Instead of helping
American readers understand reality in Egypt,
Ross is launching a classical attack by pro Israel
lobby on Egypt,
its new democracy and president.
Ross is using same old strategies and distortions, which may not be useful or
constructive in the era of the Arab spring and youth revolutions.
Basically, Dennis Ross is trying to say that the Muslim Brotherhood is the one
in charge in Egypt, it is untrustworthy, it might annoy Israel, and the US
should waive the big stick now and very high.
Ross does not want to
waste time or opportunity and wants to make sure that the American stick is already
and waived as high as possible and hitting.
To achieve that Ross is
distorting reality and denying American public opportunity to see it.
For example, Ross does not tell his readers is that Morsi is now the first
elected president by Egyptian people ever and people need time to build their own
democracy and institutions after living decades under dictatorship.
Ross does not tell his readers that Morsi has a diverse team and many are not
MB members, including his vice president, and his about to announce a more diverse
team of presidential advisors.
Ross does not tell his readers
that Neither Morsi, his team, or the MB are fully in charge in Egypt because many
of the most influential political and economic institutions in the country are still
controlled by Mubarak loyalists and this will be the case for years to come.
Ross does not tell his readers
that Netanyahu has driven his own president (Obama) and most Arab and
international leaders nuts because of his unwillingness to negotiate and ever
expanding settlement policy and that at this moment no one in the Middle East really knows what does Netanyahu’s peace plan
looks like if any.
Ross does not tell his readers that all pro revolution groups in Egypt lack
political experience and knowledge and need help and time to learn and grow.
Finally, Ross does not tell his readers that America has a great opportunity to
really work with the Egyptian people, reach out to them and improve relations.
At this
moment, new Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, seems to enjoy some clear popularity
and political support as well as some strong opposition. Therefore, he needs to
think twice before acting and make sure that his policies are well understood
by his people and supporters before his opponents. To that extent, here are
three pieces of advice.
First advice:
President Morsi has to be more open about how he makes his decisions and who
advises him. At this moment, his publically known advisors are very few (may be
less than 5). It is not clear how he makes his decision or whom he consults
with and if his decisions are well discussed ahead.
His latest
decree to reinstate the dissolved People’s Assembly seemed like a surprise to
most including some of his close political allies and it is not yet clear how
it was made or to where is it leading!?
Second
advice: Morst has to activate the political coalition surrounding him, the
national front, which is a big coalition and it is multi party and ideological
one. However, the national front seemed surprised with Morsi’s latest decree like
anyone else. The front supported the parliament decree few hours it was issued,
but at this moment it is not clear what role if any the national front played
in advising Morsi and if it is even a coalition.
Third
advice: Morsi has to provide people with a clear vision for the future of their
country especially when it comes to dealing with issues like the economy, the
new cabinet, and the relationship with SCAF and deep state institutions. At
this moment, people and markets in Egypt seem to lack a vision for the future.
Morsi, his party, and his advisors, did not offer much when it comes to
concrete future policies.
For example,
today’s visit to Saudi Arabia by Morsi is creating some backlash within pro
revolution and pro Morsi media and experts circles. Some doubt its timing and
justification. Some are wondering why would Morsi visit a foreign country
before having a cabinet and why Saudi Arabia and not another state like Sudan
or Ethiopia, where Egypt needs to urgently work on building better relations to
protect its water resources. It is clear from people’s questions that the trip
was not explained by Morsi’s and his party to some of their closest supporters.
Finally,
confusion will hurt the new president as it hurt the new parliament before. If
policies are not well prepared and explained to people they will end up
failing, misunderstood, or under recognized.
Morsi need
to start with some house organizing and to work harder on explaining his
policies. He now enjoys some clear support from a wider pro revolution
coalition, but he has to cement such coalition with clear and well though polices.
Otherwise, he could risk losing it faster than anyone thought.
Morsi’s first official presidential address at CairoUniversity
today was unprecedented on many symbolic levels. Yet, at the policy level it
did not sound as a clear departure from Mubarak’s era policies or from known
Muslim Brotherhood doctrines.
The tone of the 61 years old president sounded a departure from that of Mubarak’s.
Morsi is more than 20 years younger than Mubarak. He speaks with a more
commanding, powerful and youthful voice.
Morsi also talks about change and his desire to transform Egypt and bring
back its glory. He sounds more credible and enthusiastic than Mubarak. He
speaks about the revolution and the rights of the martyrs and of the people in
general with credible voice.
He talks
about himself as “people’s servant.” He even apologized at the beginning of his
speech to CairoUniversity
students’ whose exams were unexpectedly delayed in a last minute push to secure
CairoUniversity to host Morsi’s speech.
Yet, at
the policy level, Morsi’s speech did not sound like a departure for many
reasons:
First,
Morsi was very interested in sounding reconciliatory. He said he wants to guard
the institutions and role of the Egyptian state many times and in different
ways. He wanted to assure his domestic and foreign audience that he does not
plan any surprising moves or departures from old policies. He clearly stated
that he respects Egypt’s
treaties and agreements.
He said
he wants to support the military, the police, the judiciary, and state institutions
and traditions. He knows he has a very long road ahead before gaining enough
power to implement his programs and to gain more public and official support.
Second, Morsi did not have clear domestic plans or policy statements. He seemed
ready to speak on foreign policy in more specific ways.
