The dynamics of Egypt crisis

it is instead a manifestation of the continuation of the age-old power struggle between the Islamists, who pursue political power in order to gradually but consistently work towards the institutionalization of Shari’a, and the secularists, who vehemently oppose the Islamists’ agenda.For more than 80 years, Egypt has been the centre of this struggle where the […]

it is instead a manifestation of the continuation of the age-old power struggle between the Islamists, who pursue political power in order to gradually but consistently work towards the institutionalization of Shari’a, and the secularists, who vehemently oppose the Islamists’ agenda.
For more than 80 years, Egypt has been the centre of this struggle where the Muslim Brotherhood Movement has been at loggerheads with the secular-minded largely pan-Arab nationalists, who have manipulated and monopolized power through the means of military dictatorships or sham democratic processes. Also, being the largest Arab country in terms of population, events in Egypt have always reflected in other Arab countries, which makes the Brotherhood (or Islamists in general) versus secularists power struggle quite evident in all Arab countries in the region.
The successive generations of secular and power-obsessed serving and retired military elite, corrupt technocrats, kleptomaniac politicians, devious clerics, unprincipled intellectuals and compromised judges who collectively form the so-called pan-Arab nationalist and liberal socio-political block represent a manipulative reactionary status-quo that vehemently opposes real progressive changes in Egypt and other countries in the region.
For instance, former presidents late Jamal Abdul-Naser of Egypt, late Saddam Hussein of Iraq, late Hafiz Al-Assad of Syria and late Mu’ammar Ghadafi of Libya and former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak were particularly notorious for ruling with iron fists and oppressing the Islamists in their respective countries.
Moreover, in early ‘90s, the Algerian military aborted the first genuine democratic process in the country when it appeared that the Islamists would definitely win the elections; an action that plunged the country into a bloody civil war that lasted for almost a decade. Also in 2006 Hamas Islamic Resistance Movement won the elections in the semi-independent Palestinian territories, but was denied a chance to rule, which resulted in the split of the already geographically mutilated Palestinian territories into literally two semi-independent entities.  
Furthermore, even in non-secular Arab countries, people suspected of being sympathetic to the Brotherhood are suppressed and persecuted. The rich Arab kingdoms, sheikhdoms and emirates in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, are particularly opposed to Muslim Brotherhood agenda, which explains the Saudi’s absolute support for the recent military takeover in Egypt.
Interestingly enough, Egypt’s strategic importance in international politics, which is highlighted by, among other things, its control of one of the most important international maritime navigation routes, the Suez Canal, and indeed its geographical proximity to the state of Israel explain the deep involvement of the key world powers, particularly the United States and its western allies, in its affairs.
This is why the United States and its key western allies who hypocritically claim to promote democracy sabotage efforts to produce popular governments through genuine democratic means in the region, because they realize that such governments would definitely undermine their political influence and strategic economic interests in the region, as they would also pose existential threat to the Zionist state of Israel, which is an integral part of their strategic interests.
By the way, as opposed to hereditary regimes and fake democratic systems in the region, which literally survive on America’s political support and protection in return for their unconditional subservience to the US and its allies, a genuinely elected democratic and transparent regime could not be blackmailed that way, for it will be guided by a standard constitution, which among other things, determines the process through which political power is attained and indeed its timeframe.
Having said that, however, while the fore-going summarizes the dynamics of the crisis and its various dimensions, which determine the strategic interests of all the parties involved within the country, the region and beyond, I must add that the Islamists themselves including the Brotherhood are sometimes partly responsible for their own predicament. For instance, the “Salafists”, who rightly focus on reviving the core Islamic creed, are clearly naïve politically and lack consistency in their political approach; whereas the Brotherhood, who are more organized and more experienced politically, downplay or even literally deny the imperative of reforming the core Islamic creed before engaging in political activism to attain political power.  
Moreover, the obvious signs of inconsistency and indecisiveness displayed by Mohammed Morsi as well as his apparent clinging to his Brotherhood fraternal mentality at the expense of a broader view expected of him as president not leader of a movement undermined his ability to win the confidence of the sizable percentage of Egyptians who did not vote for him. Perhaps that wasn’t completely unexpected because he was not actually the preferred candidate for the Brotherhood and other Islamists,; they had to settle for him after their preferred candidates, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail and Khairat Al-Shatir, were disqualified on some questionable grounds before the elections.
Nonetheless, there was no reasonable excuse whatsoever for the military to overthrow the government, and their action has set a dangerous precedent likely to undermine the sustainability of good governance and stability in the country for a considerable time to come.