Egypt and Democracy: Political Parties to the Left, Political Parties to the Right, Egyptian's Stuck in the Middle Again

The political situation in Egypt is shaping up to be a "Night of a 1000 Parties". 

SCAF (Supreme Council of the Armed Forces - Egypt) has made several announcements.  The first was the provisions for the creation of political parties.  The amendment to the laws is actually fairly liberal.  First, it takes away the provision that parties can only be formulated if their platforms differ from any existing party.  This one rule alone was used by the Political Activities Committee to disqualify numerous parties from coming to exist.  Other rules are being discussed.  Such as the PAC will now be an independent body made up largely of the judiciary, with three judges at the head as opposed to the previous committee that was completely made up of Mubarek appointees that included the Interior Minister and various others.

There is concerns that the rule requiring 5,000 signatures/members across ten of the twenty nine Egyptian governorates.  Several groups are concerned that this is an impossible burden to meet.  Even the MB has issued a statement suggesting that this is an unnecessary limitation.

There is an obvious calculation here that is not necessarily bad, even as some Egyptians see it as limiting their political activities.  For the MB, having a hundred parties vying for the 70% of the seats they won't control, would be a gift from heaven.  Particularly as any individuals or small parties will be insistent on maintaining their own identities and affiliations.

For SCAF, this may be about helping out the NDP by reducing the field they would have to compete with, but it is more likely a calculation to force the multiple competing parties to form two to four major parties.  Two to four major parties are easier to manage than twenty.  On the other hand, forcing the liberals, leftists, socialist workers and national socialists to form a few representative parties actually would help them campaign and obtain enough seats to create a real secular opposition block in parliament.

There are questions coming from several members about the rule requiring the party to publish "the founding members" names in "two widely circulated" papers.  One activists suggests that this requires all 5,000 member's names in two papers would cost over LE 2 million (appx $400k US).  This seems to need clarification as the intent of the law seems to have been to publish the "founders" or heads of the parties.

The new amendment prohibits the creation of "religious parties" and expressly forbids discrimination based on gender, origin (ie, European decent, etc), religion or creed.  This seems to be a direct blow to the Muslim Brotherhood who put in a petition to form the Freedom and Justice Party, stating that no member of the MB can form or join another party along with it's political platform that states it against women or Christian's for president of Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood continues to experience internal fractures.  A former member of the Guidance council has resigned and will form his own party, Nahdat Masr after rumors abounded that Abouel was planning to form a party from within the MB, insisting that the MB's rules that members could only join the MB's Freedom and Justice Party was incorrect.   Apparently, the current guidance council prevailed and Abouel Fotouh resigned in protest.

Among other issues facing the Brotherhood is the disenchantment of the MB Youth with the stagnant MB elderly leadership.  The younger members contend that the old rules should be re-evaluated including allowing women a more prominent role in leadership roles.  There is also considerable discussion about whether the MB should be forming a party at all since the organization has "loftier goals" of educating Muslims internationally on the right practice of Islam which would be compromised by the MB's participation in politics.

This seems to be a polite way of suggesting that the old guard is out of step with the new reality of the young, liberal Islamists who went on to suggest that the new guidance council for the MB should be divided up proportionately with a percentage for the "youth", for women and for those "over 65" since the youth and women make up the majority of the party.  This is also a rather polite suggestion that the old men are, frankly, too old to be leading, at least, alone, in the new reality of democracy.

To which the Muslim Brotherhood responded, "conference, what conference?"  The Muslim Brotherhood did not have a conference on Saturday, March 27.  A clear suggestion that these MB Youth were outside of the MB and had no significant role or impact on the organization.

In a cynical move meant to comply with the recent law against political parties, the leader of the MB "invites Copts to join" the Freedom and Justice Party.  The party's council is apparently still meeting to formulate the final platform, probably in an attempt to eradicate any parts of the platform that do not comply with the law.  Whether any Copts will actually feel welcome in the party is another question.