Domestically, Morsi spoke about the need to encourage foreign investment,
tourism, and production. But, he did not offer new ideas on how to do that.
He also did not speak about issues such as social justice, redistribution of
wealth, or economic rights. He seemed more interested in starting with economic
reform, but he did not offer new or specific ideas.
This may
sound typical of many opposition groups in Egypt and of Muslim Brotherhood
leaders, who often speak more fluently and in details about foreign policies
than domestic economic affairs. For some reasons, Egyptian opposition groups
were forces under old regime to focus more on international relations than
domestic and economic policies, which were more of a political taboo under
Mubarak.
Third, Morsi made some new foreign policy statements which sound like a departure.
He said
he wanted to work on achieving national unity among Palestinians, stopping the
shedding of the Syrian people’s blood, defending Arab security, and advancing
Arab economic and military cooperation. He also said that he is not interested
in exporting Egyptian revolution.
The last
point may sound comforting to some Arab regimes worried about the spread to
Arab spring to their countries and worried about the rise of another Nasser
like regime in Egypt
or a Muslim Brotherhood regime interested in empowering affiliate Muslim
Brotherhood groups around the Arab world.
Morsi’s statement about Palestinian unity will be met by strong opposition by Israel and its supporters in the US. They will
try to represent it as an evidence of a departure from old Mubarak’s pro Israel policies.
Yet,
Morsi’s statements on Syria,
Palestinian unity, and Arab cooperation are vague and it is not clear how Morsi
will work on implementing them and if he can make a change.
On
Palestinian unity, Morsi’s efforts could be met by opposition from Israel and by economic and political pressure
from the US
on the Palestinian Authority, which receives more than half a billion US
dollars in aid each year. Clearly, Morsi does not have the financial resources
to substitute US
aid to the Palestinians.
The
conflict in Syria is also complicated
and shaped by outplay between major international players, including the US and Russia,
and it is not clear what can Egypt
bring to the table.
Arab
economic and political cooperation is hindered by some serious challenges, such
as the lack of good economic infrastructure in the Arab countries, lack of
democracy and needed economic laws, and lack of enough military power to
support or defend other Arab countries.
In
summary, Morsi may have expressed some Muslim Brotherhood doctrines that focus
on Arab unity, a leading role for Egypt, and on defending the rights
of the Palestinian people. But, it is too already to tell if the new president
can back his ideas with enough economic and political power.
Conditions in Egypt
may force Morsi to focus more domestically and especially on fixing the
troubled Egyptian economy. Yet, he seems to have the will and interest to
change Egyptian policies at all levels and if he is creative enough, he might
succeed. Time will tell.
It was a success for him when it comes to
delivery, tone, and content. But, many questions are still unanswered on policy
level.
Morsi 's speech was warm, simple, humble, and
clear to ordinary Egyptians. He reached out to people and spoke to them in a
way they have not seen or heard in decades.
He knows how to speak to large audience and speaks like a campaigner and mass
leader with very simple and sometime unintellectual language.
He tried to be as close to people as possible.
He told people he loves them and he is one of them and his door will stay open
to them all.
He also spoke about two very important concepts
to Egyptians today, dignity and rights. He said he will build his relations
with foreign countries based on how much their respect Egyptian's will,
dignity, and rights.
His speech is clearly empowering to many
ordinary Egyptians and he is now building strong bridges with people. He is
working hard to gain public support and to be a popular leader. He clearly
needs such support domestically and abroad.
On the policy level, situation is different.
Morsi will be officially sworn in tomorrow as a president with the powers of a
Prime Minister. He will be a president who has not power over his own military.
He is also a president without a prime minister,
a cabinet, a well institutionalized party, an elected parliament, or a clear
set of advisors.
His decision to take oath before constitutional
court may create a rift within the wide political coalition that supported it
him in the lections runoff.
Morsi's party said he will only take oath
before elected parliament. But, he will not do that breaking another promise
made by the Muslim Brotherhood and their parties.
Time will tell if Mohamed Morsi will be able to
live up to his promises.
On foreign policy leave, Morsi spoke about Omar
Abdel Rahman, the Salafi sheikh jailed in the US. Salafis in Egypt has been
pressuring SCAF to request US to release him. Not sure if Morsi has leverage
over Washington when it comes to Abdel Rahman's case and what could he do to
release him.
Again, Today's speech may be a PR success for
Mohamed Morsi, but it is too early to tell if it will be a policy success.
The FJParty says on Facebook
page, http://www.facebook.com/FJParty.Official, that its presidential candidiate, Mohamed Morsi, and other
FJParty leaders held a meeting all day long yesterday with a diverse group of
known pro revolution leaders from all political trends, Liberal, leftists, and
Islamists, to discuss plans to unite their efforts against recent coup against
democracy in Egypt.
And, they agreed to hold a presser
this afternoon to announce a “uniting national project” rejecting the recent
coup against democracy and to emphasize their unity and insistence on
fulfilling the goal of the revolution.
Those attending the meeting included
prominent liberal novelist, Alaa Al Sawani, revolution youth leader, Wael
Ghoniam, former advisors to Abdel Monem Abol Fotouh campaign, senior members of
dissolved parliament and known leftist and centrist activists and revolution
leaders.
