Egypt under Abdel Fattah al-Sisi offers a cautionary tale of authoritarian governance. Despite the illusion of order, discipline, and decisiveness projected by the regime, the country’s foreign and domestic policy apparatus is riddled with contradictions, inefficiencies, and kleptocratic distortions. The very mechanisms that appear to grant authoritarian regimes a comparative advantage, such as centralization, repression, securitization, are in fact the source of chronic misgovernance, poor decision-making, and long-term instability. The Egyptian case illustrates that authoritarianism does not streamline the state; it corrodes it from within.
This insight carries clear implications for how Europe should calibrate their policy toward authoritarian partners like Egypt. The prevailing approach, which treats authoritarian regimes as reliable crisis managers and bulwarks against regional instability or irregular migration, is analytically lopsided. This view ignores the long list of structural malfunctions that at least this type of authoritarianism needs in order uphold the power of the regime. These malfunctions translate into excessive arms transfers, human rights abuses on a mass scale and an economic exploitation and mismanagement. Developments that leave Egypt’s economy starring into the abyss and put the country on a trajectory towards implosion (el-Hamalawy 2024).
To effectively challenge the growing admiration for authoritarian governance, both within Europe and in its foreign policy circles, Western democracies must go beyond moral critiques rooted in human rights violations. While essential, this framing alone often fails to persuade more pragmatic audiences who see authoritarianism as “effective.” A more compelling response requires shifting the focus to how authoritarianism malfunctions as a system of governance. Authoritarian regimes like Egypt are not efficient state machines; they are brittle, opaque, and economically extractive. Their decision-making processes are distorted by fear, elite rivalry, and lack of institutional accountability. This leads to poor public service delivery, reactive crisis management, and spiraling debt. Outcomes that ultimately undermine both internal stability and external reliability. Europe should support and invest in comparative policy research, public diplomacy, and political education that highlights these structural weaknesses, not just ethical violations.
In short, authoritarianism is not only unjust, it is unsustainable. Countering authoritarian admiration means showing not only what such regimes suppress, but what they fail to deliver: competent governance, inclusive development, and real long-term stability.
Posted by SeaSlice6646
4 Comments
>The economic impediments rooted in the regime’s patronage and kleptocratic logic are compounded by the dysfunctions of fear-based governance, which erode information flow and agency within state institutions. Fear serves as a mechanism of control in order to suppress dissent but also distorts bureaucratic behavior and produces systemic inefficiencies. This dynamic gives rise to two mutually reinforcing pathologies: information distortion and decision-making paralysis.
>
>The consequences of this loyalty-based, militarized governance model are reflected in Egypt’s deteriorating macroeconomic indicators. National debt quadrupled between 2010 and 2022, making Egypt the second-largest borrower from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) globally (Springbock 2022). Bloomberg ranks Egypt as the world’s second most likely country to default on its debt, after war-torn Ukraine (Ismail 2023). As political economist Timothy Kaldas remarked, “Ukraine was invaded by the Russian army, while the Egyptian economy was invaded by its [own] army” (Middle East Monitor 2023).
This dynamic has two major implications for assessing authoritarian rule.
First, the erosion of institutional autonomy aids in maintaining regime stability but diminishes the state’s capacity for effective, evidence-based policymaking. Ministries become mere executors of top-down directives rather than sites of strategic planning.
Second, the systematic elevation of loyalists, often from al-Sisi’s military-dominated inner circle, over qualified technocrats entrenches a governance model that privileges regime loyalty over institutional competence. The result is bureaucratic brittleness, policy incoherence, and a governance structure increasingly defined by personalistic control.
>The Egyptian case illustrates that authoritarianism does not streamline the state; it corrodes it from within.
This is the wrong takeaway. Authoritarianism absolutely streamlines the state. It makes it easier to build out high speed rail or housing, or direct enormous amounts of money and effort toward strategic initiatives like space or advanced chip development. Show me the Chinese NIMBYs using democratic avenues to prevent new apartment towers and rail infrastructure. The reason they don’t exist is directly because what the CCP wants they get. They wipe their ass with your opinion.
But it also streamlines the ability to do stupid decisions like cease power from the central bank, or turn your military from an effective defense force into a weak apparatus too dysfunctional to perform a coup or otherwise endanger the existing power structures. There is nothing stopping a centralized authority from doing these things either.
The federalist papers talk directly about this, outlining how democratic/representative governments force things to “simmer” (the word they used), which literally just means taking a long time to do shit as the legislative deliberates over things. I.e. the opposite of streamlining.
Both the advantage and curse of centralized authority is that things are very centralized. This is why the default state of most non-state organizations like corporations for example involve centralized authority. Democracy doesn’t provide benefit when the stakes are lower, but does introduce a lot of friction.
>In short, authoritarianism is not only unjust, it is unsustainable.
This is also a bizarre statement. How do you even measure “sustainable” in terms of government? Plenty of authoritarian states last hundreds of years and plenty of democracies last only a couple years.
Am I losing my mind or do I smell ChatGPT on that intro