Militarism Will Rule Arabs

By Naveed Qazi | Editor, Globe Upfront

Three military figures have emerged as pivotal actors in the politics of Libya, Egypt and Lebanon. In Libya, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar commands the Libyan National Army and has positioned himself as a central force in shaping the country’s future. Press reports from The Guardian and Reuters have detailed how Haftar’s campaigns in Benghazi and Tripoli were backed by foreign powers, including Russia and the UAE, while his reliance on mercenaries has drawn criticism from rights groups. In Egypt, Abdel Fattah al‑Sisi rose from general to president after the 2013 coup against Mohamed Morsi, consolidating power through the military establishment. Coverage in BBC News and Al Jazeera has shown how Sisi’s government has tightened control over civil society, with mass arrests and restrictions on dissent, while presenting itself as the guarantor of stability. Lebanon’s former army commander Jean Qahwaji was often discussed as a potential political player, though his influence remained more limited compared to Haftar and Sisi. Reports in L’Orient Today noted that Qahwaji faced scrutiny over alleged illicit enrichment, though cases were dropped due to statutes of limitation, reflecting Lebanon’s wider struggles with accountability.

The wider Arab region has long been marked by military interventions and authoritarian rulers. Egypt’s coups began under Gamal Abdel Nasser, while Muammar Gaddafi overthrew King Idris in Libya. In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh manipulated tribal politics to maintain control, and Houari Boumedienne in Algeria, along with Hafez al‑Assad in Syria, entrenched regimes that often turned against their own people. These histories illustrate how military dominance has repeatedly reshaped political life, often at the expense of democratic freedoms.

Recent developments show that military rulers are still perceived by many as charismatic figures capable of forging bold relationships in public life. Yet the persistence of extremist organisations means that stability remains fragile. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood rejected the army’s takeover, and voter turnout has been low, reflecting disillusionment. In Lebanon, elections have been restricted to registered voters, while Syrian refugees and residents have rallied around their embattled president. In Libya, Haftar has sought to dilute Islamist influence and redirect attention towards economic reforms, presenting them as a pathway to eventual democratic elections. The New Arab has reported that Haftar’s rhetoric about reform is often undermined by continued military crackdowns, raising doubts about his commitment to democracy.

Minority communities, particularly Christians, often see military rule as preferable to Islamist dominance, given that attacks against them frequently go unreported. The so‑called “Dhimmi Pact” drafted by radicals in Greater Syria and Iraq would not apply under military regimes, offering some reassurance to Coptic Christians and others. Still, accountability and reform are urgently needed. Civil unrest has already damaged the social fabric, and economic measures such as easing poverty, reducing unemployment, and ending costly energy subsidies are essential. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have repeatedly documented how authoritarian governments in the region suppress dissent while failing to deliver meaningful reforms.

The identification of dissenters remains a sensitive issue. Left‑leaning liberals, who were particularly strong in the 1950s, oppose emergency powers and the unquestioning obedience of the military in civil governance. Their resistance highlights the tension between authoritarianism and aspirations for democracy. What sparked many of these revolutions was the lack of freedom and the absence of genuine democratic structures. Crackdowns have been severe, with hundreds killed and thousands arrested, drawing condemnation from human rights groups and reported widely in The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Authoritarianism has been the dominant form of government in Arab states for decades. The question now is whether military rule can deliver stability and economic progress, or whether it will simply perpetuate repression. Some argue that patriotic interests and a desire for order make military dictatorship attractive, while others insist that democracy, however fragile, is the only path to a sustainable future. Stability may bring optimism, but whether it outweighs the tenets of democracy remains uncertain.

Extending this analysis, one sees how military figures continue to embody both promise and peril. Haftar’s reliance on foreign backing and mercenaries illustrates the fragility of Libyan sovereignty. Sisi’s consolidation of power demonstrates how military rulers can entrench themselves while curbing freedoms, even as they present themselves as stabilisers. Qahwaji’s limited political role in Lebanon reflects the country’s complex sectarian balance, where military figures may be influential but rarely dominate outright.

The press has played a crucial role in documenting these developments. Reports from Reuters and The Guardian have exposed Haftar’s foreign ties, while BBC News and Al Jazeera have scrutinised Sisi’s authoritarian measures. L’Orient Today has highlighted Lebanon’s struggles with accountability, and The New Arab has questioned the sincerity of Haftar’s reform agenda. Human rights organisations have consistently warned of the dangers of unchecked military power, while international outlets such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have chronicled the human cost of crackdowns.

Ultimately, the persistence of military rule in the Arab world raises profound questions about the balance between stability and democracy. While some communities may welcome the order imposed by generals, others fear the erosion of freedoms and the perpetuation of repression. The region’s future will depend on whether reformers and intellectuals can challenge entrenched power and push for accountability, or whether military dominance will continue to define political life. Only time will reveal which path the region chooses, but the record of press investigations shows that dissent can be sustained, and that exposing contradictions remains essential for any hope of genuine peace.