Political Arrests as Instruments of Regime Survival in Post-2013 Egypt
Décembre 2025, Simay Ö.
Introduction
The political trajectory of Egypt since the removal of President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013 has been marked by a sharp expansion of coercive state power and the consolidation of an extensive security apparatus. Rephrasing suggestion : Since the removal of President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, Egypt’s political landscape has undergone a profound transformation characterized by the expansion of coercive state power and the entrenchment of an extensive security apparatus. (avoids saying ‘political trajectory of X since Y has been marked by Z’)
Rather than representing a temporary response to instability,this transformation has involved the sustained redefinition of political participation and dissent through legal, institutional, and discursive means. Political arrests have become central within this configuration. their scale, persistence and targeting suggests that they function not as episodic reactions to opposition activity, but as part of a broader, systematic strategy aimed at consolidating the post-2013 political order.
Existing scholarship on securitization and authoritarian resilience offers us useful tools for interpreting this pattern. Studies have shown how regimes can frame opponents as existential threats, normalize exceptional legal measures, and deploy security institutions to stabilize authoritarian rule (Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde 1998 ; Bellin 2004 ; Brownlee 2007). Applied to Egypt, these insights reveal how political arrest practices operate not merely as instruments of repression, but as mechanisms through which the regime actively produces and manages political order.
This paper examines how political arrests in Egypt since 2013 have operated as deliberate instruments of regime security. Arrests are understood here as detentions targeting activists, journalists, politicians, and civil society actors primarily on political grounds, whether justified through criminal statutes, counterterrorism legislation, or emergency provisions. The analysis draws on three intersecting bodies of literature: securitization theory, which explains how dissent is constructed as a security threat warranting extraordinary measures; the concept of state of exception, which captures the normalization of emergency powers and exceptional jurisdictions (Buzan et al. 1998; Agamben 2005), and research on authoritarian resilience, which highlights the adaptive deployment of coercion to neutralize mobilization and reinforce institutional dominance (Bellin 2004; Brownlee 2007).. Taken together, these frameworks reveal the strategic logic behind arrest practices and their role in sustaining Egypt’s post-2013 authoritarian order.
This paper contributes to existing research by approaching political arrests as elements of a coordinated regime strategy rather than as isolated violations or excesses of repression. First, it situates arrest practices at the intersection of discourse, law, and security institutions. Second, it links routine, micro-level practices such as preemptive arrests, extended pretrial detention, and the repeated “recycling” of charges to macro-level outcomes, including depoliticization, public acquiescence, and the reinforcement of international legitimacy. Third, it places Egyptian repression within the broader context of global counterterrorism narratives, showing how alignment with Western security priorities can reduce external pressure on human rights practices (Kirkpatrick 2018; Amnesty International 2022). This combined perspective advances a more integrated account of how political arrests function within contemporary authoritarian governance.
The analysis addresses a set of interrelated problems that operate at both the domestic and international levels. Domestically, the normalization of political arrests has contributed to the erosion of legal protections, the contraction of civic space, and the entrenchment of a political system organised around coerced stability. Internationally, the depiction of repression as a counterterrorism necessity complicates accountability mechanisms and shapes foreign policy responses. Understanding these dynamics is important for assessing both the durability of Egypt’s current political structure and the broader implications for state behavior under global security paradigms.
Methodologically, the paper relies on qualitative analysis of documentary sources. It analyzes Egyptian legal texts, including the 2015 Counterterrorism Law and the 2018 Cybercrime Law, alongside presidential statements, administrative decrees and court records where available. These materials are examined alongside secondary sources including peer-reviewed research and reports by organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. While the study does not draw on original fieldwork,, the use of diverse, corroborated documentary sources allows for a comprehensive reconstruction of the legal and institutional mechanisms surrounding political arrests.
