

Whereas Mubarak was aware of his limitations, was happy to live in his comfort zone and declined any attempt to do things differently, Sisi believes the sky is the limit, but has yet to explain how he plans to accomplish his ambitions.

Government bureaucracy has been a concern to both presidents. Neither has worked on reforming the government apparatus to improve its productivity and efficiency, yet Mubarak used to empower his entourage, encouraging them to bend the law in order to overcome bureaucracy, and providing them with the necessary immunity to do so. Sisi expects his cabinet to produce positive results, but unlike Mubarak he has not provided his executives with any ruling mechanisms, support or immunity.

Mubarak was well established regionally and internationally. For better or for worse (for Egypt), many world leaders recognized and trusted his narrative. Although he perceives the situation differently, Sisi’s credentials have not yet been accepted either regionally or internationally.

Despite the above differences, the two leaders share most of the fundamental qualities of authoritarianism: a policy of repression, widespread injustice and inefficient government. Nevertheless, Mubarak, whose clearly-structured reasoning mindset was easily understood by his followers, managed to run a functional authoritarian state. Sisi’s method of reasoning is fragmented, making him very difficult to understand. His dissociation from Egypt’s challenges threatens to turn it into a flailing state.

Mohammed Nosseir is an Egyptian liberal politician who advocates for advancing liberalism, political participation, and economic freedom. Mohammed was member of the higher committee at the Democratic Front Party from 2007 to 2012, and then member of the political bureau of the Free Egyptian Party till mid 2013. Mohammed advocates for his work through providing the Egyptian government with a number of schemes to better reform its government institutes, as well as he is a regular contributor to various Egyptian newspapers. Mohammed also has extensive experience in the private sector, working with a number of international companies assisting them in expanding their businesses in the Middle East. Mohammed graduated from Faculty of Commerce, Ain Shams University, Cairo (1986); he participated at Aspen Seminar on Leadership, Values and Good Society (2011), Eisenhower Fellow, Multi-National Program (2009) and Stanford Fellow for Democracy, Development & Rule of Law (2008).

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in the Column section are their own and do not reflect RiyadhVision’s point-of-view.


    We must not play into ISIS’s hands
    The closer Syria is to peace, the more violent it will be
    %d bloggers like this:
    Powered by : © 2014 Systron Micronix :: Leaders in Web Hosting. All rights reserved

    | About Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Disclaimer | Contact Us |