Abstract

The Arab world is in the midst of a process of change whose main engine are mobilized societies against authoritarian rule. Yet, the military has played a decisive role in the course of uprisings, easing transitions (Egypt, Tunisia), imploding (Libya), repressing (Bahrain), or fracturing (Yemen, presumably Syria). This is no surprise as the military was an essential, but very specific, part of Arab authoritarian regimes. In the 1950s–1960s, the military acted as modernizers with a nationalist vision. In 2011–2012, the military was unwilling to take power. The military has been propelled into politics, either remaining the only institution or as an instrument of repression. I assess the military’s reactions to the mass uprisings and the regime’s call for heavy repression. After regime change, the nature and course of transition is once again heavily dependent on the actions of the various militaries or their remnants when they have fractured.

Massive societal uprisings (thawra) against authoritarian rule in 2011 came as a surprise to regimes as well as outside observers in the ‘quiet landscape’ of persistent authoritarian rule in the Middle East (dubbed ‘the Arab exception’). The strength of active and young societies and their ability to present their demands in forceful mobilizations calling for dignity (karama), humanity (insaniyya), and liberty (huriyya) while pouring into symbolic public spaces was the crux of the Arab uprisings. Nevertheless, armies have played the role of midwife for transitions in Tunisia and Egypt where the military refused to shoot at protesters, thereby easing the end of both regimes. The army was involved in repression in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen. In Libya, the army imploded in the first ‘days of anger’, and then became engaged in a civil war. In addition to the essential role of autonomous societal mobilizations, the role of the military is absolutely critical in all cases.