Egypt constitutes a particularly relevant case for this analysis. Being the most populous Arab state and a central actor in Middle Eastern politics, its demographic and geopolitical weight amplifies the domestic and international significance of its internal security practices. In parallel , the post-2013 period provides a clear case of rapid securitization, systematic legal restructuring, and concentrated executive authority. Moreover, the, extensive documentation produced by local and international organizations, as well as substantial legal and political analysis, makes Egypt a well-supported empirical setting for examining how political arrests operate as tools of regime survival.
The paper proceeds as follows. Section II analyzes the discursive framing of dissent and the construction of opposition as terrorism. Section III examines the legal and institutional mechanisms that enable political arrests, including emergency legislation, counterterrorism statutes, and the roles of the security and judicial apparatus. Section IV identifies the strategic objectives served by these practices. Section V situates Egypt’s repression within international counterterrorism dynamics. The conclusion synthesizes the findings and discusses broader implications for authoritarian governance and political stability.
II. Political Discourse and Framing
Since 2013, Egyptian state discourse has played a central role in legitimizing political arrests by reframing political dissent as a matter of national security. Through repeated official statements, legislation-related announcements, and media narratives, the government has relied on a discursive strategy that merges political opposition with terrorism. This framing has been particularly evident in the treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was designated a terrorist organization in December 2013. The designation provided the foundational narrative architecture through which diverse forms of opposition, whether violent or peaceful, were depicted as part of a single threat category (Elmasry and Amin 2020). As a result, civic activism, independent journalism, and forms of digital expression came to be described not as legitimate political participation but as activities that could “undermine state stability” or “incite terrorism,” formulations frequently used in presidential speeches and state media coverage.
This securitizing narrative aligns with the mechanism described in securitization theory, in which political actors construct specific groups or behaviors as existential threats that justify extraordinary measures (Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde 1998). By classifying opposition figures, journalists, and human rights defenders as potential agents of extremism, state discourse has transformed political contestation into a security concern. In this context, emergency legislation and counterterrorism statutes are presented not as repressive instruments but as defensive responses to an ongoing threat. Ambiguity is integral to this narrative: the contested and broad definitions of “extremism” or “incitement” permit the state to apply security vocabulary to a wide range of nonviolent political activities. This dynamic mirrors patterns identified in comparative authoritarian settings, where regimes rely on discursive ambiguity to justify the expansion of coercive authority (Wedeen 1999).
Overt time, the repeated association of dissent with instability has contributed to a broader climate of caution and disengagement.. Studies on Egyptian state media demonstrate that the sustained depiction of the Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition actors as violent threats contributes to public apprehension about political activism and reinforces the belief that repression serves national protection (Elmasry and Amin 2020). Similar mechanisms have been observed historically in other authoritarian contexts, where regimes cultivate fear and uncertainty to maintain compliance (Wedeen 1999). In Egypt, this discursive environment encourages citizens to distance themselves from political activism to avoid association with alleged extremism, thereby diminishing solidarity networks that would otherwise support detainees or challenge the legitimacy of political arrests.
Presidential speeches and official government statements have reinforced this security-centered framing by consistently presenting Egypt as engaged in an ongoing “war on terror.” Archives from the State Information Service show a recurring emphasis on vigilance, national unity, and the need to confront internal enemies. Within this narrative, the executive is portrayed as the primary guarantor of national stability, while political pluralism is associated with fragility and risk. The consequence is a discursive environment in which political arrests are not portrayed as infringements on civil liberties but rather as protective measures required to preserve order and prevent chaos.
In sum, political discourse since 2013 has played a crucial role in legitimizing political arrests and embedding them within broader strategies of regime maintenance. By constructing dissent as a form of terrorism, narrowing the boundaries of permissible political activity, and shaping public perception around a permanent security threat, the Egyptian state has created a discursive context in which extraordinary coercive practices are normalized and socially defensible. This discursive context does not operate in isolation ; rather, it underpins and reinforces the legal and institutional mechanisms through which political arrests are implemented, such as emergency laws and exceptional legalism, along with security and judicial apparatus, which are examined in the following section.
