The Spectre Haunting Egypt: Counter-Revolution

Several weeks ago, SCAF made an announcement that it was enacting curfew rules and banning protests in order to protect Egypt's revolution from a counter-revolution.  From that moment on, every Egyptian is looking for these invisible forces of counter revolution.  Every act of every individual or group is a threat.  Egyptians are running from one situation to the next to counter the counter revolution and with every new march, every crazy idea that floats through the air, they are losing their way.


A relative calm had come over Egypt, even as small protests continued.  The referendum had passed and parties were gearing up to participate as quickly as possible, but even the relatively quick pace for elections in September and presidential elections come November, the pace is not fast enough to set Egypt back on the path to relative stability.  


The people still want Mubarek's head on a platter, figuratively or literally, whatever way they can get it.  They want all of his cronies standing in the docket/gallows with him.  SCAF, even with a facebook page, is not very transparent.  They are stuck in a hard place, trying to run a country where the only people who have been running it or have the experience to manage day to day workings of the structure are either NDP or have NDP relations.  The appearance of which makes every Egyptian believe that the old regime is still in place.  Largely because it is to an extent that any technocrat with any knowledge remains at the controls.  No Egyptian accepts that there are not others that could or should be running these bureaus.  


Second, SCAF is simply not able to control every aspect of the situation.  They can barely control their own forces who have apparently not imbibed the idea that being "one hand" with the public means not using physical force against every citizen under every circumstances.  


Friday, the Jacobin wing of the revolution, angry at the laws forbidding protests that they consider now to be the epitome of their first amendment rights and angry that sixty days later Mubarek et al remains at large, went into the square and held a mock trial of Mubarek.  In the mean time, seven army officers that the media was portraying as "former" (retired? every male in Egypt is required to join accept under waiver).  went on youtube and proclaimed they had every intention of joining the revolutionaries in Tahrir.  They demanded that Tantawi step down, the regime members be put on trial and a civilian council take it's place.


Their appearance in Tahrir was all the rage and the protesters were determined to protect them.  Through out the day, with close to or above 100,000 in the square, the army stayed back.  That night the mutinying officers remained in the square, asking for protection by the protesters.  They were placed in a tent and surrounded by people.  As curfew arrived and the crowds thinned, the military police waded in ostensibly to disperse the crowds.  


Chaos ensued.  Protesters attempted to resist the MP's from coming in.  The MP's used billy clubs and fists to respond.  More protesters rushed forward.  The MP's opened fire.  It appears most of the shooting was in the air.  However, at least two were shot dead and several others were wounded by gun fire.  Most of the other injuries appear to be contusions, abrasions and broken bones.  Several of the protesting officers at the square were arrested.  One may have been killed at the site with doctor's at the local morgue reporting at least one "soldier" dead, possibly two.


The military issued a statement saying that they did not attack the protesters first, that they only shot into the air to disperse crowds and that the army was using rubber bullets.  Later, two groups of men were seen entering Tahrir with machine guns, also reported on twitter.  The men appear to have quickly dispersed, but no one knows who they were or what they were doing.  SCAF is suggesting that the events may have been perpetrated by three men associated with Ibrahim Kamel who was alleged to be responsible for the January 28 "camel attack".


The military may be telling the truth that they did not shoot directly at the protesters, but shooting into the air is just as dangerous as shooting at people.  Bullets go up, must come down.  In ME countries, there are untold numbers of people who die or are injured (head and upper body wounds) from this phenomenon.  A video circulated purporting to show one person being shot or killed.  They were a considerable distance from the main area.  

In the background, machine gun fire was heard constantly and repetitively.  With that amount of fire, if they were aiming directly at protesters, there should have been more GSW (gun shot wound) than the eight others reported. That doesn't mean that one or two soldiers did not aim directly at some of the crowd.  Fear can over ride discipline when confronted with an angry mob.  