The Christian Copts had announced the formation of their own "secular" party in early March, Free National Coalition party.   The Coptic church says it will not recognize any religious party claiming to represent only Coptic Christians as this would promote sectarianism.  A spokesman for the FNCP pointed out that their party was open to anyone to join and that the head of their party was a Muslim legal expert.

Meanwhile, the "more Islamist than the Brotherhood" groups are beginning to appear.  One such group is the banned "Islamic-oriented Labor Party" whose leader Magdi Hussein is declaring himself a candidate for president because, in his words, no one else actually meets the criteria set by the new amendments (ie, Egyptian, born of two Egyptians, married to an Egyptian, etc, etc, etc).  The Salafis, Jamaa'a al Islamiya and al Jihad groups are discussing participating in politics, even as the leader of Jamaa'a al Islamiya has indicated he is stepping down.

Jamaa'a al Islamiya (white washed somewhat in this article), is the group that sponsored Sadat's assassination and is the ideological group that Ayman al Zawahiri joined after leaving the Muslim Brotherhood.  The group was smashed by Mubarek's regime, imprisoned and tortured, leading them to change their stance from violent jihad to political while al Jihad's transition has been more cosmetic.  They are still on the "list" as a terrorist sponsoring organizations in the US.

Else where, the Salafis are beginning to make their presence visible.  Salafi groups confronted members of the CYR (Coalition of Youth Revolutionaries) March 25 at a rally to commemorate the martyrs of the revolution in Alexandria.  Sunday, March 28, Salafi activists handed out anti-democracy fliers, urging people to "Be a Salifi" and reject a government of men and man's law over God's law.  On the internet, a young activist claimed via tweet that the Salafis had "taken over Alexandria". 

In response to these party formations, the NAC (National Association for Change) that is El Baradei's support organization, called for a "coalition against 'religionizing' politics".  They are asking all liberal groups to put aside any minor differences and form a larger liberal party.

The Liberal parties are beginning to see the light. 

In a press conference Tuesday evening, the Egyptian Democratic Party announced its merger with the Liberal Egyptian Party to form a new party called the Egyptian Social Democratic Party.

Expressing the need for separate secular parties to unite, Amr Hamzawy, political analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called on the country’s secular liberal groups to follow suit.

However, they are trying to reform their argument for a "secular state" as one that does not threaten Egypt's Islamic religious "order".

“The word secular needs to be properly defined and should represent what it really is. It [secularism] does not oppose religious views condoned by Egypt’s current political order.” “Instead of saying this party wants a secular state, it should be said that it has a desire for an Egypt that includes all Egyptians.”

Through out this process, the CYR (Coalition of Youth Revolutionaries) are actively discussing politics, but are resisting forming a party from within as the coalition is made up of youth from every different organization.  They maintain that their coalition has loftier goals and wishes to keep the attention on the aims of the Revolution such as the removal of all hold outs from the Mubarek regime, the creation of a new constitution and the assurance of political rights.

Al Wafd and Al Ghad, the two oldest liberal parties, have announced that they will become partners with the Democratic Front in order to win the most seats possible in the upcoming parliament elections, but then the partnership will be dissolved after the elections.  This is another example of the liberal parties trying to hold on to their own identities even in the face of a potentially solid block from the MB.

It is unclear if they understand exactly how parliament will work and the dangers of presenting multiple fronts that can be exploited by any larger block whether that is the remnants of the NDP, the MB or the socialist labor block.  It is also unclear how they expect to obtain voter loyalty when they have already announced that any cooperation will go out the window once the elections are over.  This may play well to their base, but it will thwart any wider attempts to obtain votes.

They may be counting on a change in the parliamentary election structure.  SCAF will be announcing the new constitutional process sometime today or Thursday.  According to some sources, the elections may change from voting for one candidate to represent one district to proportional seating of candidates.  Proportional seating means that each party will be allotted a number of seats to fill based on the percentage of over all votes it achieves in the elections.  The participating parties would provide a list of candidates, very likely to require distributional candidacies.  For instance, 25% must be women and they must be every fourth candidate on the list.  Candidates listed from one to a hundred would then be seated in the order they appear on the list.