The FJParty statement says Mohamed
El Baradei and Abel Monem Abol Fotouh were also consulted over the phone.
Islam Lotfy, a known Islamist youth
leader who resigned from the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011 and who supported Abol
Fotouh presidential campaign in first round of presidential round, attended
Yesterday’s meeting and said in a statement on his party facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/TMParty, that those meeting agreed on the following:
1) Forming a national front (team)
consisting from those who attended yesterday's meeting to manage current crisis
2) Rejecting the constitutional
annex
3) Mohamed Morsi will only take the
oath before the People’s Assembly or before them People themselves if he had
to.
4) Forming a national unity
government led by a Prime Minister from outside the FJParty and the Muslim
Brotherhood
5) Forming a presidential team who
represents national consensus.
No exact time from today’s presser
is announced yet.
If it happens, it could be one of
the most significant efforts to unite and form a pro revolution camp across ideologies
and political parties in Egypt since revolution. It could also represent a
serious challenge to SCAF and empower ongoing public protests in Egypt since
Tuesday.
Some of Egypt's most prominent political Islamist intellectuals are organizing. They launched yesterday an initiative called "Egypt Mainstream," http://www.facebook.com/egyptmainstream. Their success could empower Egypt's political center in a profound and unique ways.
According to media reports and the group's Facebook page, more than 5000 people have supported the initiative so far including Essam Sharaf, Egypt's Interim Prime Minister, and Moataz Abdel Fatah, Sharaf's political advisor. It was also joined by some prominent political intellectuals, some of them are Copts.
The group issued a declaration of principles, http://alshaabyoreed.com/agreement.aspx, that emphasizes freedom and Egyptians' need to believe "in unity that is based on diversity" and that security is attainable in " a prosperous and coherent society and in a just state that fulfills the aspirations of its people."
The group wants to define the mainstream political values that bind Egyptians together with an emphasis on freedom, unity, justice, tolerance, and moderation.
They are basically trying to empower the center of Egyptian politics by redefining its core values in modern terms accepted by a large coalition of Egyptian political groups, which they are hoping to invite.
They are political intellectuals with good understanding of both Islamic and modern political ideologies. They stand politically on the "center right" of Egyptian politics. They are socially conservative, but open to leftist and capitalist political and economic ideas.
If successful, they could counter balance some Islamist groups, such as the Muslim brotherhood and the Salafis, who stand politically on the right of these intellectuals. They would also challenge some hardline Egyptian secular groups who take an elitist and exclusivist stand against any Islamist or conservative groups because of cultural reasons and regardless of practical political reasons.
In other words, the intellectuals could empower the center of Egyptian politics in unique ways. They could make it more attractive to more hardline conservative and secular groups by bridging the gap between the two camps. They could also make the political center and the center right more attractive to young Islamist and Egyptians youth who are becoming more politically active in an unprecedented way and who are looking for political ideas, guidance, and mentorship.
However, the intellectuals are idealists who want to build a political trend that transcends politics. They think of the mainstream initiative as declaration of principles that transcends narrow political interests and that should bring all Egyptians together.
By: Alaa Bayoumi, 30 Jan 2011, http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/01/30/egypts-new-leaders
Full Text:
As ongoing historical events in Egypt unfold, many in Egypt and around the world are uncertain about the future and where it is leading the country. Many are reevaluating their understanding of Egypt and their political alternatives.
In this context, it is important to realise that a new generation of Egyptian leaders were born - a generation of Egyptian youth who tore down the wall of fear and stood up to Mubarak's notorious security apparatuses, sacrificing hundreds of innocent lives.
This new generation breathed life into a decaying system and now can never be bottled in again, even if Mubarak or the remains of his collapsing regime cling to power for a few more days, or even years.
Public revolutions are like wars, and if you fight a war and put your life on the line, you are no longer the same person. You become more courageous, intolerant to injustice, oppression, and those who support them.
The new Egyptian leaders who are now protecting their families, towns, and their country with their own hands and bare chests are looking for support.
Most of them were born under Mubarak's rule. They were raised in a humiliated society; a country that lost its political and cultural leading status in the region; a country led by a corrupt, inefficient regime that lacks vision and aspiration.
They were taught in a collapsing public education system, watched movies about the deterioration of their country and culture, and witnessed regional wars and upheaval - especially the still ongoing war in Iraq and the wider Middle East conflict.
Many of them graduated from schools and universities to find an economy dominated by a greedy business elite married to the Mubarak regime. They found fewer jobs that were hardly rewarding. They faced competition from more advantaged kids born to rich families, so the seemingly disenfranchised had to take up low paying jobs in the private sector in order to be able to support their families after losing their older jobs in the newly privatised public sector.
This younger generation has seen American foreign policy fail in the region, and hasn't forgotten the staunch American support provided to Israel during the 1967 and 1973 wars. They haven't forgotten about the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or America's continued support of Israeli attacks in 2006 on Lebanon and in 2008 on Gaza.
But being the youth that they are, they still embrace, at times, American culture. They look up to America as a powerful society that is open to technology and new ideas.
It is imperative that the US act to take advantage of these sympathies exhibited by Egyptian youth in order to really capture their hearts and minds - to show sympathy to their grievances, sacrifices and calls for justice.
The Obama administration should do more than urging the Mubarak regime for restraint. If America values freedom, democracy, and human rights, it should pressure the Mubarak regime in every way possible to protect the protesters.