The military said that it used rubber bullets.  That seems not to be the case.  Or, at least, not everybody was shooting rubber bullets.  It is possible for even rubber bullets to cause penetrating wounds at close range.  That would not account for the man shot at a distance.  Whatever the issues, it is clear that someone is not telling the truth.  Whether that is the officers in charge of the raid who were not truthful in their reports to the command chain or SCAF trying to save face after making a serious miscalculation.  The last possibility is that there were two or more men in civilian clothes with machine guns, as reported on twitter and as suggested by the military who opened fire on the crowd to stir unrest and insurrection.


The problem comes down to the protesting military officers, whether former or current.  They were not just calling for the regime remains to be arrested or removed.  They were insisting that Tantawi had to go in order to speed up the process and put a civilian council in charge.  

As one Egypt watcher noted via Facebook, this was a challenge that the military was guaranteed not to ignore.  Nasser came to power in 1952 after the the Free Officers Movement had deposed King Farouq.  He and several officers forced Gen. Naquib to step down and Nasser took control.  Tantawi is definitely old enough to have been in the military or to simply recalled.  The officers in the square were obviously attempting to incite mutiny within the army.  The protesters either didn't care or didn't realize how serious that event would be.  


In the midst of this event, a small group of approximately 1,000 protesters marched to the Israeli embassy and demanded that their flag be removed and the ambassador expelled.  The military arrived and surrounded the embassy, keeping the protesters back.  The Israeli's lowered their flag, but the ambassador and his staff remained.  


These two events split the revolutionaries who were busily tweeting demands as well as accusations.  


Then came Mubarek's slow, but insistent speech Sunday morning.  Reminiscent of Nixon's famous "I am not a crook" speech, Mubarek insisted that he and his family did not have assets outside of Egypt and that he had to respond to the accusations damaging their reputation.  Almost instantly, the messages began to reflect the one unifying theme that had brought the different parties into Tahrir Square on January 25: Mubarek must go.  


Within an hour, Egypt's Attorney General issued a demand that the Interior Ministry arrest Mubarek and members of his family.  Two other requests for arrests quickly followed and were carried out.  Aside from Ibrahim Kamel, three "big fish" received summons to appear for "interrogations" on Tuesday April 12.  These include:

[Safwat] El-Sherif is widely considered to have been Mubarak’s top enforcer in corrupting the nation's political life. When Mubarak took office on 14 October, 1981 one of his first decisions was to appoint El-Sherif as minister of information. 

In 2004 El-Sherif was promoted to chairman of the high consultative committee of the Upper House, which made him by default the chairman of the influential Political Parties Committee and the Supreme Press Council – two watchdogs in charge of licensing political parties and appointing chief editors and board chairmen of state-owned press organisations.

That wasn’t enough for El-Sherif, though. In 2002 he was appointed secretary-general of Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), becoming the leader of the regime’s machine...

Like El-Sherif, [Fathi] Sorour is accused of using his postion as Speaker of Egypt’s Parliament for 20 years for personal gain. Sorour, 79, is also thought to have amassed a large portfolio of prime real estate, villas, and apartments. The IGO is currently investigating his wealth and he is expected to be summoned soon to face charges.

Sorour, however, faces a plethora of charges of political corruption. A case in point is that he exploited his job to help certain cabinet ministers fend off embarrassing criticism in Parliament. One of these is Ibrahim Soliman, a former minister of housing, whom opposition MPs held responsible for misappropriating public funds by selling large plots of land to NDP crony businessmen and construction magnates at below market prices and offering Sorour and other heavyweight officials a number of luxurious villas in Marina resort.

On 7 April, Zakaria Azmi, 73, was put into custody for 15 days pending investigation of charges of illegal profiteering levelled against him. Azmi is widely believed to have used a number of businessmen as “henchmen” to secure illegal gains. One of these is Mamdouh Ismail, a business tycoon whom Azmi helped to monopolise maritime passenger transport between Egypt and Saudi Arabia across the Red Sea. In 2006 Azmi is thought to have helped Ismail escape Egypt after one of his ships – Al-Salam 98 – sank into the Red Sea drowning more than 1300 Egyptians.