This could be a boon for the liberal parties as most of their constituency resides in the larger urban areas such as Cairo, Alexandria and Egypt.  While the Brotherhood is more represented in the boroughs and conservative rural areas where the population is thinner  However, this would also be a major change to Egypt's current election system and one that, in the past, was rejected as not consistent with the existing constitution.  On the other hand, it is widely believed that SCAF will be making an announcement that basically discards the old 1971 constitution, per the demands of the revolution, and lays down interim laws and regulations for guiding government institutions and elections until the new parliament is seated and the constitution is written.

The left and labor movements are not to be left out.  While groups like Arpil 6 Youth Movement seem to sticking with el Baradei.  A group called the Popular Alliance has emerged from the merger of several leftist, socialist parties.  The aims of the group are to create a party that would be acceptable to both the workers' parties and the "intelligensia".

This may be the move that other labor parties have to make as the new law governing parties also prohibits discrimination based on "class".  One leader argued that this precluded labor parties from participating as all of the members would be "working class".  The issue is not what the make up turns out to be based on those who flock to it on its platform, but whether any party has by laws that prohibit anyone else from joining the party such as non-union members. 

In other news, Taggamu, the Democratic Peaple's Union Party, is seeing a number of defections, even as it seeks to consolidate it's position as the leader of a heavy union presence in Egypt.  Many have resigned from the party due to Refaat al Saeed's association with the old NDP.  Taggamu was widely seen as giving too many concessions to the Mubarek regime to end the last serious strikes.

The Communists has come out of the dark.  How big their party is, is questionable.  

Finally, as to be expected, there are numerous reports that former NDP are stepping forward claiming that they supported the aims of the Jan 25 Revolution.  These claims are being viewed with a jaundice eye as several of those stepping forward held rather high positions.  Ignoring the possibility that he will be indicted with the rest of his family or former presiding ministers of the regime, Gamaal Mubarek supporters come out of the wood work to announce their own party,"al-Sahwa al-Arabiya (The Arab Renaissance)".  The party is not only nationalist, but is unabashedly Pan Arabist, even in the face of Egypt's current desire to focus on its own problems.

Egypt's next election cycle is shaping up to be one of the most interesting and, possibly the most important, any country has seen in recent decades.  While Tunisia is going the slow route, writing it's constitution before going for elections, Egypt is rushing forward to pave the way. 

Summary only...

Egypt and Democracy: Winning the Revolution, Losing the Political Battle - Organization

Now that they've won the revolution (so to speak), what do the revolutionaries need to do?  Many realize that they must coalesce into some form of political party to contest the elections, but there is a difference between organizing a revolution and organizing a political movement.  There is a big difference between being the revolutionary and governing a state.  In a democracy, the popular leader of a revolt may get the first votes in a free election, but it doesn't mean they will survive (politically or physically) to the next election.  


What if you have a revolution and no one can claim to be the leader?  What if you have a revolution whose main, universal objectives are to over throw the current government and allow open elections?  


Basically, they end up where they are now.  The most organized political forces own he political battle field and the liberals are wondering what to do next.  

Part of the problem is that a main body of the revolution is still acting like revolutionaries.  Probably because they do not see the revolution as "won" since the military is still in control and the people appointed to the cabinet are either nominal members of the previous regime or distantly connected to its old apparatus.  Further, they see the existence of the old party of the old regime has not been dismantled and the constitution that they believed was the tool of that old system effectively remains in place. Note their demands:

1. The trial of all of the former regime’s corrupt officials and those responsible for deaths during the revolution.
2. Dissolving the former ruling National Democratic Party and confiscating its assets.
3. Dissolving local councils and removing their governors.

That is only their top three. All of them could be achieved once these groups gain political power in the assembly, but they are not the reasons why people will elect representatives to the new parliament.

