The curtains closed on the first round of the Egyptian presidential elections, only to force the Egyptian people to vote in a run-off election between the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr. Mohammad Morsi, and the candidate of the ancien regime, Dr. Ahmed Shafiq; and the choice between the candidates is a choice between bitterness, anguish, pain, and dejection.
Before the final results were announced by the High Council for Elections, the dream of Hamdeen Sabahi entering the run-off was what some hoped for and what the broken and the absent clung to, hoping to be delivered from the theft of freedoms and the corresponding prosecution, repression, and betrayal of the revolution. And yet, here I stand, unable to comprehend the electoral farce that forces us all today to face the possible fall of the last fig leaf that will undermine the entire country, not just one trend or political faction.
Some went to boycott; they filled the squares anew in order to insist on the full completion of the course of the revolution. Before discussing the boycotters, however, I would like to review the influence of the two final candidates in the run-off.
First, I pause to consider the power of political Islam, denominational Islam, and all of the religious factions from the mainstream to the extremist, most of whom stand behind the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have fixed their eyes on the declaration of a core caliphate nation, giving free reign to religious power in the Middle East region in order to control the course of events. They seek to link the governance of the Arab nations until that dream is achieved, and in pursuit of that, they have become the majority in representative assemblies and approve a flood of half-laws that push for the exclusion of women, undermining their dignity and gains, as well as robbing the people of values of equality. They impose restrictions on the media, monopolize the right to knowledge, attack all public and private freedoms, and restrict freedoms of creativity and thought under the pretext of preserving public values. They push to impose religious identity as the central characteristic of Egyptian society and culture, inherited through generations.
And if we put our fears of the religious state before our eyes, the visible examples of religious “state-lets” in the region do not predict prosperity or stability; rather, most models of religious states exhibit weak and fragile economies based on speculation and questionable international trade. This creates an economic situation that operates on the impoverishment of the people and the division of countries to small state-lets for reasons having to do with alliances with colonizing countries or for the persecution of religious or ethnic minorities. Sudan and Iran provide us with many active lessons in this type of government.
Second, let us consider the candidate of the ancien regime. It is not beyond reasonable doubt or interpretation that he is proud of being one of the men of the despotic Mubarak regime, and that once he achieved the position of Prime Minister of Egypt during the revolution, he participated in and facilitated the implementation of a plan to combat the revolution in what is known in the media as “the battle of the camels.” He became--without any preconceived notions or speculation--one of the elements of the old regime who must be punished, and not someone who should run for the presidency of Egypt after the revolution. At the same time, this candidate won a bloc of significant guardians, demonstrated by the fact that in the first round, he was able to glean second place. These supporters include the self-employed, the businessmen, those working in the fields of aviation, tourism, and oil, the class of old families, and the complex network of remnants of the Mubarak regime who maintain interests in all of the government institutions. There is also a large segment of innovators and artists who fear compromising their freedom and ideas.
In addition, most Egyptian Christians supported Shafiq in the first round – perhaps some of them supported other candidates in the first round, but that would fall under the luxury of choice, not the bitterness that we experience now. All indicators for the run off suggest that the voting bloc of Egypt’s Christians will go with the candidate of the ancien regime because he is the only guarantee, if he is successful, of a civil, non-Islamized state. Some consider this to be opportunism of the minority since now they feel a real threat will impact their security and rights in society in which the majority is Muslim and there are growing currents of Islam at all levels.
Finally, I consider the boycotters and the many reasons for their non-participation. According to them, neither candidate is a true representative of the revolution nor, more generally, of average Egyptians. Informing this position is the belief that the Islamist candidate and his group contributed to the fall of revolutionary martyrs – not in the first days of the revolution, but rather in the throes of the transitional period, especially during the clashes at Mohamad Mahmoud [street in Cairo] and the Council of Ministers, during which they kept silent and described the revolutionaries as thugs and outlaws. This equates the two candidates in the contamination of their hands with the blood of Egyptians. According to the boycotters, the two are analogous in that neither candidate articulates national desires or calls for the achievement of the demands of the revolution in any real way.
The Islamist candidate proposes a distorted plan to increase the influence of political Islam; his party claims that the success of this plan relies on their party remaining in power for a period of at least 16 years. Not only would the President of the Republic lack independence to make decisions, he would be dependent on the moral and administrative leadership of the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood organization. This is the issue that many see as a disastrous failure for democratic development and the peaceful transfer of power.
I present to you this reading of the ambiguous scene between searching for a safe exit – not for the soldiers, nor for Mubarak’s associates, but for the Egyptian people who are suffering from the nebulous nature of the situation -- and confusion among all of the institutions of order that strongly compels the people to throw out the revolution and eliminate it in order to guarantee the requirements of life and social peace. The counter-revolution has succeeded in disarming the revolution.
The nation remains between a rock and a hard place, groaning. Everyone is torn between the worst of deficient choices, both of which will only bring about more retroactiveness for the country, not to mention intellectual and cultural apostasy, the exclusion of the revolution, the abuse of the revolutionaries, the prosecution of all, and the re-creation of a system that thrives on oppression and demoralization of the citizen and the degradation of his dignity.
There is nothing left for us but to stick to the goals of the revolution and work to bring it to completion…establish your place and complete your revolution!
*This article was translated to English from the original article in Arabic featured on Fathi Farid’s blog, Al Magnon. To read the original article in Arabic, click here.