Azmi is Mubarak’s closest confidante, having a wealth of information about his secret life and business deals. He was appointed Mubarak's chief of staff in 1989. His job included preparing Mubarak's daily agenda of meetings and visits.

Other details on the three men can be found here.  

In fear that the revolutionaries are serious and plan to march on to Sharm el Sheikh Monday, security around Mubarek's palace is reportedly being increased.  How this will play out to the revolutionaries is anyone's guess.

In the mean time, Tahrir has turned into Egypt's barb wire protected agora, the forum where everything is debated, even the merits of the continuing revolution, the role of the military, their actions and many others.  What may be an epitaph for this stage of the revolution:

Many simply wanted the barricades lifted and traffic to begin following normally. Others, standing near the two burned-out military vehicles, demanded that the youth use their energy to clear the square of all its rubbish and debris - especially the vehicles which had been turned into a refuse dump.

For all the looking into nooks and crannies, eye balling every act or actor as the instigator of the counter revolution, the real counter revolution will begin right under the revolution's nose:

Egypt's revolution blights 2011 tourism revenue

Food prices increase Egypt's inflation beyond expectations

Egypt's risky economy is making investors think twice

Summary only...

Egypt Terrorism Watch: The Salafis in Egypt's Closet

While many in the west focus on the Muslim Brotherhood as the predominant strain of Islamists in Egypt's religious and political life, another strain of Islamist, more fundamentalist and more violent, is rearing it's head again inside of Egypt.  

Coptic Christian churches are bombed.  Six Christians and a Muslim police officer are gunned down in front of their church after a religious holiday celebration.  These are not new experiences for Coptic Christians in Egypt.  Under the Mubarek regime, these incidents were investigated and suspects brought to trial, but justice was hard to find.  

In the case of the men arrested for the Christmas shooting, two men were acquitted and one sentenced to death for premeditated murder during the height of the Egyptian revolution.  There is no mention of their religious or political attachments.


Today, other religious buildings and icons are under attack even as assaults against Christian Coptics are growing.  In the last month, since a major part of the police and security have disappeared from the streets, sixteen historic mosques belonging to the Sufi order of Islam have been damaged or destroyed.  A shoot out occurred in a small village south of Cairo when a band of men attempted to burn down a wine and tobacco shop.  Another man, working on a farm in southern Egypt, was killed by his fellow employee for not rising to pray the morning prayers.


In Egypt, there is becoming little doubt as to who is behind these attacks even as many express surprise at how prevalent it has become.  On a recent twitter feed, a young woman wondered where this sectarian violence had come from as it was not her Egypt.  A young man proclaimed: the Salafis are everywhere in Alexandria.
(click title to read more)

Read More >>

Summary only...

Observations on the Egyptian Paradox: The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Umma, Unity and the Non-Islamic Islamic State

Continuing Observations on Egypt's Paradox...

In the run up to the referendum, the MB pushed it's supporters to vote "yes" for the referendum, largely to push the elections ahead so that they could maintain their advantage.  However, their reasons to their general mass was to "protect Article II" which states that Islam is religion of the state and Shariah the basis of law.  


In a nation that is at least 83% of the population, this may make some sense, but as usual the MB's reasons have little to do with the general consensus of the people and more to do with their agenda which is to institute and Islamist government.  They do not want to be seen enforcing this over the will of the people or going above the law.  A common tactic by past undemocratic forces who use the democratic process to take power then use the devices of law and democracy, along with claims that they need to secure the population against crimes such as general "thuggery" and criminal behavior.  Criminal behavior as defined by the ruling power.  In this case, the hope of the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in the People's Assembly.


Egypt and countries the world over have seen this all before.

They are consistently framing their arguments that the "liberals" want to destroy Islam in Egypt.  That is it's own paradox.  In a nation that is 83% Muslim and managed to remain so even under the auspices of the past regime, it is difficult to imagine how any force inside Egypt could manage to wipe out the faith of some 65 million Egyptians by removing the phrase "Islam is the official religion of Egypt" or even by removing Shariah as the basis of law.  