From the perspective of the current situation, they are going down the wrong path.  The Egyptian people have voted overwhelmingly to accept new constitutional amendments.  Largely on the basis of hoping to get to the new democratic process sooner rather than later.  In doing so, they have set the wheel in motion for the next parliamentary elections.  Those elected to parliament will then select/elect 100 members to either write a new constitution or reform the old.

The revolutionaries believe that the process should have been different.  Select representatives to write a new constitution then elect parliamentary representatives based on the new laws.  It is a procedural issue, but one they believe will allow the many parts of Egypt's newly minted democrats the opportunity to participate in building this constitution where as they fear that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood will have an overwhelming power to shape the constitution. 

That is the potential as the MB is set to win a number of seats in parliament.  They have recently upgraded their potential for gaining seats from 30% to 35% or more.  In fact, they are already acting like the party in power by pronouncing that they will not "maintain an exclusive role".  Some believe that this is the Muslim Brotherhood still trying to allay the fears of the more secular organizations and citizens.  Never the less, the fact that they issued this statement indicates that they recognize their power in the face of a disorganized opposition.

There are an untold number of organizations, loose groups and individuals who represent the more liberal or secular part of the new opposition.  That is the recognition that the liberals must come to realize.  The political field is shifted.  This is no longer a unified Revolution with all parties supporting a short list of demands to get to a new form of government.  In fact, the fissures were present during the revolution when the MB attempted to hedge their bets by sending or allowing some of their members to attempt to negotiate with the old regime. 

It is moving even further apart as the Muslim Brotherhood has already had a political platform and is beginning to spread those ideas.  More so, they have considerable practice is presenting their ideas in a politically acceptable way.  For instance, in their announcement concerning their involvement in the formation of the constitution:

Helmy al-Gazzar, a member of the group's Shoura (consultancy) Council, said the Brotherhood will not create the new constitution alone.
"Excluding the other is a violation of the social pact," al-Gazzar said.
"It is certain that within less than a year, we will have a new constitution that achieves the aspirations of those who backed, or rejected, the amendments," said Saad al-Husseiny, another member.

"Social pact".  "Achieves the aspirations of" all Egyptians.  The MB already speaks the language of politics while the opposition is still speaking the language of revolutionaries with their list of "demands". 

That is water under the bridge.  The amendments have passed and, to date, while their have been many demonstrations for this, that and the other thing, the likelihood of the revolutionaries to be able to carry out a two to ten million strong protest to achieve their demands is about zero.  They are stuck with the political process the referendum allowed and now they must organize to confront the opposition. 

That is the first step towards organization for the liberals on the right, center and the far left.  They must recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood is the opposition.  The "loyal" opposition as they are Egyptians and were part of the revolution, but they are the opposition none the less.  Not simply because they are "Islamists" and the liberals are secular, but because the revolution was meant to obtain the civil rights of ALL Egyptians.  By their platform and their organization, the Muslim Brotherhood are exclusionary and do not support civil rights for everyone. 

The Muslim Brotherhood have already announced that they do not support either women or Christians (anyone who is not Muslim) for president and hope to have this as a "test" instituted by law within the constitution.  Further, they helped to institute a test of birth and marriage for the presidency in order to exclude potential rivals and consolidate their power.  Not unlike the previous regime.  That does not even touch the difficult path they supported for a candidate to reach for that election through parliament approval in the first place. 

Of course, any organization that begins their "official" political life abrogating any individual or groups' rights, however minimal they phrase it, will not be adverse to stepping on anyone else's rights.  They will phrase these denial of rights as minimal and reasonable, but they will be a denial of rights.  That is the issue that the liberal opposition must take as their position.  The liberals must be the party that will protect all of the rights of all the people.  The MB and their fellow travelers only want to protect the rights of some of the people.  That is not why the people went to the street.

First, the liberals must BE a party.  Or even two or three, but they cannot be twenty or thirty parties.  Too many parties trying to support too many candidates, spreading too many votes makes for a weak campaign.  Those candidates can be beaten by a single candidate with a more organized campaign and support base by winning less than 30% of the votes in a district.  In short, it could be an MB candidate with a minority in a district and still get the parliamentary seat. 

