Modern Egyptian courts would seem to be unattractive both to ruler and ruled. Yet since their establishment over a century ago, they have not only become important parts of the social and political landscape but have been imitated throughout the Arab world.

Why did Egypt's political leaders construct and maintain a system that seems – at least at first glance – to restrict their own authority? Egypt may be the Arab country that has come closest to establishing the strong and autonomous legal institutions necessary for the rule of law. With courts that have freed political extremists and twice brought down the country's parliament, Egypt's judicial system is regarded as possessing remarkable independence and integrity (even while it is often perceived as a European imposition).

Why does an autonomous and dilatory system recommend itself to Arab rulers outside Egypt? Far from filling Arab observers with dismay, Egyptian courts are a model throughout the region, emulated in varying degrees in political systems as diverse as those of Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, and Yemen. Egyptian legal models – along with many Egyptian judicial personnel – have been employed in much of the Arab world.

Why do so many Egyptians choose to bring their disputes to court? The Egyptian legal system is widely held to be confusing, overburdened, and forbidding. Criticized as culturally inappropriate when founded a century ago, lampooned by Tawfiq al-Hakim as overworked and incomprehensible to Egyptians a half-century ago, and constantly described today as slow and strained to the breaking point, Egyptian courts not only survive but are increasingly sought out by Egyptians from all walks of life.