Fathi Farid is an Egyptian blogger (Al Magnon) who focuses on human rights and rights of religious minorities.
Before the final results were announced by the High Council for Elections, the dream of Hamdeen Sabahi entering the run-off was what some hoped for and what the broken and the absent clung to, hoping to be delivered from the theft of freedoms and the corresponding prosecution, repression, and betrayal of the revolution. And yet, here I stand, unable to comprehend the electoral farce that forces us all today to face the possible fall of the last fig leaf that will undermine the entire country, not just one trend or political faction.
Some went to boycott; they filled the squares anew in order to insist on the full completion of the course of the revolution. Before discussing the boycotters, however, I would like to review the influence of the two final candidates in the run-off.
First, I pause to consider the power of political Islam, denominational Islam, and all of the religious factions from the mainstream to the extremist, most of whom stand behind the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have fixed their eyes on the declaration of a core caliphate nation, giving free reign to religious power in the Middle East region in order to control the course of events. They seek to link the governance of the Arab nations until that dream is achieved, and in pursuit of that, they have become the majority in representative assemblies and approve a flood of half-laws that push for the exclusion of women, undermining their dignity and gains, as well as robbing the people of values of equality. They impose restrictions on the media, monopolize the right to knowledge, attack all public and private freedoms, and restrict freedoms of creativity and thought under the pretext of preserving public values. They push to impose religious identity as the central characteristic of Egyptian society and culture, inherited through generations.
And if we put our fears of the religious state before our eyes, the visible examples of religious “state-lets” in the region do not predict prosperity or stability; rather, most models of religious states exhibit weak and fragile economies based on speculation and questionable international trade. This creates an economic situation that operates on the impoverishment of the people and the division of countries to small state-lets for reasons having to do with alliances with colonizing countries or for the persecution of religious or ethnic minorities. Sudan and Iran provide us with many active lessons in this type of government.
Second, let us consider the candidate of the ancien regime. It is not beyond reasonable doubt or interpretation that he is proud of being one of the men of the despotic Mubarak regime, and that once he achieved the position of Prime Minister of Egypt during the revolution, he participated in and facilitated the implementation of a plan to combat the revolution in what is known in the media as “the battle of the camels.” He became--without any preconceived notions or speculation--one of the elements of the old regime who must be punished, and not someone who should run for the presidency of Egypt after the revolution. At the same time, this candidate won a bloc of significant guardians, demonstrated by the fact that in the first round, he was able to glean second place. These supporters include the self-employed, the businessmen, those working in the fields of aviation, tourism, and oil, the class of old families, and the complex network of remnants of the Mubarak regime who maintain interests in all of the government institutions. There is also a large segment of innovators and artists who fear compromising their freedom and ideas.
In addition, most Egyptian Christians supported Shafiq in the first round – perhaps some of them supported other candidates in the first round, but that would fall under the luxury of choice, not the bitterness that we experience now. All indicators for the run off suggest that the voting bloc of Egypt’s Christians will go with the candidate of the ancien regime because he is the only guarantee, if he is successful, of a civil, non-Islamized state. Some consider this to be opportunism of the minority since now they feel a real threat will impact their security and rights in society in which the majority is Muslim and there are growing currents of Islam at all levels.
Finally, I consider the boycotters and the many reasons for their non-participation. According to them, neither candidate is a true representative of the revolution nor, more generally, of average Egyptians. Informing this position is the belief that the Islamist candidate and his group contributed to the fall of revolutionary martyrs – not in the first days of the revolution, but rather in the throes of the transitional period, especially during the clashes at Mohamad Mahmoud [street in Cairo] and the Council of Ministers, during which they kept silent and described the revolutionaries as thugs and outlaws. This equates the two candidates in the contamination of their hands with the blood of Egyptians. According to the boycotters, the two are analogous in that neither candidate articulates national desires or calls for the achievement of the demands of the revolution in any real way.
The Islamist candidate proposes a distorted plan to increase the influence of political Islam; his party claims that the success of this plan relies on their party remaining in power for a period of at least 16 years. Not only would the President of the Republic lack independence to make decisions, he would be dependent on the moral and administrative leadership of the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood organization. This is the issue that many see as a disastrous failure for democratic development and the peaceful transfer of power.
I present to you this reading of the ambiguous scene between searching for a safe exit – not for the soldiers, nor for Mubarak’s associates, but for the Egyptian people who are suffering from the nebulous nature of the situation -- and confusion among all of the institutions of order that strongly compels the people to throw out the revolution and eliminate it in order to guarantee the requirements of life and social peace. The counter-revolution has succeeded in disarming the revolution.
The nation remains between a rock and a hard place, groaning. Everyone is torn between the worst of deficient choices, both of which will only bring about more retroactiveness for the country, not to mention intellectual and cultural apostasy, the exclusion of the revolution, the abuse of the revolutionaries, the prosecution of all, and the re-creation of a system that thrives on oppression and demoralization of the citizen and the degradation of his dignity.
There is nothing left for us but to stick to the goals of the revolution and work to bring it to completion…establish your place and complete your revolution!
*This article was translated to English from the original article in Arabic featured on Fathi Farid’s blog, Al Magnon. To read the original article in Arabic, click here.
Fathi Farid is an Egyptian blogger (Al Magnon) who focuses on human rights and rights of religious minorities.
on this article