III. Institutional and Legal Mechanisms of Repression
The expansion of political arrests in Egypt after 2013 has been enabled by a combination of legal frameworks and institutional arrangements that grant the state with latitude to monitor, detain, and prosecute individuals on political grounds. These mechanisms operate through emergency legislation, counterterrorism statutes, cybercrime laws, and a security–judicial apparatus endowed with discretionary powers. Rather than functioning independently, these legal and institutional toold interact to providehe structural conditions under which political arrests can be sustained as a routine instrument of regime maintenance.
1. Emergency laws and exceptional legalism
Emergency legislation has been central to the post-2013 legal environment. The Emergency Law of 1958 (Law No. 162) grants the executive expansive powers, including warrantless arrest, expanded surveillance, and referral of civilians to exceptional courts. Although formally lifted at various points, emergency rule was repeatedly reinstated and continuously renewed from 2017 to 2021, contributing to what human rights organizations describe as a “permanent state of exception” in which emergency powers became normalized rather than extraordinary (Amnesty International 2022). The persistence of emergency provisions has enabled authorities to detain individuals for extended periods and to criminalize political activities under the legal justification of maintaining public order.
The legal framework was further expanded through the 2015 Counterterrorism Law (Law No. 94). This law introduces broad definitions of terrorism that encompass nonviolent political activities such as unlicensed protest, dissemination of information deemed harmful to national security, and digital expression interpreted as supporting a banned organization. Analyses by Egyptian and international legal experts note that the law’s definitions of “terrorist act” and “terrorist entity” are sufficiently expansive to permit the prosecution of peaceful critics and civil-society actors (EIPR ; Human Rights Watch 2017). This expansive legal scope has facilitated the securitization of ordinary political behavior and has given prosecutors considerable discretion to reclassify dissent as a terrorism-related activity.
The 2018 Anti-Cybercrime Law further extends state authority into the digital sphere. It enables the blocking of websites, monitoring of internet activity, and prosecution of individuals for online content considered a threat to national security or public order. These provisions allow security agencies to pursue digital activists, journalists, and social media users under legal categories associated with cybercrime or extremism. As a result, political expression in digital spaces such as online journalism is increasingly subject to surveillance and potential criminalization.
2. Security and judicial apparatus
The institutional landscape is dominated by the National Security Agency (NSA), housed within the Ministry of Interior, which functions as the primary actor responsible for political arrests. Reports by Human Rights Watch describe the NSA as operating with significant autonomy and minimal effective oversight, including practices such as enforced disappearances, coercive interrogations, and pressure to extract confessions (Human Rights Watch 2017). This combination of a broad mandate and operational flexibility enables the agency not only to initiate arrests on political grounds, but also to shape the trajectory of investigations from their earliest stages.
Once individuals are detained, cases involving political charges are frequently transferred to the Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP). The SSSP holds authority over crimes classified as affecting national security, which includes the broad categories defined under counterterrorism and emergency laws. The SSSP routinely authorizes extended periods of pretrial detention, often renewed repeatedly, which allows the state to hold detainees without trial for prolonged intervals. Human rights organizations and Egyptian legal researchers have documented the practice known as “case recycling,” in which detainees are re-accused under new case numbers immediately after a release order, thereby enabling their continued detention without initiating full prosecutions. This systemic and widespread mechanism increases the indeterminacy of detention and serves as a powerful deterrent for individuals considering political activism. While military referrals are not the norm in political cases, military courts also form part of the expanded judicial infrastructure. Under emergency conditions and specific legal provisions, civilians may be referred to military tribunals.
IV. Strategic Objectives of Political Arrests
The use of political arrests in Egypt since 2013 reflects a set of strategic objectives that extend beyond immediate security concerns. Arrest practices do not solely respond to discrete threats, but function simultaneously to limit mobilization, cultivate societal compliance, and project a controlled image of stability to both domestic and international audiences. Evidence from human rights reporting, legal analyses, and academic studies points to a coordinated logic in which arrests serve as tools for regulating political life and maintaining regime durability (Amnesty International 2022 ; El-Ghobashy 2017 ; Brownlee, Masoud, and Reynolds 2015).
