First of all, yes I agree that debating Egypt politics nowadays has become over-simplified to “the army versus the Muslim Brotherhood” narrative. That’s a counter-productive political tragedy!
Does neoliberal capitalist mean to keep the army and the intelligence in control of 40% of the economy, having forced military recruits in forced labor camps doing things unrelated to military training for the benefit of the army leaders’ economic interests? Morsi’s government was not capitalist! They were just sharing the power with the military establishment.
The Muslim Brotherhood was supported by the US and possibly its allies, as it succeeded in lobbying to convince them that it’s better for keeping international interests, peace and stability in Egypt, when those who are regarded as opposition were consistently making racist narratives and calling for an end of peace with Israel.
By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood is able to feed the poor and have its social programs because they have economic empires and also collect money from charity, so you pay for charity only for that money to be in the free will of the Muslim Brotherhood, apart from the money laundry they are consistently engaged in. 🙂
If you don’t appeal enough to the state (the intelligence and the army) or if they felt that you are independent enough, they won’t let you become economically powerful. That explains why it’s either the Muslim Brotherhood or the 1952-militarist-state-loyalists are the influential ones in politics.
It is imprecise to describe the political era before Morsi as “the previous Mubarak military dictatorship”, because it implies that Mubarak established a military dictatorship and that it ended after Morsi was given office, when the army officers of the year 1952 were the ones who established the military dictatorship which is still in control.
Mixing violence with quasi-civil disobedience is not new. It’s the all-time political game of Islamists. It’s done at Egypt borders, in Gaza and the West Bank. The difference is, it is always believed when it is against Israel or its interests, but it was fortunately not believed very much when it happened in Egypt.
Finally, I’m always cautious about the high risk from misguided masses to help make a political situation much worse than what they already have had. Take the 20th century Russian model as an example. I realized that some intellectuals, especially revolutionary/liberation intellectuals, locally or globally, have suspicious relations with secret services, they are recruited to create an intellectual atmosphere of misguidance to misguide opinion leaders who in turn misguide the masses, the case which only serves the purposes of authoritarian people and entities.
* Emad el Dafrawi: Deviation from the Revolution (2011/05/16)