The US must demand the restoration of security and order in Egypt and the speedy trial of the security forces that opened fire at the youth.
It should see the new movement as it really is: a peaceful, youthful and spontaneous movement that belongs to no political opposition group.
America should announce its respect to the choices of the Egyptian people and their right to live in a democratic system and to elect their own leaders, regardless of their political ideologies.
The US should announce it will welcome and support a democratically elected Egyptian regime even if it will make difficult and challenging foreign policies.
Focusing on issues such as the threat of Islamists, regional stability, and relations with Israel will only reinforce fears of America as a selfish empire unwilling to listen or accept differences.
The US should open up to a new generation of Egyptian and Arab leaders. It should rejoice in the Middle East's democratic future and leave the region's authoritarian past behind.
Finally, the US as a foreign country may not find it politically appropriate to call for a regime change in Egypt. But, it should certainly support a fully democratic one.
The ongoing unprecedented public protests in Egypt have taken most Egyptians by surprise.
Many of the country's independent and opposition analysts are struggling to explain the latest events and what they mean for the future of Egypt.
They all seem to agree that nationalist feelings and belief in the ability to resist authoritarianism have been revived.
"I swear to God, I cried out of happiness watching the real Egypt reborn again in the middle of Tahrir square on Tuesday night," wrote Emad el-Deen Hueesin, a columnist and the daily independent al-Shrouq newspaper, referring to the first day of protests that galvanised the country.
"Before this day, I used to be one of many people who believe that the people have become dead. What I saw today is that the people are not dead. They have decided to burn their fear instead of burning themselves."
A new generation
Analysts seem to credit a new generation for organising and leading the protests. They portray a future generation that is better than their fathers and who should rise above the mistakes of the past and above the many problems that divided the country for decades, such as public apathy, fearing the government, corruption, sectarianism, and ineffective opposition groups.
"The new move [protests] reflects a clear generational difference between the generation of my father, my grandfather, my generation, and the generation of my son," Moataz Abdel Fatah, a political science professor and also columnist at al-Shorouq, wrote.
"The Egyptians of today are not the Egyptians of yesterday. Our youth can no longer accept what their fathers used to accept."
Magdy el-Galad, the editor in chief of the largest independent Egyptian newspaper, al-Masry al-Youm, tried to explain the generational difference by depicting some of the most striking social and economic differences between the new generation and the older one.
"My father was a teacher working for the ministry of education. He, like his generation, used to walk 'near the wall' [meaning the walls of fear]. Some of them used to walk with the 'wall inside them.' Most of them used to 'obey' in order to raise their kids with their 30 Egyptian pounds salary.
"A new generation walks in the streets of Egypt. A generation that did not marry or have kids when everything was cheap.
"They cannot even find jobs that can pay them 30 pounds in public or private sectors. They use the internet to go beyond Egypt and open up the whole world. They have nothing to worry about, no kids, no wife, no home, and no money."
Economic fears
Many think that the recent protests in Egypt and Tunisia are largely motivated by economic fears rather than political or religious ones.
Some analysts make a point of denying claims that protests are largely motivated by foreign interests or orchestrated by the banned Muslim Brotherhood group, the largest and most organised opposition group in Egypt.
Wael Kandeel, another columnist at al-Shrouq, wrote that "what happened on Tuesday was pure and only Egyptian.
"It was something above any party, class, generational, or interest groups divisions. Trying to impose the Muslim Brotherhood in the story is silly and cannot convince a child."
Instead, many blame the regime itself for the protests, saying the regime has gone too far to tighten its grip over power.
"Egypt did not know a real democratic system during monarchy, during [Gamal Abdel] Nasser's time, or during the time of [Anwar] El Sadat. But, it had relatively efficient state institutions; a professional elite, a public education system that made us pound among our Arab neighbours," wrote Amr el-Shobaki, a political author and widely read frequent contributor at Al-Masry Al-Youm.
"This was the case until the current regime came to power and we started witnessing the destruction of the values of efficiency, professionalism.
"We did not only get an undemocratic regime, but we also got a regime that lacks efficiency and imagination. For the first time in Egypt's modern history, loyalty did not become the only way to get close to power, as it used to be before.
"In addition to loyalty, ignorance, corruption, and lack of skills became requirements to get close to power."
El Shobaki thinks that the new elite controlled by business tycoons such as Ahmed Ezz, the new senior leader of the ruling National Democratic Party, went too far to prove their loyalty and value to the Mubarak regime by illegally excluding the representation of most of the major Egyptian opposition parties in the new parliament last November.
The elections were eventually boycotted by the great majority of the Egyptian opposition groups who complained of widespread vote rigging and corruption.
"Vulgar vote rigging in the last elections was a major factor behind the large protestors yesterday. The number of former representatives who went to the streets was noticeable," wrote El Shobaki.
Still, some analysts think the protests should not waste their anger directing it against the cabinet, the ministers, or the ruling party. Instead, they thought Mubarak himself, Egypt's president since 1981, is the problem.
Ibrahim Eisa, an opposition journalist and a staunch critic of Mubarak, wote that "the president is the one responsible. The problem of Egypt is in its president."
El Shobaki seems to agree. "Whoever thinks the problem in Egypt is the government is wrong. Egypt's problem is its president who has been ruling the country for the last 30 years," he wrote.
