Today was a catastrophic day for Egypt, for Egyptians, and for the Egyptian revolution. I was against the slate of constitutional amendments recently approved by referendum, and so was disappointed with the result of Saturday's vote. But at least there were reasonable arguments launched by partisans on both sides of the question. Perhaps more importantly, one could revel in the sight of Egyptians taking part in a democratic exercise that was, in relative terms, superior to most comparable votes in modern Egyptian history.
Yet, as I monitored my news feeds from Egypt today, I saw blow after blow after blow landed on the already battered body of the Egyptian revolution, to such an extent that I could scarcely believe my eyes. First, there was the decision on the part of the Egyptian cabinet to render illegal all demonstrations that have an adverse impact on the Egyptian economy. Second, there was the amendment to Law 40 of 1977, regulating the establishment of political parties, which would prohibit the establishment of parties on the basis of faith. Third, there was the warning, issued by Mohamed el-Beltagi of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Egypt may be headed to a repeat of Algeria 1991 if the Ikhwan is not permitted to participate in a meaningful way in the political sphere. By Algeria 1991, he refers to the decision on the part of the Algerian authorities to refuse to accept electoral victories of the Islamic Salvation Front, a decision that led to a catastrophically bloody civil war in that country.
All of these events illustrate a dramatic and disturbing contraction of space for political discourse in revolutionary Egypt, none more so than the first, which effectively forbids the open participation in politics of one of the most important, if not the most important constituency in the revolution, Egypt's workers. To think that this decision came from a cabinet whose membership was decided through great struggle and was once endorsed by Egypt's revolutionaries, boggles the mind still further.
Among the most impressive sights that I witnessed during my recent visit to Egypt were not the planned protests in Tahrir Square, but the 'impromptu' protests that would appear to emerge in the streets at a moment's notice. It was deeply gratifying to observe these protests, as they served as profound testament to the lowering of that much-vaunted 'barrier of fear' discussed throughout the press as critical to making the revolution possible.
What purpose could the above measures serve but to restore that fear? The purported imperative of 'stability' that is now so often emphasized in Egyptian political discourse should not, indeed must not, be used to revive the fear that characterized the dictatorship. If there was one accomplishment the revolution achieved in which all Egyptians could take an enormous measure of pride, it was the capacity to demonstrate, to protest, to gather together to make their voices heard. And now, with these measures, that accomplishment is threatened as never before.
If I were in Egypt now, I would take to the streets again. For it is not only the spirit of the revolution that is threatened. It is the very essence of the revolution.
Yet, as I monitored my news feeds from Egypt today, I saw blow after blow after blow landed on the already battered body of the Egyptian revolution, to such an extent that I could scarcely believe my eyes. First, there was the decision on the part of the Egyptian cabinet to render illegal all demonstrations that have an adverse impact on the Egyptian economy. Second, there was the amendment to Law 40 of 1977, regulating the establishment of political parties, which would prohibit the establishment of parties on the basis of faith. Third, there was the warning, issued by Mohamed el-Beltagi of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Egypt may be headed to a repeat of Algeria 1991 if the Ikhwan is not permitted to participate in a meaningful way in the political sphere. By Algeria 1991, he refers to the decision on the part of the Algerian authorities to refuse to accept electoral victories of the Islamic Salvation Front, a decision that led to a catastrophically bloody civil war in that country.
All of these events illustrate a dramatic and disturbing contraction of space for political discourse in revolutionary Egypt, none more so than the first, which effectively forbids the open participation in politics of one of the most important, if not the most important constituency in the revolution, Egypt's workers. To think that this decision came from a cabinet whose membership was decided through great struggle and was once endorsed by Egypt's revolutionaries, boggles the mind still further.
Among the most impressive sights that I witnessed during my recent visit to Egypt were not the planned protests in Tahrir Square, but the 'impromptu' protests that would appear to emerge in the streets at a moment's notice. It was deeply gratifying to observe these protests, as they served as profound testament to the lowering of that much-vaunted 'barrier of fear' discussed throughout the press as critical to making the revolution possible.
What purpose could the above measures serve but to restore that fear? The purported imperative of 'stability' that is now so often emphasized in Egyptian political discourse should not, indeed must not, be used to revive the fear that characterized the dictatorship. If there was one accomplishment the revolution achieved in which all Egyptians could take an enormous measure of pride, it was the capacity to demonstrate, to protest, to gather together to make their voices heard. And now, with these measures, that accomplishment is threatened as never before.
If I were in Egypt now, I would take to the streets again. For it is not only the spirit of the revolution that is threatened. It is the very essence of the revolution.
I don't believe in your "revolution."
ReplyDeleteHowever, your second "fact" as related by El Masry El Youm is incorrect.
There was always a stated ban on parties based on religion in the constitution. That hasn't changed. The constitutional committee head by El Bishri decided by choice to leave that wording there and postpone that issue until the new constitution is drafted.
The referred amendment to that article was actually demanded by the *Ikhwan* themselves. Before, all political parties had to be approved by a parliamentary committee. The Ikhwan asked that the requirement for "approval" be removed and that a process of "notification" be put in its place.
In other words, new political parties merely need to "notify" parliament as opposed to seek explicit approval. If the government wants to challenge the formation, they would be required to pursue this in the courts but the party registration would be effective until a court of law rules otherwise.
And again, if you were closely following the events you would have known that the Ikhwan made this request directly to the SCAF *after* the initial amendments were proposed by Bishri and Co.
You seem to miss an important point here. banning fiath-based parties does respond to the wishes of many millions of egyptians. the mb are free to practice politics but they have to allow christians to join their organisation, if they are truly democratic and not a "masonic" brotherhood. they can continue to be such, but then can not use representational politics and claim to represent egypt, while in fact their practice is discriminatory.
ReplyDelete2) regarding the lovely sponatenous protests that you seem to romanticise ... even in democracies , unions organise strikes . otherwise you end up with chaos. because unions are not representative of the workers in egypt, you end up with a chaos of small protests. now, once new laws are introduced for the creation of indepenent trade unions, then we may see less of these spontaneous protests and more of organised movement. i am not conservative, but i -- like many other egyptians -- feel that escalating those special interest demands right now when the country'e economy is almost on its knees is counter-productive to say the least.
Why the heck don't u believe in the REVOLUTION.
ReplyDeletePeople In Egypt wanted to be free from people that are wrong in everything =(.
Look at the people who are dying every single day don't you see how that's hard.
People have the right to do what they are doing now because the don't have any choice but to do REVOLUTION'S!!!
People are protesting because they waited 30 years of nothing 30 years of getting hurt each and every day.
30 years of Mubark who doesn't even care for the egyptian people =( .
I see that your really wrong aziza