A primary objective of political arrests is the disruption of collective action before it materializes, although this outcome is not uniformly or consistently achieved. Preemptive detention has become a consistent pattern, particularly in the days preceding politically sensitive anniversaries or moments historically associated with protests, such as the commemoration of the January 25 Revolution. Human rights organizations have documented arrests of activists, journalists, and social media users in these periods, often on charges related to “spreading false news” or “supporting a banned organization,” which function as flexible legal categories that enable preventive action (Amnesty International 2022).
This strategy aligns with research on authoritarian resilience, which highlights the importance of limiting organizational capacity and leadership networks within oppositional groups (Brownlee 2007). The Egyptian case confirms existing findings while highlighting how these dynamics operate. By targeting individuals with mobilizing potential, the state reduces the likelihood of spontaneous protest escalation and weakens the infrastructure of political coordination. El-Ghobashy (2017) argues that this preventive model reflects a broader shift from reactive to anticipatory repression, in which state intervention aims to forestall mobilization rather than respond to it once it occurs.
Political arrests also aim to cultivate an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear that discourages political participation. The practice of “case recycling,” in which detainees are charged in new cases immediately after receiving a release order, exemplifies this logic. The indeterminate nature of detention erodes expectations of legal predictability and generates what analysts infer as a form of “learned helplessness,” derived from observed patterns of self-censorship, in which individuals perceive political engagement as carrying unpredictable and potentially escalating risks (Human Rights Watch 2017 ; EIPR analyses).
Mass arrests amplify this effect by signaling that repression is not limited to prominent activists but can extend to ordinary citizens. Large-scale detention campaigns following isolated incidents of public criticism or minor protests illustrate how broad sweeps are used to reinforce the boundaries of permissible behavior. Comparative research suggests that such practices contribute to widespread depoliticization by signaling the limited efficacy of dissent and encouraging withdrawal from political spaces altogether (Brownlee, Masoud, and Reynolds 2015). In Egypt, these dynamics have contributed to a political environment in which activism appears both dangerous and futile.
A third strategic objective involves shaping domestic and international perceptions of the regime’s stability and its role as a security actor. The controlled use of repression helps present the government as capable of maintaining order and preventing extremism, a narrative emphasized in presidential speeches and official communication. By framing arrests as components of an ongoing “war on terror,” the state aligns its domestic policies with global counterterrorism discourse. This alignment reinforces the argument that strong security measures are essential for both national and regional stability.
Internationally, this narrative intersects with geopolitical considerations. Egypt’s strategic importance, including its control of the Suez Canal, its role in regional diplomacy, and its coordination on counterterrorism and migration, shapes the responses of external actors. Western governments have continued to provide military aid and security cooperation, often framing the relationship in terms of stability and counterterrorism rather than political reform (Kirkpatrick 2018 ; U.S. Department of State 2023). This support has oftentimes been contested domestically, with critics pointing to Egypt’s human rights record. European states, including France and Germany, likewise maintain defense partnerships and arms sales on the basis of regional security concerns. These relationships reduce external pressure on Egypt’s human rights record and indirectly contribute to the persistence of political arrests by allowing the regime to justify its practices within accepted international frameworks.
Taken together, the objectives of preventing mobilization, producing fear-based compliance, and projecting stability illustrate how political arrests in Egypt function as a coherent instrument of regime maintenance rather than as ad hoc responses to dissent. The following section examines how these strategic objectives intersect with global counterterrorism narratives and how international dynamics shape, legitimize and sustain the domestic utility of repression.