Hassan Nafeah, a political science professor and widely respected independent opposition figure in Egypt, thinks Mubarak will not get the message conveyed by the ongoing protests.
"Mubarak, who came to power by mere luck and not because of any pre-qualifications, and who stayed in power for thirty years and still wants to stay in power until his last breath, cannot understand a message telling him 'enough'."
Nafeah thinks the Mubarak regime will try to belittle the protests and not recognised them.
"I expect more government stubbornness as regular because the president and senior officials don't change their agenda and 'cannot be subjected to any pressure'."
"They consider people's demands as 'some kind or arm twisting'," wrote Abdel Fatah, whose only hope is that the new generation will continue their protests and no longer fear the government.
The return of Mohamed ElBaradei to Egypt a year ago and him joining the ranks of its political opposition created lots of expectations and frustration.
He has been seen as an agent for democracy, hope and change in a country ruled by dictatorships for decades.
Yet, many feel he may have wasted an opportunity and failed many Egyptians who believed in him.
Thus, when he announced yesterday that he is returning to Egypt from a trip to Europe to join the ongoing and unprecedented protests against the ruling regime, his announcement was met with initial skepticism.
Some of the activists who have been participating in the latest protests in the street and online have sharply criticised his attitude toward politics in Egypt.
Gamal Eid, the director of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, an Egyptian human rights group, says:
"whoever wants to be a leader of a democratic movement should be working among them. He cannot lead a real battle against corruption and authoritarianism by remote control or Twitter. People don't forget who stood next to them and who deserted them when they were calling for democracy and fighting corruption."
"My question to ElBaradei is if people started moving and taking by force their right for democracy, what is your role?"
First coming
When ElBaradei, the former UN nuclear chief and Noble Peace prize winner, announced in late 2009 that he was returning to settle in Egypt after decades abroad and to work to move the country toward democracy, it created political waves.
Many welcomed him. Thousands of political activists from various political groups and ideologies greeted him at Cairo airport. Many of them rallied around him and formed ad hoc political coalitions supporting his cause, such as the National Association of Change.
They looked at him as a potential - and maybe the only - alternative leader who could unite the country, provide a credible replacement to the ruling regime, and move the country forward toward real democracy in a critical time.
They thought he offered the Egyptian opposition something it had been searching for - an internationally recognised face who could speak the language of democracy and who did not belong to any specific domestic political group.
Other independent voices were more cautious.
They thought ElBaradei was out of touch with the country's problems after living abroad for three decades. They feared he had little personal charisma, no grassroots in Egypt, and no experience in challenging Hosni Mubarak's powerful regime, which had been ruling the country for the last few decades, and who inherited from his predecessors a centralised state protected by gigantic security institutions.
Still, the pro-government media launched a campaign to discredit him, bringing more attention and public sympathy to his efforts.
First year
Yet, a year after his return ElBaradei did not rise up to the challenge.
He travelled abroad frequently, forcing some of his staunch supporters - such as Hassan Nafeah, a political science professor who led the NAC during its first few months - to publicly criticise ElBaradei's "absence from Egypt, which has made the change movement lose a lot of the momentum it created since he returned."
In addition, ElBaradei failed to unite the opposition under his leadership before the parliamentary elections in November, when they were still divided over participating.
Initially, several major parties and groups, including the liberal Wafd party and the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, decided to participate in the elections when the NAC and some other political parties boycotted it.
ElBaradei also acted in a calculated and elitist way, preferring to travel overseas often and to participate in planned public campaigns and gatherings. Obviously, his approach disappointed an opposition hungry for change and activism.
To his credit, ElBaradei was able to work with many opposition groups, including the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood - the largest and most organised group in the country - who were rejected not only by the ruling National Democratic Party but also by staunch secular opposition groups such as the leftist Tajamou party, who did not encourage cooperation with ElBaradei from the beginning.
ElBaradei's openness to work with the Brotherhood and many others, despite strong opposition from rival opposition groups, was welcomed by many.
He was also credited for his decision not to participate in the parliamentary elections, which was eventually boycotted by most of the opposition parties and groups who participated in its first round after complaints of widespread use of corruption and vote rigging. The elections ended with an overwhelming victory for the NDC and a devastating loss for the opposition, unprecedented in the last decade at least.
ElBaradei's decision not to participate in any elections under the current political and legal rules proved wise and farsighted. He has always advocated a full change of the Egyptian political system as a pre-condition for political participation.
He thought that the rules of the current political game in Egypt were unfairly drawn by the ruling party which could only reproduce dictatorships, and that any participation in such a system would only give legitimacy to an authoritarian regime unwilling to change.
His insistence on full change was very similar to the demands of the latest youth protests in Egypt.
Last chance
Despite criticisms of ElBaradei's decision return to Egypt, his announcement quickly caught attention and some enthusiasm.
George Ishaq, a former co-ordinator of Kefaya - an opposition movement that caught momentum in Egypt in the last five years - and a senior leader of NAC, says that ElBaradei "is one of the best figures in the Egyptian political arena today… a symbol of change in Egypt that Egyptians should rally around."
Ishaq thinks that ElBaradei should join the protests in the streets on Friday, called by ElBaradei a "Friday of the Martyrs", referring to those killed in the last protests.
