In recent years, figures like Egypt’s General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Pakistan’s General Asim Munir have emerged as powerful military leaders, wielding control over their countries with the backing of foreign allies. Both generals were brought into power with significant international support, aimed at securing regional interests for those foreign powers. Their rule, marked by heavy-handed control over democratic processes and suppression of dissent, underscores the strategies employed by foreign nations to maintain influence in regions critical to their geopolitical aims.
Paths to Power and Foreign Influence
In Egypt, General Sisi took power in 2013 through a military coup that ousted the country’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi. This move had the full backing of Saudi Arabia and the United States, who sought stability in Egypt that aligned with their own interests. Sisi’s administration quickly dismantled Egypt’s democratic structures, suppressing opposition voices and consolidating military dominance over politics. His rise to power served a clear agenda: ensure stability beneficial to foreign allies, primarily by protecting Israel and maintaining control over the strategic Suez Canal.
Similarly, in Pakistan, General Asim Munir’s ascent was reportedly influenced by foreign capitals, notably Washington and Riyadh. After Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan advocated for a more independent foreign policy, which included support for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the United States grew wary of Pakistan’s alignment with China. Imran Khan’s favouring of CPEC—a project that grants China a crucial trade route—was seen as a threat to American interests in the region. Therefore, by bringing Munir to power, foreign allies aimed to curb Pakistan’s engagement with China and limit CPEC’s impact, while pushing Pakistan closer to Indian hegemony, which aligns with U.S. strategies in South Asia.
Suppression of Democratic Movements
General Sisi’s rule in Egypt has been defined by strict control over political processes and harsh repression of dissent. After ousting Morsi, Sisi clamped down on Egypt’s democratic space, limiting civil liberties, and ensuring that any opposition was either marginalised or silenced. This crackdown, widely criticised, was overlooked by his foreign backers, who prioritised their strategic interests over democratic values.
In Pakistan, a similar story unfolded with General Munir. The former Prime Minister Imran Khan, known for his nationalist and independent stance, was removed through a no-confidence vote under controversial circumstances, allegedly influenced by foreign interests. Following his ouster, Khan’s imprisonment further highlighted the lengths to which the establishment would go to keep him out of power, echoing the treatment of opposition figures in authoritarian regimes. For both Sisi and Munir, democratic processes were seen as a threat to the alignment with foreign agendas, and therefore, they worked to curb these movements effectively.
Strategic Interests Behind Military Control
The installation of leaders like Sisi and Munir is driven by broader geopolitical aims. In Egypt, Western and regional powers prioritise a stable regime that secures the Suez Canal, maintains Egypt within a pro-Western sphere, and protects Israel’s security. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, foreign powers see the necessity of keeping the country aligned with India, which they view as a crucial ally in South Asia. With the U.S. aiming to counter China’s influence, particularly the CPEC corridor, they have sought to discourage Pakistan from fostering closer ties with China.
The American strategy, especially after its experiences in Afghanistan, involves installing compliant leaders who can prevent the rise of independent leadership that could shift alliances. With Munir’s rise, there has been a visible shift in Pakistan’s stance on CPEC and its foreign policy, marking a return to Washington’s influence over Pakistan’s strategic decisions.
Authoritarian Leaders with Conditional Support
Both Sisi and Munir govern with strong foreign backing, but their popularity among their own people is questionable. History has repeatedly shown that leaders who serve foreign interests rather than their own citizens often lose favour with their people. Egypt’s former president, Hosni Mubarak, ruled for decades with Western support but was eventually overthrown amid widespread public opposition. Similarly, Pakistan’s past military rulers, such as Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Musharraf, all met disgraced ends after falling out of favour, with either forced resignations or public disdain.
Foreign Policy Gambits and Regional Stability
The recent extension of General Munir’s term and his backing from allies in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia illustrate their desire to maintain a compliant leader in Pakistan. This approach is similar to the foreign policy strategy seen in Egypt, where Sisi’s continued rule aligns with foreign interests that favour stability over democracy. However, this stability often comes at the cost of democratic freedoms and public support. In both countries, foreign powers prioritise their strategic interests, ignoring the voices of the local populace.
Country like Pakistan and Egypt too big to Attack militarily .
Countries like Pakistan and Egypt, while difficult for foreign powers to control through direct military action, are often subdued through economic manipulation and the installation of puppet dictators. When powerful nations cannot seize control overtly, they resort to tactics such as destabilizing economies, placing corrupt individuals in power, and binding nations in dependency through debt and economic leverage. This centuries-old strategy, perfected by the West, has proven highly effective in maintaining influence over vulnerable nations. By fostering economic dependence on Western loans and Saudi and uae support, foreign powers secure control, quietly exploiting resources and installing loyal leaders who serve their interests over the well-being of their own people.
Lessons from History
While leaders like Sisi and Munir appear strong today, history reminds us that foreign-backed authoritarian regimes often meet bitter ends. Egypt’s Mubarak ruled with a firm grip for years but faced disgraceful removal when public sentiment turned. In Pakistan, previous military rulers who rose with strong foreign backing eventually faced similar downfalls. Power based on foreign support alone is rarely sustainable, and ultimately, leaders lacking genuine public backing become vulnerable to changing political tides.
Both Sisi and Munir serve as contemporary examples of foreign-aligned strongmen. But as history has shown, all autocrats eventually face the consequences of ignoring their people’s aspirations. The fates of past dictators demonstrate that true power lies not in foreign alliances but in public trust, and as soon as that trust erodes, even the strongest leaders become powerless.