This is the reason that most "mature" democracies have two or three major parties.  In the United States it is two major parties with one or two smaller parties that rarely win even a congressional seat, much less presidency.  There are some who believe that this is the worst part about US politics, but politics and elections are about money, votes and organization as much as they are about ideas.  A split party or several parties vying for the same set of voters in a similar subset will not get enough votes for any candidate to win against the larger, more organized and centralized party.

For instance, in 1992, Ross Perot ran as an "independent" against George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.  Ross Perot was not a democrat.  His main supporters were either Republicans or independents that leaned Republican.  George H. W. Bush was a Republican.  Bill Clinton was a Democrat.  At the time of elections, Ross Perot peeled off a number of Bush supporters (19%), but not enough to win the presidency.  He did take the votes away from Mr. Bush.  That made Mr. Bush's numbers lower (38%) and Bill Clinton won the presidency with less than half of the over all votes (43%).  Had Ross Perot not run and split the Republican or Republican leaning vote, George H.W. Bush would have had a second term as president without even getting all of Ross Perot's 19% (surely some of those were Democrat leaning voters who just liked his business approach).

The same issue confronted the Labour, Conservatives and Greens parties in England with the Greens peeling of a number of parliament seats from Labour and it is the same problem, even worse, in Iraq where they have a multitude of parties with all of their various agendas.  None of them are popular enough to actually to form a majority "governing" block in parliament by themselves.  They are forced to cooperate and this makes their ability to govern weak, allowing fractures that the one party out of governance majority with less than 30% of the parliament can exploit.  In short, the one party with the least number of seats can control whether a law gets passed or not over multiple parties with conflicting agendas with a majority of the seats.

Worse, if the multiple parties with the majority cannot cooperate and form a government, the single minority party can take power and rule, choosing the prime minister and cabinet posts.  This is called "minority rule". 

With the MB, the Salafists and the remnants of the NDP, the advent of three or more liberal parties will split the votes and the parliament into multiple weak blocks who will be at the mercy of any party who has at least 30% control (the MB).  Worse, that means that the parliament will be weaker than any president elected instead of creating a check or balance. 

The worst might be that the presidential candidate who wins only has support from one of the smaller blocks in parliament.  The president will then be weaker than parliament instead of on equal footing.  In a country that has just suffered under one strong "president" for 30 years, that might not be so unappealing for limiting powers.  However, it would lead to weak leadership that cannot get anything done because he/she does not have the support and any (or all) actions can be vetoed by the minority party in parliament.  Then the people will suffer from that weakness and the state itself will be considered weak by any outside nations or leaders.

The second issue confronting a multitude of parties is exhaustion of funding and organization.  Campaigns take money and people to run.  Too many parties with too many candidates means that the funds and people are spread too thin.  They will be unable to compete effectively against an organized and even slightly better funded though minority party in a district. 

What that means is that the liberals are going to have to decide how many parties and candidates they are going to field.  They are going to have to decide this quickly.  More than one or two candidates in a district will divide their funds, efforts and votes, thus, losing the district to any conservative opposition.

It is the parliamentary seats by district that they will have to contest first.  It is these seats that, for the moment, are important because it is the people sitting in parliament who will form the constitution.  The constitution will be the LAW OF THE LAND from which all other laws flow.  It will either guarantee individual rights of the ALL the CITIZENS or it can be formulated to deny some rights to some or many. 

The constitution will be the document that organizes all future government and elections.  To put it bluntly, those in power tend to try to stay in power.  It will be in their interests to create some form of road blocks for various groups to participate.  Even if it is only some minority, such as Coptic Christians or women or anyone who is not sufficiently Islamic enough from obtaining the presidency, they will have limited multiple small parts of society from participating. 

As with the lessons on minority rule in multiple party parliaments, even denial of only small groups from participating makes their minority position more powerful than it should be against any remaining parties or groups of citizens.  Aside from degrading all people's rights when they degrade anyone's rights, this maneuver to improve their power should make the liberals stand up and take notice. 