The ongoing unprecedented protest gives ElBaradei a second and rare opportunity to prove his leadership.
It could be a second rare chance for ElBaradei if not the last one.
To take advantage of the opportunity, ElBaradei should join the masses, show sympathy and compassion and give up his cold diplomatic image.
He should give credit to the youth and the groups that have led the opposition so far and deny those who accuse them of trying to take over a movement.
He should be what many Egyptians search for: a credible, respected, and unifying face for change.
"ElBaradei has to stand with people, shoulder to shoulder. He should feel their victories and defeats. Then people can decide if he is a national leader and if he is up to the responsibility," says Eid.
Angry protests by Egypt's Christian Copts have become a familiar scene.
Hundreds clashed with police last November over plans for a new church building in Giza, leaving two protesters dead.
And in January of that year, Copts protested in the southern town of Nag Hamadi after six members were killed in an attack on a local church on the Coptic Christmas Eve.
But, following the latest tragic church attack in Alexandria which claimed 23 lives, many feel the current daily protests by Coptic youth could represent a new phenomenon.
Thousands of the younger generation have marched in protest in Alexandria and in Cairo, among other major cities.
They've brandished religious symbols, chanted slogans, called for more religious freedom and clashed with the police.
Their protests were widely reported by national and foreign media and were broadly seen as a natural reaction to the unprecedented attacks targeting the Coptic community.
And sympathetic Egyptian Muslims have organised rallies expressing their condolences, condemning the attack.
But some analysts believe the anger shown by Coptic youth represents a deeper problem - a new generation who feel increasingly marginalised and discriminated against, exhibiting a collective sentiment that their religious believes have come under attack.
Analysts fear that if such issues aren't addressed soon, the situation could escalate, blaming both the Egyptian government and the wider population - both Muslim and Christian - for failing to resolve the tension.
History of sensitivities
Maged Botros, a professor of political science and a senior member of the ruling National Democratic Party, believes the roots of the protests go back to the 1970s, a decade that witnessed a revival of various Islamist ideologies in Egypt.
At that time, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat faced a serious challenge from the leftist supporters of his popular and charismatic predecessor, president Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Sadat needed a counter ideology, so he supported the rise of the Islamists.
Still, Botros thinks hard line religious and sectarian views are foreign to the way Egyptians understand Islam.
"The Egyptian society 30 years ago did not know sectarianism, which was imported from abroad (the Gulf)… Egyptians who immigrated to the Gulf brought back religious extremism," says Botros.
George Ishaq, a former spokesperson of the opposition Kefaya movement, agreed. "The problem goes back to Wahabi ideologies imported from the Arabian Peninsula." Several other Coptic analysts don't limit their criticism just to foreign imported ideologies.
Instead, they blame Egyptians themselves for failing to counter such ideologies.
Mounir Khakhry Abdel Nour, secretary general of the al Wafd Party - the largest liberal opposition party in Egypt - believes "the whole Egyptian society is responsible - its Muslims, Copts, government, and opposition - for the problem. However, the main responsibly lies on the shoulders of the successive Egyptian governments, who did not implement the needed reforms and the solutions."
Botros believes the government was afraid of offending the Muslim majority.
"The state fears that if they fulfil the rights of the Christians, they will offend the religious sensitivities of the Muslim majority, especially in villages and rural areas.
"They fear that the Muslim majority will revolt or act in violent ways. The government wants to keep security and calm. "They don’t allow the construction of more churches because the majority could be offended by more churches and more Copts in Higher offices."
Yousef Sidhom, editor in chief or Watani Weekly, the largest Coptic newspaper in Egypt, was more blunt.
"Officials and official media like to describe the attacks (on Copts) as terrorist crimes that are not targeting the church or the Copts and that Muslims and Copts have to unite against. The hidden fact, which the officials don’t want to see, is that Copts feel oppressed and neglected for three decades by the state and the authorities. They suffer discrimination in all aspects of life."
Wider problem and social change
Ishaq believes "education has become a main cause of religious tension. Religious debates on satellite TV channels are a factor, and the lack of unified laws when it comes to the construction of places of worship is contributing to the problem."
"The religious institutions are responsible, the government is weak, the law is absent, and education is raising extremists, not citizens," says Gamal Assad, a Coptic member of the Egyptian parliament.
Some Coptic analysts also blame their Church for getting involved in politics and for feeding a feeling of alienation.
"The church should be a religious institution with no political role," says Botros.
He said it's forced to do so to protect the rights of Copts. That, he said, only leads to further protests and tension.
However, Sidhom takes an opposite view. He thinks Copts responded to the rising religious tension by looking inward and withdrawing from public life.
"They withdrew from society and entered the churches. The churches build their own alternative social, sports, and entertainment activities."
As a result, he said, a new Coptic generation was raised in a more religiously segregated society, where young Muslims and Copts learn, play, and socialise separately.
Moreover, Assad thinks some of the young Coptic protesters who have violently demonstrated over the last few days have been wrongly "mobilised under the banner of persecution."
"When you give them (the Coptic youth) a feeling that they live in Egypt under persecution, they will be ready to die as martyrs," he laments.
When it comes to the future, all the analysts agree there is no easy answer.
The ideal solution, they say, is a shift towards the better use of civil society, being led by civil institutions instead of being segregated by religious ones; a society where law is dominant and equally applied; a society where all Egyptians are seen and treated as equal citizens regardless of their religious backgrounds.
