When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

How Egypt's Revolution Was Hijacked By The Free Elections It Had Fought For

Essay: The old guard and Islamists are both manipulating the ideas and events of the Egyptian revolution. Revolutionaries themselves are squandering it with meaningless protests disconnected from the general population.

Tahrir square, June 2, 2012 (glichfield)
Tahrir square, June 2, 2012 (glichfield)
Issandr El Amrani*

CAIRO - Political discourse in Egypt at the best of times can be strange and full of empty talk. But some of the statements recently made by presidential candidate Ahmed Shafik and the media that support him are rather odd. In the lead-up to the runoff, we were treated to Shafik presenting himself as the candidate of the revolution who would usher Egypt into a bright future, while his rival represented "a return to the dark ages' and chaos.

He continued to present the Muslim Brotherhood as not just a group of religious fanatics that would take individual freedoms back decades — that attack is fairly standard — but as having been a part of the old regime. The irony appears to have been lost on the man who served the Hosni Mubarak regime for many years and was appointed prime minister in the last days of his presidency. Shafik now presents himself as the candidate of "national reconciliation."

Around a week ago, Al-Dostour — the once-feisty newspaper run by the courageous journalist Ibrahim Eissa until its owner, Wafd Party leader Al-Sayed al-Badawy, kicked him out — joined in the Brotherhood-bashing. The real murderers of the more than 853 protesters killed during the 2011 uprising, it said, were not security forces but Brotherhood death squads. That certainly seems to answer the question of who was actually responsible for the murders, since the court that sentenced Mubarak and ex-Interior Minister Habib al-Adly to prison for 25 years only found that they had failed to prevent the deaths, not that they had ordered them (and consequently let off all of the other security chiefs involved).

Shafik's rival, Mohamed Morsi of the Freedom and Justice Party (and, much more importantly, the Brotherhood candidate who has since claimed victory), has been having something of a makeover. Having been dubbed by the Brotherhood's supreme guide as a new Abu Bakr, the first caliph after the death of Prophet Mohamed, he recently tried to rally those who did not vote for him by saying he is the candidate of the revolution. This is certainly more credible than Shafik's claims, but one may ask where Morsi and his Brothers were last year when they remained largely silent as protesters were killed in Mohamed Mahmoud Street and cabinet clashes in November and December. The Brotherhood was largely happy to work with the ruling military council and other politically conservative forces.

Defining the Egyptian revolution

What's at stake in this back-and-forth — the political attacks, the outright lies, the wooing of the majority of the electorate that voted neither for Shafik nor Morsi — is nothing less than the privilege to define what the revolution was. The word has been cheapened in the last year, in more than one way, and means different things to different people now. The counter-revolutionary establishment Shafik represents wants the revolution to end with the overthrow of Mubarak. The Brotherhood sees the revolution's goal as implementing its "Renaissance Project." Without a doubt, there are many different versions of the revolution and many attempts to subvert it.

This may be unpopular to say, but a good part of the blame for the lack of a clear idea of what the revolution is lies with the revolutionaries themselves. ...

Read the full story at Al Masry Al Youm.

*Issandr El Amrani is a writer on Middle East affairs and a blogger at The Arabist.

Photo - glichfield

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

Hamas v. Netanyahu: Who Has More To Gain From Hostages-For-Prisoners Deal

The agreement for a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was shaped by the political situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories. But now, the politics on the ground could change moving forward.

Hamas v. Netanyahu: Who Has More To Gain From Hostages-For-Prisoners Deal

People conduct rescue work among the rubble of buildings destroyed in Israeli airstrikes in the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah.

Pierre Haski


PARIS — If the terms of the hostage-for-prisoners agreement between Israel and Hamas are strictly adhered to, we're set to witness scenes filled with emotion on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

There is obviously nothing in common between civilians, sometimes very young children, taken hostage on October 7 on Israeli territory, and prisoners convicted for activities, sometimes violent, related to the Palestinian nationalist movement.

What's shared instead is the central place these scenes are bound to occupy in the collective imagination of both peoples and, therefore, the political impact it will carry.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest