When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Egypt

Egypt: Why Leftist Protesters And Muslim Brotherhood Need Each Other

Analysis: The Egyptian army is trying to reassert its control as leftist protesters have returned to the streets. The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, assured by its electoral success, needs to ally with the protesters to show it isn't only after pow

Sheikh Rihan Street, near Tahrir Square on December 19, 2011 (Gigi Ibrahim)
Sheikh Rihan Street, near Tahrir Square on December 19, 2011 (Gigi Ibrahim)
Mohamed Gabr

CAIRO - Nearly a year after the January 25 revolution, Egypt is in the midst of turmoil. On the brink of civil unrest and economic collapse, there seems to be no end in sight. A nation full of hope, seemingly on the road to democracy and prosperity during the early weeks following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, is now plagued with doubts.

Much of the blame has been placed on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) for its erratic rule, which resulted in the complete mismanagement of the transitional period until the election of the parliament and the president. However, many Egyptians believe that the radicalism of the revolutionary youth is to blame for the outbursts of violent confrontation, and, in spite of mounting evidence of serious human rights violations by the military, Egyptian society is torn between pragmatic denial or apathy and the honorable confrontation of the truth.

It has become apparent that the SCAF is not willing to completely let go of power as it tries desperately to ensure that the interests of the military are protected either de facto or through special provisions in the new constitution. This has been met with resistance from Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, as they seek to cautiously rise to power in the wake of their resounding success in the parliamentary elections. Tensions between the SCAF and the Muslim Brotherhood are bound to surface as their future interests collide.

It sometimes appears that the SCAF and the Brotherhood are acting in concert; however, this convergence of interests is temporary. The SCAF is keen on organizing an efficient elections process to improve its reputation and solidify its position internally and internationally. The Brotherhood is adamant that the elections proceed at any cost in order for them to secure a parliamentary majority and at last achieve the legitimacy that has eluded the organization for nearly 80 years. However, as this process draws to a close, without a tacit agreement to split power with a mutually agreeable president acting as a buffer between those two significant players in Egyptian politics, confrontation is inevitable.

Back in the streets

Doubtful that the SCAF will willingly handover power, disgusted at the practices of the SCAF — especially violence and human rights violations — and frustrated that the electoral process has left them without a real say in Egypt's future, the revolutionary youths are now back in the streets. However, this time around, the youths are unable to secure meaningful support from the masses. In fact, it is undeniable that the majority of Egyptians are either indifferent or opposed to the demonstrations, even sometimes choosing to turn a blind eye to obvious atrocities by the military.

Mubarak's regime, which lasted almost 30 years, managed to wrong so many Egyptians that the possibility of ousting him ignited hope for change among millions of Egyptians, crossing geographic, class, political and religious boundaries. For many people, the SCAF, on the other hand, is equivalent to the military, the cornerstone of the Egyptian state, and the last somewhat-properly functioning state-run institution.

Amid fears of a failed state and a fragmented society, many Egyptians are willing to tolerate transgressions and even atrocities by the SCAF. In this type of environment, the revolutionary youths, mostly liberal and leaning to the left in a far more conservative society, are becoming more and more condemned to the fate of Sisyphus, compelled to roll a huge rock up a hill, only to watch it roll back down. Sadly, this has entailed suffering death, injury, persecution, military trial, brutality — especially against females — and worst of all, character assassination.

Strikingly, due to ideological differences and built-up mutual doubts, the revolutionary youths and the Islamists are involved in bitter media battles, with the youth accusing the Islamists of betraying the cause of the revolution, especially the Brotherhood, and the Islamists countering by accusing the demonstrators of undermining stability and democracy. These mutual doubts, and the resulting bitterness and frustration, defy logic, as any neutral observer would conclude that the youths ignited the revolution while the Brotherhood, informally and then formally joining the cause, ensured it was not crushed.

In short, the youths need the support of the Islamists to corner the SCAF, while the Islamists need the support of the youths to make their fight about democracy and not about power. Both parties should reach a mutual understanding, with the Islamists tolerating the more radical approach of the revolutionary youths, and the latter recognizing that the Brotherhood, in particular, cannot ignore political considerations. Otherwise, the SCAF is likely to crush the revolution, and then concentrate on strangling the nascent democracy and solidifying its power by marking the Islamists as a power-hungry ideological threat to stability.

Mohamed Gabr is a lawyer and member of Adl Party.

Read the article in full from Al-Masry Al-Youm

Photo - Gigi Ibrahim

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!

Vladimir Putin delivers a speech to Russian people following the results of the referendum dealing with the annexation in four regions of Ukraine partly controlled by Moscow

Cameron Manley, Bertrand Hauger, Chloe Touchard, and Emma Albright

In a wide-ranging and provocative speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced the annexation of four Ukraine regions, which Putin says now make Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson officially part of Russia.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Speaking in the Kremlin’s St George’s Hall, the much-anticipated address to the Russian nation follows the so-called "referendums" in the occupied areas of the four Ukrainian regions — which the West condemned as shams held under gunpoint. Friday’s annexation comes as Russia is losing territory on the ground following a successful Ukrainian counter-offensive.

Putin directly addressed the leaders of Ukraine and "their real masters in the West," that the annexation was "for everyone to remember. People living in Luhansk and Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are becoming our citizens. Forever."

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