They also believe the government needs to act quickly to introduce legal reforms, such as adopting a law for the construction of religious places and an election system that will give Copts more equal political representation.
For the moment, Botros feels the horrific Alexandria attacks have brought many Egyptians, Muslims and Copts together because they feel it was a foreign-based attack on their religious and political unity.
"Solidarity and the fear of foreign danger could unite all Egyptians. If such feelings last, sectarian tension will die. We have to invest in such feeling because it will lead to positive results" he believes.
Egypt's parliament has rarely been a platform for policy-making or serious political dialogue - more often acting as simply a rubber stamp for government policies. But, over the last decade and until the recent parliamentary elections, the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and other vocal opposition and independent representatives inside parliament at least offered an opportunity to monitor the legislative process and raise issues such as the need for political reform and to tackle corruption.
Now, even that small window of political participation seems closed.
After the first round of parliamentary elections many of Egypt's most influential political analysts and intellectuals have little optimism about the country's political future. They feel that the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) has gone too far in its bid to monopolise political power by crushing the Muslim Brotherhood and other, much smaller, opposition groups and say the election was marred by complaints of corruption, violence and vote-rigging.
No room for dissent
Abdullah al-Ashaal, a professor of international law and a former diplomat, said three points emerged from the elections: "First: the regime made a political decision to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood and the opposition. Second: violence was used in a cruel way. Going to the polls was like putting one's self into harm's way. Third, the leaders of the NDP were too arrogant. Their actions and rhetoric were outside of the realm of any law or logic. We had hope in dialogue, but we discovered that we were naïve."
Like many other Egyptian observers, al-Ashaal predicted a NDP crackdown on banned Muslim Brotherhood candidates to prevent a repeat of the 2005 elections, when they won about one-fifth of parliamentary seats. However, he thought the government would leave some seats for them and reward the smaller secular opposition parties who took part in the elections with enough seats to boost secular opposition to the Brotherhood.
Amr Hashem Rabie, the head of the Egyptian studies department at Al-Ahram's center for political and strategic studies, one of Egypt's most influential think-tanks, said: "All expectations were that the NDP had struck a deal with [the secular] parties, such as Al-Wafd and Al-Tajamou and [would] offer them some gifts [seats]. The talk was that the 88 seats occupied by the Brotherhood in 2005 would be distributed [by the NDP] among the other opposition parties."
Al-Ashaal and Rabei were surprised that the NDP won 94 per cent of the 221 seats decided in the first round of voting - overshadowed, as it was, by complaints from the opposition and human rights organisations.
Based on the results of the first round, the opposition - both secular and religious - could win no more than 50 seats - less than 10 per cent of parliament - in the two rounds of voting. As a result, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Wafd party, the NDP's two main rivals, withdrew from the elections citing widespread use of coercive and vote-rigging tactics.
"The results have created rifts inside all the political parties and groups that participated in the elections," says George Ishaq, a former spokesperson for the Kefaya movement and a senior member of the National Association for Change, a group affiliated with Mohammed ElBaradei, the former UN nuclear chief, who has boycotted the elections.
Paving the road for succession
Al-Ashaal believes the government's actions can be seen as part of a larger regional plan, supported by the US and Israel, to "politically eradicate" the Muslim Brotherhood and crack down on Islamist groups across the Middle East.
"There is a presidential election coming and there is political succession being prepared for. The regime does not need cosmetics at this moment," he noted.
But, according to Rabie: "Trying to politically eliminate the Brotherhood is stupid ... the government used military courts against the Brotherhood and they could not eliminate them. They included the Brotherhood in previous parliamentary elections but still could not eradicate them politically."
He argues that the regime wanted to achieve "full political monopoly" before the upcoming presidential election, which may see a change of president for the first time in three decades.
Alienated masses
Many analysts believe that the Egyptian regime has been able to crush the opposition in such a manner because it has already succeeded in politically marginalising the Egyptian people over decades of political stagnation and undemocratic rule.
"People are satisfied with the status quo. They accept the ruling party. They are used to political stagnation," says Milad Hanna, a prominent leftist thinker.
"The Egyptian people are not worried about the elections. They don't follow the elections. They don't vote.
"The elections are going on without any serious competition. I don't see any street protests against the NDP. The ruling party has no serious competition and the Muslim Brotherhood cannot win enough votes to scare the NDP. People are not angry and are not revolting."
Tariq al-Beshri, a widely-respected author and retired judge, fears that the Egyptian government has succeeded in weakening all organised political groups inside the country. He says that any sign of political reform was "limited to the media and intellectual elites".
"For change to take place in any society there should be enough political street mobilisation. We don't need more talking. We need to be able to act politically."
But al-Beshri suspects that the Egyptian regime has weakened the various political institutions that could help to mobilise the people. "The labour unions were weakened. The parties were destroyed. The professional unions were disintegrated."
And Rabie argues that the Egyptian civil society organisations that have mushroomed over the last few years are "empty from the inside".
"You see parties and civil society organisations, but with no serious content. You have parties, but they are constrained by the law. You see a parliament, but it has no real authority."
Moving the Egyptian street
Al-Ashaal does not believe that new political movements or new popular leaders such as ElBaradei can achieve much. "The regime will not accept any whisper of opposition, Egypt will suffer a lot," he says.