Surely, in such a nation with such a Muslim majority, the people elected to represent the citizens will be a majority of Muslims with a Muslim reference to culture and law.  Meaning that most laws would likely reference Islamic society and laws.  If the nation enacted laws protecting the rights of the citizens to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the practice of Islam as a faith could not be eradicated.  It would have the room to proselytize and minister to it's faithful without interference from the state.  


That, however, is not what the Muslim Brotherhood wants.  This isn't really a matter of protecting Islam in it's extensive, universal and singular teachings nor the great body of Muslims within Egypt or anywhere else.  Because, while the five pillars of Islam may be universal within the religion and the Qu'ran never changing and infallible, the beliefs of all Muslims are not "singular".  They are multi-dimensional.  Not just between the observant Muslim and the back slider or even between the Shia, the Sunni and Sufi, to name a few, but the very schools of jurisprudence that guide the various Imams and the message within the mosques.  

Within Sunni Islam there are four schools of thought, or jurisprudence, depending on what scholar of what era in what scholarly university in what ever emirate of the existing caliphate at the time such a scholar lived in and wrote.  Such frames of reference obviously influenced each of these great thinkers on Islam in deciding which haditha and sunna were important or to be considered to abrogate any other.  Influencing Imams who attended the religious universities that supported one of the schools of thought, thus perpetrating multiple trends within Sunni Islam alone.  Much less the Shia with their twelve rightly guided Kalifas and various schools of thought.  

Casual readers of the Iraq and Iran situation might not know that there is a battle going on between the Shia school of thought in Qom, Iran and the school of thought, currently headed by al Sistani, in Najaf, Iraq.  They are both "twelvers", believing in the twelve rightly guided Kalifas, but the Iranian version believes that the Mahdi is returning any day now and the Najaf school does not.  

That is the reason that al Sadr, the Shia militant that plagued Iraq nearly as much as the Al Qaeda Salafi brigades, went to Qom to finish his religious studies when he had not done so under Sistani's Najafi school.  Sistani had instructed the Shia to remain calm and participate in the elections while the Iranian backed al Sadr was all afire with fighting the invaders.  That is the reason as well that al Sadr's militia referred to themselves as the Mahdi Brigade.  He was not only a "twelver", but a student of Qom that has been infiltrated by the apocalyptic strain of Mahdi-ism that the current "president" of Iran, Ahmedenijad, is an adherent. 

What does Iraq and Iran have to do with Egypt?  The same issues are at play under the cover of political triangulation and the revolution. The Muslim Brotherhood really isn't interested in a pluralistic Islam, much less a pluralistic civil state.  

The Muslim Brotherhood "old guard" and the MB Youth have been struggling over the ruling that MB members could only join the newly formed Freedom and Justice Party.  A young Brother suggested, politely, that the Brotherhood should remain an organization that focused on teaching the "right way" of Islam and leave the politics to the individual's conscience.

It is the teaching of "right Islam" that is concerning the Muslim Brotherhood and has been their concern for many decades, stated in their charters and various papers.  It has been the focus of most of the strains of Islam throughout the history of the faith.  Most occurred under the guise of political struggle for control of the caliphate beginning with the death of Mohammed (PBUH).  Today it is a struggle between various organizations and even states.  All of them claiming to be the strain, sect, organization or state that practices "right Islam".  All of them attempting to dominate the space that is Islam and the Islamic Umma (Muslim People) through whatever methods available.  Mostly da'wa or proselytizing, but also through state control and propagation of religion.  

As is the case in Saudi Arabia where they not only control the selection of Imams and Grand Sheikhs, the building of mosques, the religious education in schools and even the decisions made by the Grand Sheikhs, but they spread their message far and wide with copious amounts of money, building mosques and sending preachers all around the globe.  That is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood would like to accomplish in Egypt.  Not quite as heavy handed, but through a similar fashion of controlling the state, retaining Islam as the official religion and Shariah as the law.  Gaining control of the mosques through retaining government control and subsidizing.  

They are not interested in protecting and propagating just any Islam, nor the monolith that is greater Islam, but the Muslim Brotherhood's strain of Islam based on the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.  The power over the ministry and departments that over see the building of mosques and the appointment of Imams or preachers insures that it is the Brotherhood's ideology that will be propagated, regardless of the leanings or strains of faith within Egypt's Muslim Population.


No one is supposed to talk about these schisms.  Muslims are all Muslims, part of the monolith that is Islam and the Islamic Umma.  There is an insistence that Islam, a religion boasting one billion adherents around the globe and growing, is constantly under attack from forces outside.  Thus, the demand for a "unity".  A demand that is supposed to keep the Islamic Umma silent about these divisions even as the struggle to gain dominance of one sect or strain over the teaching and practice of Islam plays out in the public sphere.  


Witness the Salafis in Alexandria and other areas of Egypt becoming more outspoken and more active attempting to achieve hisbah, or forcing Muslims and non Muslims to adopt to their socio-religious beliefs.  They are burning down liquor stores, accusing women of being prostitutes if they are out alone or without at least a hijab (they would prefer a niqab), and murdering other Muslims for not praying when they should.  They are burning down Sufi shrines and Christian Churches.  At this rate, they may well be planning to go into any of the other mosques in Egypt and plant their own "right thinking" Imam, by force, as they have attempted to do in several other countries.  Particularly in times of upheaval.


Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood associated religious leader, recently called the Salafi strain "stagnant" and "extreme".  Qaradawi, though widely revered among the Brotherhood, is not exactly a main stream Imam.  Further, the Brotherhood is showing it's displeasure with the Salafi groups in small ways.  The MB recently canceled a debate at a university with a Salafi scholar.  The University claimed that it was to avoid a confrontation between the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi youth.  The question left unasked and unanswered is why there would be a confrontation between these two groups?


A Salafi leader recently claimed that all of these acts do not represent the Salafi and that the media, headed by some unknown "liberal" kabal, is orchestrating an attack on the Salafi to discredit the group.  It is interesting that this is the same argument that is being used by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Not only are the "liberals" and "media" organizing attacks against the Brotherhood, but attacks against Islam and Muslims in general.  Even as the Brotherhood is orchestrating virtual and verbal attacks on the Salafi.  No violence between the groups has been reported.

Apparently, reporting each groups' activities, meetings and their own words is "an attack".


The Salafis are only one visible aspect of this struggle to dominate Islam, Sunni Islam, in Egypt.  The Salafis are an easy target as they are both reviled and feared by the west as well as many Muslim Egyptians.  The Salafis and these unnamed, faceless "liberals" are a useful tool in gathering the rest of the Egyptian Muslim population under the Brotherhood's banner.  They are using the age old cry for "unity" and a good dose of fear to silence any internal opposition within their organization and the Umma and cover their actual intent.  An intent that is not only to impose some form of Islamic State on Egypt, something that a recent poll suggested would not be opposed by many Muslim Egyptians, but to impose the Brotherhoods ideology, their strain of the Hanafi school, on the rest of Egypt's Sunni Muslims.


Whether this intent to control the mosque through the government is apparent to the rest of Egypt's multi-dimensional Muslim population is the question.  This is the same tactic that the previous regime used to control religion within Egypt.  It is the same tactic that Gaddafi used in Libya, the one used by the Khomeinis in Iran and the same in Saudie Arabia.  That is only a few of the obvious states, none of them "free" as Egypt is attempting to become.  By controlling the religious institutions and the strain of Islam that is being preached, the Brotherhood, through the auspices of government agencies, would seek to control the conscience of the majority of the people.  That would bring the majority of Egyptians under the Brotherhood's political and religious control insuring their domination for years to come.


How the Brotherhood would manage to set up this scenario would be by easily winning an uncontested, solid block within the People's Assembly.  They do not need to win a majority of seats as El Erian recently pointed out.  A position of 30 to 35% of the parliament seats against untold numbers of parties in any other seats who refuse to unite to form the governing block, would leave the Brotherhood in control.  They would be the party that would either select the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet or they would have the final approval if some other group did manage to form an alliance.  

Any compromise would likely see the Brotherhood in charge of the cabinet posts and ministries that over see these institutions as they will be the party with a vested interest.


Not only religious institutions, but education institutions where religious scholarship is taught giving the Brotherhood control of religion from the instruction of a preacher, to approving buildings of mosques, to appointment of Imams and even the messages that are preached.  Edging out any other strain or school of jurisprudence and changing the practice of Islam for millions of Muslims forever within Egypt.  All under the disguise of protecting Islam in Egypt by maintaining Article II.


This is why the mixing of religion and government, not just "politics" and "political parties", is dangerous.  It is not only dangerous to Christians, Shia, Bahia, "liberals" or any other minority group who may be forced to adhere to laws that are contrary to their faith or conscience.  It is dangerous to millions of Muslims who do not currently worship or practice Islam under the Brotherhood's strain of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.  The retention of Article II in the constitution and any ministry that is responsible for organizing any aspect of religion in Egypt, will give the Brotherhood a power that is the power of dictators and kings, not the power of a free people living in a truly free democracy, finally governing their own conscience.  

While the Brotherhood speaks the words of Freedom, insisting they believe in the freedom of religious choice,  the people most under threat by this constitutional article and government control of religion are the millions of non-aligned Muslims who may find themselves dispossessed of their faith.  Not by an outside force or unnamed "liberals", but by the very people who are presenting themselves as the guardians of Islam and Muslims in Egypt: the Muslim Brotherhood.


Meanwhile, no one can speak about this issue in Egypt.  Even the liberals and the Coptic Christians must be silent because any mention of the dangers of mixing religion and state has already been framed by the Brotherhood as an attack on Islam.  The revolutionaries are so concerned about maintaining their own "unity" that any liberal aspect within the movement has been unable to discover or articulate this danger, selling themselves, minority religions and their fellow observant Muslims down the river.  Politicians from every corner that are not the Muslim Brotherhood and who are not interested in imposing religion, are rushing forward to proclaim they are not against Islam underscoring the fact that the Brotherhood still controls the argument over religion and state.

At the recent launch of the Free Egypt Party, Naquib Sawiris, head of Orascom and FEP founder stated that he would rather die than fight a Muslim.  Rather he should have said that he would die to defend the right of every Muslim to practice their faith as they see fit and according to their own conscience.  Every Muslim has the right to choose what mosque they will attend, what Imam they would follow and what message they would receive without the interference of the government in the personal choices of a free people.  That is the promise of freedom to all people in Egypt.


Meanwhile, in other parts of the Egyptian Paradox, the Non-Islamic Islamic State of Egypt...

A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood recently said that the MB did not support an Islamic State like Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Meaning of course that they do want an Islamic state in Egypt.  Islamic lite?  One wonders who then can explain the head of the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council advocating for a Modesty Police along the lines of Saudi Arabia' Vice and Virtue Police.  

A "police" force that in recent history forced fleeing girls back into a burning school because they were not wearing a hijab.  Many of these girls died and their families were understandably distraught, demanding answers from the government and the king.  The government responded by insisting it was the wrong application of a right practice and that the police were understandably confused.  

The Saudi government did not apologize, instead giving each of the angry families blood money and quietly instructing the Vice and Virtue Police to not be as strict in an emergency situation.  Even Mohammed, (PBUH) did not insist on maintaining restrictions in an emergency. The problem here is that any citizen and human being had to be instructed to place their humanity above their religious beliefs or perceived orders  instead enforcing "death before dishonor" on young girls who couldn't possibly understand why they had to die for lack of an hijab.

Durba insisted that:

"The new police must have a department with limited authorities to arrest those who commit immoral acts,” Durbala told the newspaper.

As if, after thirty years under a police state, what Egypt needed was another security force running around, wasting Egyptian money on "modesty police" when he people can barely afford to buy bread and intruding  in every aspect of their lives which they had just escaped when Mubarek resigned.  When what Egypt really needs is a police department trained in modern investigation, chain of evidence controls and respecting basic human rights.  What Egypt needs is an economic plan that will allow investments and employment opportunities for all Egyptians.  What Egypt needs is a better education system that provides education and opportunities to all Egyptians instead of leaving high percentages of illiteracy among the crowds.  


Those are things that Egypt needs.  Egypt needs a Vice and Virtue squad like it needs a whole in its head.

Summary only...

Egypt and Democracy: Observations on the Egyptian Paradox - Political Rights v. Individual Rights, the Meaning of Freedom and Martyrs of the Revolution

As events in Egypt continue to unfold, there are interesting paradoxes emerge between what the people say they want and what they are actually working, or not, to achieve.


For instance, reading about El Baradei doing his best to begin campaigning for president.  He spoke at a charitable fund raising event on Friday.  What did the media report that he said?  

...vowing to continue his struggle until all the goals of the revolution have been achieved. At the ceremony on Friday, organized by the  Egyptian charity Resala, ElBaradei said he had hoped that change could take place without the loss of lives. He said that these lives will not be wasted, and Egyptians must realize the objectives of the revolution to pay them tribute.
The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has called for clear steps to achieve a peaceful democratic transition, to revamp Egyptian media and to remove corrupt officials involved in the killing of protesters.

A necessary triangulation, the "goals of the revolution" since it is the Revolutionary Youth that makes up the majority of El Baradei's followers.  What are the Revolution's demands and goals?  Here is a report listing twenty six demands in the form of questions.   


Were these the main objectives of the Revolution?  In some ways, they are understandable as subject to the specific time and experiences of Egypt.  Probably necessary if Egypt wants to get to a place where the government is of, for and by the people.  


On the other hand, the one thing that I do not hear or read very much about is what this "peaceful democracy" means.  There is really no discussion about individual rights, the basis of any really "free" democracy as opposed to a "peaceful" democracy.  The Mubarek Regime retained a facade of "democracy", but it was extremely lopsided and had little respect for individual rights.  Even Iran says it has a democracy, but anyone with even a rare experience of reading about it understands there is no protection of individual rights.  That means no real freedom.


Without a true understanding of these rights and how they apply in a free democracy, government becomes "mob democracy" or the "democracy of the majority".  Just because a majority agrees on an action, any action including discrimination against minorities or enforcing a religion, does not make it right or a "free" nation.  Mob rule based on it's own confluence of reasoning can become as destructive and oppressive as the rule of a dictator even when it starts out as a benign force.


One of my favorite lines comes from the movie "The Patriot" and sums up this issue nicely.  The fictional character, debating the colony of Virginia's declaration for independence and joining the American Revolution, asks: "Why should I change the government of one tyrant three thousand miles away for the government of three thousand tyrants one mile away?"  


In other words, what is more dangerous?  One man, all be it with the power of state, over "there" and largely concerned with his own issues, making an appearance here and there through government branches, subject officials and a small, but efficient security apparatus attempting to enforce his rules from a distance, is less dangerous than three thousand "neighbors"  who live right down the road, able to visit and enforce their oppressive laws twenty four hours a day, seven days a week with an inescapable force of the majority.  


I do not see these discussions about how or what kind of government should be formed beyond "peaceful democracy" nor any insistence on or discussion of what constitutes a free people.  There are no discussions of individual rights.  No discussion about how to protect the rights of the people from the power of a majority rule.  Protection that is necessary in a democracy.

There is a demand for investigations into torture and abuse with the prosecution of the guilty, but no one adds to that the declaration that a free man has the right to be secure in his person and papers.  He cannot be forced to give evidence against himself.  The state cannot inflict cruel and inhuman punishment.  There can be no taint of blood (ie, family and friends cannot be arrested, persecuted or dispossessed simply for having a relationship with the accused or to coerce a confession).

There is a demand for all remaining political prisoners to be freed, but no where is the declaration that a man has the right to legal representation.  He has the right to a speedy trial and cannot simply be held for years without reason or trial.  He has a right to face his accusers and bring witnesses on his behalf. He has the right to free speech which means that he has the right to speak his opinion, to criticize the government without fear of persecution or prosecution.  