The liberals are being out maneuvered.  They may have won the revolution, but they are losing the political battle.  They're only answer is to become organized, now and stop playing the revolutionaries.  They need to concentrate on how to win seats in parliament otherwise they are going to be relegated to doing nothing but marching in the streets and chanting slogans while everyone else decides the future of Egypt. 

They have momentum now, but it is quickly fading.  Fortunately, some are already discussing how they may use insurgent tactics of the rebel to make it happen:  A Parliamentary Plan 2011

Summary only...

Egypt and Democracy: Catastrophic Success and Unity - Where Are the Egyptian Liberals?

Reading around the net and the news in Egypt, the Liberals are quite upset over the outcome of the referendum.  As the Weekly Standard suggested, the Liberals who marched in the streets did see the outcome of the referendum as not just a "yes" or "no" vote on amending the constitution, but approval or disapproval of their "revolution".  


However, this would be a mistaken interpretation.  The facts are that most Egyptians just want to get on with the business of living and get the process, any process, that would move Egypt's political process, hopefully free, forward.  They have been patient for thirty years, they were patient with the revolution and now they are impatiently pushing forward without possibly truly considering the dangers of trying to throw together the law of the land in the form of the constitution.  Laws that, as they should have already seen under the last constitution and government, can and will exist for a long time.


As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 

No truer words were ever written.  It is exactly what is at play in Egypt, despite the revolution:   "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." 

The people of Egypt do not all share the same experiences under the last constitution or the Mubarek regime.  At least, not in their minds.  Obviously, not everyone was thrown into prison, tortured by police or beaten to death in the streets.  They have grown accustomed to the rough treatment by police as "necessary" to secure the population.  A form of mass Stockholm syndrome.  They have become accustomed to corruption and bribery.

Most importantly, they have become accustomed to eking out an existence for their families and waiting for someone else, anybody else, to come along and solve their problems.  Their problems have boiled down to shelter, food and security.  They have little comprehension or care at this moment how the lack of freedom and the security of individual rights prevents them from securing those basic necessities or stifles any ambition to improve their lives and do more than "eke out an existence".

From their experience, their problems  may be due to the government, but they have no idea exactly why it is the government's fault.  Therefore, the simplest answer is to change government.  It isn't an idea that one system or idea is better suited to help them, but that any change has got to be better so they will accept what comes and give it all of 30 seconds to prove itself before they shake their heads and wave it away as irrelevant to their every day struggles.

The revolutionaries wanted Mubarek gone.  They wanted the constitution changed.  The revolutionaries got what they wanted and, to paraphrase a commenter at Mahmoud's blog, "shut up already".

As those who have read history know, no revolution is the revolution of ALL the people.  In the United States, it is supposed that one third of the population supported the revolt, one third were loyal to the British King and one third wanted to be left alone.  Fortunately for them and for later generations, the revolutionaries did not "sit down and shut up". 

Unfortunately, the revolutionaries in Egypt may have put the horse before the cart.  Or, in more modern terms, suffered a "catastrophic success".

They achieved a victory before they were ready to consolidate their power.  They overthrew the government, but did not have a long enough period of time to promulgate their ideas and reasons for resisting to the population.  Most revolutions have had a long period of build up, for ideas to be sifted through, reviewed and spread throughout a major part of the population.  Further, most revolutions do not end up with the military of the previous oppressive regime running the political program instead of the revolutionaries with their revolutionary ideas as a "victory". In this case, it has left those who were already more organized, who had already been doing as revolutionaries do, the long build up of ideas and promulgation among the population, with the most power, even as the revolutionary youth paid the price.


Now they are in a race against time.  Time they do not have to do the things that they should have been doing over the long haul.  Time that was reduced from years into weeks via the internet.  They know how to revolt, but they do not know how to "play politics". 

The Liberals still have a chance for some success, but first they are going to have to adjust their goals and accept that, while they may be small and disorganized, they will still  have the power to shape the future.  They are going to have to work with the opportunities given them, but they will also have to "keep their eyes on the prize".  They must dream the big dream, but take the small steps to get there.

Right now, they are disorganized, they do not have a central message nor have they organized to effect that message.  Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood who has a consolidated base, a strong organization and various methods for promulgating their message.  Equally as important, the Liberals are an amalgamation of many groups with various ideas on how to achieve those desires.  Further, while some have appeared in the media, the strategy of having no leader to thwart the government forces has returned to bite them.  They have no spokesman.  Or, at least, not one that they can agree on.  Not even three or four or twelve.

Of course, before they can choose leaders, they must consolidate their core or cores.  Movements like the April 6th Youth and the Revolutionary Youths have nominal leaders, but they are "revolutionary" leaders, not political leaders.  There focus is narrowly defined in terms of their socialist agendas for labor as evidenced by the top priorities of their previous demands though some of those demands have been met.

4 - the launch of the right to form associations and trade unions and the issuance of the establishment of newspapers and other media with no restrictions other than the notification to a competent judicial authority

5 - the holding of trade unions and student unions, according to the law of each of them

Others they are not likely to achieve such as restraining those who participate in the current interim position of forming a constitution would not be able to participate in the next elections.  A hope of limiting people's and organizations desires to doing the "right thing" for Egypt as opposed to seeking their own path to power.  A noble, if naive hope when what they should have been concentrating on was consolidating their base of support and spreading their political ideas on freedom.

The other Liberals are in even worse condition.  They do not even have these nominal leaders nor do they have any manifesto, declaration or platform that translates ideas of freedom into the ideas by which men can govern, live and achieve their ambitions.  They are barely a cohesive group, much less a group that can write a declaration or translate it into the terms of governing a state.  They have their version of pamphleteers on the internet along with their Liberty Tree of Twitter, but it is at best described as a fast moving train of noise whose strain of liberty has as yet to be simplified into statements that can be accepted, translated and disseminated. 

They need their Thomas Pain and Thomas Jefferson to step forward quickly.  These ideas, once they are imbibed by the masses have a chance of moving out of the "virtual town square" into the public square.  The advantages of the tools at their disposal means that they could, very likely create the materials, the Pamphlets, that they can disperse among the people on the street.  They can use these tools to infiltrate the media.  A media that, even in a free nation, has limited time and space.  They can even circumvent the main stream media to get the word out and unify their base.

One of the things that the Liberals need to accept is that, in politics, in the heat of a revolution, there is no such thing as a non-partisan.  There are those who are participating and those who are not.  The idea of "unity" in the Egyptian revolution has taken on some strange idea that the groups with less power should not disagree with the groups that do have power because it will rock the boat.  This is, in fact, still some bizarre hold over from those days when "evils" were "sufferable".  That some group, any group, has a more definitive claim on shaping the outcome of Egypt because they have "suffered more" when it is clear that all of Egypt has suffered under the tyranny and corruption of the last regime.

The demand for "unity" is exactly the demand that the old regime used to keep the masses silent in the face of even the most horrific acts.  Let "unity" fly out the window with the rest of the heresies that defame Freedom.

If there is any "unity" to be had, it can only be found when the leadership and core of all parties understands that the freedom of all can only come when they stand ready to defend the rights of the least among them.  Because, one day they may be the party out of power and the tools they set in place by law to oppress any other will become the tools used to oppress those who fall out of power.  It is the vicious circle of oppression that the people of Egypt have already endured and that must come to an end.

That is the message the Liberals, the Future of Egypt, must begin to send immediately.  Not some weak idea of "unity" that has been used to oppress them for over fifty years.  It is Freedom, only Freedom and always Freedom.

Yet, the Liberals are curiously silent in the public square except to be scratching their heads, lamenting their perceived "failure" and wondering what they should do next now that their first plan has gone array. 


What they should do first, from this perspective, is to decide who they are.  Are they the eternal revolutionaries marching in the street for every demand?  Or, are they the guardians of freedom for all?

Summary only...