But al-Beshri is more hopeful. "There are no people without [an] opportunity [for change]. I am sure there are opportunities in the future. But, I cannot predict them at this moment."
He even suspects that an opportunity for change may come from within the ruling party itself, which is reportedly suffering from serious internal divisions. "The ruling party has run in some districts with several candidates competing over the same seat .... It has internal contradictions."
Ishaq is more optimistic and thinks the government crackdown could lead to "a dialogue among the opposition to form a united bloc". He says his National Association for Change has been working hard to reach out to the people and mobilise them. "The Egyptian people have been boycotting politics for 50 years. We should not hope to change Egypt in 10 years."
Still, many observers believe that the Egyptian opposition is weak and divided. And they see the new political groups, such as Kefaya and the National Association for Change, as intellectual and upper class, active only in the cities and unable to reach out to the lower classes or to mobilise the Egyptian street.
What is certain, according to Ishaq, is that: "If the Egyptian street does not move there will not be any change. The coming days will be very difficult ones for Egypt."
The early results from Egypt's parliamentary elections are hardly surprising. Most observers expected the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) to keep its two-thirds majority; the banned Muslim Brotherhood to lose its one-fifth strong opposition bloc; and a better but still humble performance from the smaller opposition parties who participated in the vote.
Essam Elerian, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, says: "We lost seats and a much deserved representation in the parliament. But we won people's love and support and a media battle that exposed [irregularities in] the elections."
Elerian blames his group's loss on "clear vote-rigging" that amounted to "an obvious election scandal by all measures".
His group and other civil society organisations have complained that the NDP used violence to prevent representatives of the Brotherhood and other opposition candidates from monitoring the vote.
Their presence inside the polling stations offered one of the few guarantees against vote-rigging after the outgoing parliament, which is dominated by the ruling party, introduced a series of changes that minimised the role of judges in monitoring the elections and put the ministry of interior in charge of much of the election process.
'A comforting majority'
Representatives of the NDP acknowledged that some violations took place but insisted that they were minimal. "The general view of the elections before final results are declared emphasise that the elections went [smoothly] in an unexpected way," says Magdy ElDakkak, a member of the NDP's political education committee, adding that: "Some violations took place here and there in some districts, especially in rural areas .... But the elections did not turn into a heated [violent] battle as some rumours predicted."
Where skirmishes did take place, ElDakkak says they were between different groups of supporters and "not between supporters and the security forces".
He says he expects the NDP to achieve a "comforting majority" because of "all its achievements", adding: "What is surprising [is that] the illegal and illegitimate Brotherhood movement has admitted defeat."
He put the defeat of the Brotherhood, which he refuses to call the 'Muslim' Brotherhood, down to the "heavy participation [of] legal parties [in the election]" and suggests the results showed that "Egyptian politics is no longer a dichotomy or dual game between the NDP and the Brotherhood".
"The Brotherhood's efforts to provoke people and clashes have motivated people against them," he says. "We are getting a new elected civil parliament with no religious and divisive forces."
'All Egyptians lost'
But the Muslim Brotherhood has challenged this view.
"All Egyptians lost yesterday, the NDP lost, and the opposition lost," Elerian says. "The NDP could have achieved their victory through [a] better way .... We have a dilemma; a ruling party that wants to rule alone ... the regime wants our elections result to be a zero."
"The big looser is the Egyptian people who will further hate and distance themselves from politics."
Amr Hamzaway, a senior researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes "all Egyptian political groups have lost in a way or another".
He believes that the Muslim Brotherhood lost their position as the largest opposition group inside parliament, that those opposition parties who participated gained seats but lost popularity by participating in unfair elections, and that those who refused to participate in the elections, such as the National Association for Change, which is affiliated with former UN nuclear chief Mohammed ElBaradei, failed in educating voters and monitoring the elections.
However, he argues that "the biggest loser in yesterday's elections is the NDP". "The NDP has fully lost its credibility when it comes to its ability and willingness to conduct fair elections ... all NDP promises to the Egyptian people were proven false."
The Brotherhood's dilemma
Hamzaway also feels that the Muslim Brotherhood failed in two key strategic areas. Firstly, it did not solve the dilemma of being a religious group that acts as a political party within a political system that does not recognise it.
And, secondly, it has failed to convince its followers of the importance of political participation, which was reflected in their poor showing on election day.
But Elerian is not convinced that the group's defeat will hinder its political participation or lead to divisions.
"No rifts will take place ... those who opposed our decision to participate in the elections said that they will respect it. We will not look inward as some people wish," he says. "Our religious education encourages us to play an active role in public life."
For its part, ElDakkak says that the NDP believes the vote was the "right start for Egypt's political forces and pluralistic political life".
An Arab Journalist and writer. He has an MA in Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies from Duquesne University, PA.
باحث في الشؤون الأميركية ... حاصل على شهادة الماجستير في السياسة العامة ودراسات السلام من جامعة دوكين الأمريكية، صدر له مؤخرا كتاب "جون ماكين والشرق الأوسط والولاية الثالثة للمحافظين الجدد"، وكتاب باراك أوباما والعالم العربي
http://www.facebook.com/alaabayoumi, https://twitter.com/Alaabayoumi, http://www.alaabayoumi.com