V. Repression and Global Counterterrorism
The persistence of political arrests in Egypt cannot be explained solely through domestic dynamics. Since 2013, repression has been closely intertwined with international counterterrorism frameworks that shape both the justification of coercive practices and the responses of external actors. By aligning domestic policies with these global counterterrorism agendas, the Egyptian government has benefitted from sustained material support and diplomatic forbearance, which have in turn reinforced the durability of political arrests.
Since the early 2000s, global counterterrorism discourse led by the United Nations (UN) has emphasized robust security partnerships and preventive measures against extremism. After 2013, the Egyptian state incorporated this discourse into its internal framing of dissent. Official statements and policy documents routinely present domestic opponents as elements of a transnational security threat rather than as political actors. This linkage allows the government to present political arrests as falling within an internationally recognized security paradigm, reducing the likelihood that they are framed externally as violations of civil liberties (Amnesty International 2022).
Kirkpatrick (2018) documents how Egyptian officials emphasize the country’s role in combating terrorism in diplomatic engagements, positioning domestic repression as a necessary component of regional security. This framing resonates with global concerns about violent extremism in the Middle East and reinforces the narrative that exceptional domestic measures are justified by the scale of the threat.
Western governments, particularly the members of the European Union, have maintained extensive security relationships with Egypt, including military assistance, arms sales, intelligence cooperation, and training programs. despite persistent documentation of politically motivated arrests, torture, and prolonged pretrial detention, engagement has continued to be shaped primarily foreign policy priorities related to counterterrorism, migration management, and regional stability.
The United States provides substantial military assistance to Egypt each year, a policy justified in official statements as essential for counterterrorism cooperation and regional stability (U.S. Department of State 2023). Congressional conditionality mechanisms exist, however, they have produced few tangible constraints on the provision of aid. While some aid has been subject to human rights-related conditions, the overall framework of security partnership remains intact, reducing the likelihood of sustained pressure on Egypt’s political arrest practices. Similarly, European partners such as France and Germany have continued arms transfers and security cooperation. Parliamentary debates and policy analyses note that these states frequently invoke regional stability, border control, and counterterrorism concerns as reasons for maintaining robust engagement despite human rights concerns (European Parliament 2022/2602(RSP)).
This alignment of security interests creates an international environment in which political arrests are met with limited diplomatic cost. The strategic importance of Egypt for migration routes, energy transport, and regional military coordination contributes to this pattern of muted responses, which is reflected in passive tolerance and in careful diplomatic signaling.
International institutional responses to Egypt’s human rights practices have likewise been constrained. While United Nations bodies and European Parliament have issued critical statements and resolutions, these interventions have rarely translated into sustained institutional measures. Egypt’s regional roles, including management of the Gaza border and its influence within the Arab League, further complicate efforts to mobilize coordinated pressure. As several analysts note, the geopolitical value attributed to Egyptian stability frequently outweighs human rights concerns in foreign policy calculations (Kirkpatrick 2018 ; Amnesty International 2022).
The combination of strategic partnerships, security cooperation, and geopolitical calculations thus shapes a permissive international environment. This environment supports domestic assertions that political arrests are legitimate tools in a broader struggle against terrorism. It also signals to domestic institutions that coercive practices are unlikely to generate significant international repercussions.
The relationship between international counterterrorism discourse and domestic repression is mutually reinforcing. Domestic securitization narratives frame dissent as extremism in ways that resonate with external security priorities,while international cooperation strengthens the institutional capacity of the security apparatus and legitimizes its practices. Over time, this interaction hascontributed to the routinization of political arrests and embedded them within the structural logic of the Egyptian state.
Collectively, these dynamics illustrate how global counterterrorism frameworks shape the persistence and the strategic value of political arrests in Egypt. The concluding section synthesizes the paper’s findings and reflects on their implications for the study of authoritarian governance and regional stability.
VI. Conclusion
The patterns of political arrests in Egypt since 2013 point to a deliberate strategy of regime maintenance rooted in securitization, institutional consolidation, and international legitimation. The convergence of these dynamics suggests that political arrests are not episodic responses to dissent, but central instruments through which the post-2013 political order is sustained. By framing dissent as terrorism, incorporating exceptional powers into ordinary legal frameworks, and drawing on global counterterrorism narratives, the Egyptian state has normalized coercive practices and rendered them politically functional.
The analysis presented in this paper illustrates several interlinked conclusions. Political discourse has played a decisive role in shaping public perception and legitimizing the repression of opposition actors. The construction of dissent as a security threat has enabled the state to justify extraordinary measures under the language of protection and counterterrorism. Furthermore, the institutional and legal architecture, including emergency laws, counterterrorism legislation, cybercrime provisions, and the expanded authority of security and judicial bodies, has facilitated the routine implementation of political arrests. These mechanisms provide broad discretion to security agencies and reduce the capacity of legal institutions to constrain coercive practices. Political arrests further serve clear strategic objectives. They prevent mobilization by dismantling potential protest networks, create a climate of fear that discourages political engagement, and contribute to a public environment in which silence appears safer than participation. These practices may strengthen short-term stability, but they do so at the cost of eroding the foundations of political pluralism and civic life. Lastly, international dynamics reinforce the domestic utility of political arrests. By situating repression within a global counterterrorism framework, the state secures material support and diplomatic tolerance from key international partners. This alignment reduces external pressure for reform and embeds domestic coercion within broader geopolitical calculations.
The implications of these findings are significant. In the short term, political arrests allow the regime to restrict opposition activity, limit mobilization, and project an image of stability. Over time, however, sustained reliance on coercion risks undermining state legitimacy, weakening public trust, and narrowing the space for peacul political expression. Such dynamics may contribute not only to political stagnation andinstability, but also to deeper forms of social fragmentation. Future research could expand the analytical scope by examining comparative cases in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, where securitization narratives and counterterrorism frameworks also interact with domestic political control. Comparative analysis may clarify whether the mechanisms observed in Egypt represent a broader model of contemporary authoritarian governance or reflect country-specific dynamics. Additional research could also explore the long-term effects of sustained repression on political culture, civil society development, and generational attitudes toward the state.
Overall, the Egyptian case demonstrates how securitization, institutional design, and international alliances can converge to produce a durable system of political control. Understanding this convergence is essential for evaluating the resilience of authoritarian regimes and the challenges faced by actors seeking political reform in security-centered governance environments.
Bibliography
Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. University of Chicago Press.
Amnesty International. (2022). Permanent state of exception: Abuses under Egypt’s emergency law. Amnesty International.
Bellin, E. (2004). The robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in comparative perspective. Comparative Politics, 36(2), 139–157.
Brownlee, J. (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge University Press.
Brownlee, J., Masoud, T., & Reynolds, A. (2015). The Arab Spring: Pathways of repression and reform. Oxford University Press.
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner.
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. (n.d.). Legal analysis of Egypt’s counterterrorism framework. EIPR.
El-Ghobashy, M. (2017). The metamorphosis of the Egyptian regime. Middle East Report, 282, 10–17.
Elmasry, M. H., & Amin, H. (2020). Framing the Muslim Brotherhood: State media and authoritarian narratives in Egypt. Arab Media & Society, 30, 1–15.
European Parliament. (2022). European Parliament resolution on the human rights situation in Egypt (2022/2602(RSP)).
Human Rights Watch. (2017). “Work on him until he confesses”: Torture and national security in Egypt. Human Rights Watch.
Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2018). Into the hands of the soldiers: Freedom and chaos in Egypt and the Middle East. Viking.
Mada Masr. (2018–2024). Investigative reports on Egypt’s security and judicial institutions. Mada Masr.
State Information Service. (n.d.). Presidential speeches archive. Arab Republic of Egypt, State Information Service.
U.S. Department of State. (2023). Country reports on human rights practices: Egypt. U.S. Department of State.
Wedeen, L. (1999). Ambiguities of domination: Politics, rhetoric, and symbols in contemporary Syria. University of Chicago Press.
