The hanging questions in Egypt's power play 

(MENAFN - Arab News) THE surprise move taken by Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi to assert his power by taking head on the top military brass that has been running the country for the past 17 months and was eying the future, should not really be a surprise, given the general political environment, and more importantly, taking into consideration the long tradition and history of the central state in Egypt that dates back to more than 7,000 years.

But the successful move still keeps two questions open for future deliberations: The role of the military in Egypt and whether Mursi's move is asserting of the civilian control or a step toward more "Ikhwanization" or the Muslim Brotherhood, known in Arabic as Ikhwan, of the state and eventually the whole Egyptian society.

The attempt of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) to emulate itself like its peers in Turkey and play a future role in the country's politics was doomed from the start. It was not acceptable for the military, which has been associated with the deposed regime, as individuals and as an institution to continue in the post revolution era. Moreover, the US, which has been funding the military with some 1.3 billion annually in terms of aid, will find it difficult to continue and betray its public preaching on democratic transformation if a confrontation takes place between the newly elected civilian president and the SCAF.

But more important is the country's legacy of respect for the top power and the influence the president can easily exert using his moral power against other forces. The case to cite here was the ease with which former President Anwar Sadat managed to assert his power against those challenging him from the who's who of Egypt's top leadership back in the early 1970s: the ministers of defense, interior, intelligence in addition to his vice president and the top figure of the sole party then.

Though Mursi finally managed to assert his power and was able in one strike to end the division of power, the question still looms on whether that will mean an end to the rule of the military that has been a strong influencing factor in Egyptian politics for more than 60 years. Since 1952, Egypt has been ruled by a military and it is no secret that one of the main obstacles that faced former President Hosni Mubarak in his attempt to put his son forward to replace him was the anti-position taken by the military because Jamal Mubarak was not a man in the uniform.

Aside from history and the dominant role of the army not only in defending the country externally, but also in restoring security and stability domestically, the Egyptian army has a very strong economic base that makes it a real player in a number of ways. It is believed to have a stake in every economic sector and activity from manufacturing and marketing olive oil to laptops, fertilizers and so on. Given more than 60 years of economic activity, some analysts estimate that the army is more or less in control of some stakes in the country's economy that range between anything from 10-40 percent. In addition to that, there is the US aid to the army that amounts to some 1.3 billion.

Will the army use these abilities to defend its economic and political interests if not to undermine Mursi's civilian coup to restore his power and legitimacy? The initial answer is that that seems to be unlikely. The smoothness of the transformation so far is attributed mainly to the fact that Mursi's move was helped by a part of the military, where he managed to get some fellows in arms to take the place of those sacked.

But the main question that will be hanging on Egypt's political scene for a long time to come is whether Mursi's decisions will stop on the target of asserting civilian control, or is it just a step to create the long awaited Ikhwan state. The Muslim Brotherhood that was established back in 1928 has not only managed to survive suppression and banning throughout the years but has also emerged as the most organized political force in the post Mubarak era. In that respect, it is not just a political party, but a party with a mission, and which was willing to sacrifice for the sake of that mission. The question that remains is: How is it going to reconcile that mission with the ballot box that brought it to power in the first place?