The list of demands go on and on, but so to could the declarations of individual rights that support these demands.  It is as if the revolutionaries expect that once these demands are met, their individual rights will simply fall into their hands and that no one would dare to infringe on these here to for invisible rights in the near future as it would be "counter-revolutionary".  As if every person who reads their demands and agrees with the demands in body, completely understands the spirit.  The basis of which is freedom and individual rights.  


Neither is there any mention of these rights in context to the soon to be written constitution or soon to be seated parliament.  In fact, what is spoken of more often in relationship to these upcoming events and the recently passed referendum are citizens achieving their "political rights".  Voting in an election, allegedly fair and representative, has superseded individual rights.  The freedom to run for political office is more important than the freedom to simply live, think and pursue happiness unmolested from government.  


No one is articulating the idea that political rights are what are given and taken away by whatever government system or governing group is in power.  As was the case under Mubarek where people could try to run for office, but only if given approval by Mubarek's government.  Where people could try to vote, but only if they were allowed into the polling station, had the right political persuasion or, if not, have their votes discounted or changed in favor of the tyrant and his government.  A government that routinely abused the people's individual, natural and unalienable rights.  Where people simply gave up trying to assert their "political right" to vote or have a say in their government, choosing instead to "suffer while such evils are sufferable".

Whereas individual rights, natural and unalienable rights, belong to mankind regardless of what system of government or what people are in power.  That government of the people must be designed to protect these rights to insure that there is no future where an oppressor can rise nor use the law and lack of recognized, protected rights against the people.  No oppressor, neither an individual nor a group of people claiming to represent the consensus of the majority or even a powerful minority.


This lack of a cohesive and universal message being sounded over and over again throughout the revolution and after is what is allowing the "revolutionaries" and their ideas to be painted by such organized forces as the Muslim Brotherhood and, worse, the Salafis as dangerous. "Liberals" without religion or faith, bent on the disparagement and destruction of Islam.  A cohesive and universal message that appeals to a great majority of Egyptian citizens who have just spent their lives living in fear of being "too Muslim" in case it drew the scrutiny, reaction and oppression of the last regime.  Who also believe that the entire world is set against them.


To these accusations, if they are responded to at all, the Liberals seem to stamp their feet and yell, "No, we're not!  We want to give everyone freedom."  An ethereal idea that has many connotations.  The Islamists continue to say, "Freedom to do what?  Become not a Muslim?  We know because..." pick a reason.  Whatever the non-aligned Muslims and liberals do, it is always an indication that this small, but thriving minority is dangerous to the existence of the Muslim majority.  


So, the revolutionaries and the liberals within it continue to be pulled down into the Islamists' message, instead of coordinating a cohesive, universal message that bridges the gap, talks over the noise and speaks directly to the fears of the people.  The fear that some other group will come to power and repress them again under the guise of "liberation".


Somewhere, between the Revolutionaries in the Square and the Islamists on the political soap box, is a huge "silent majority", who are largely non-aligned Muslim Egyptians, who did not even come to vote on the referendum (some where between 14 and 18 million registered voters), but instead, are waiting to see how this whole thing plays out.  What do the Revolutionaries really want?  What new form of government will endeavor to organize their lives while they endeavor to avoid it?  Will there even be a government or will it simply blur into chaos and sectarianism?  Are the Islamists correct that this new government will be just as intrusive as the last, seeking to take away one of the few things they have been able to call their own these past decades: their faith?


In the end, these are the people that must be convinced.  Those who are not Islamist in nature nor even particularly liberal, but are waiting to hear the answers.  The people who must know the difference between political rights and natural, individual and unalienable rights that enable them to do exactly as they wish: to live unmolested and largely free of government interference in their lives.  These are the people that must receive the message.  

These people do not give a damn about the demands of the revolution.  While they may nod their heads at the notion of Mubarek and cohorts being prosecuted for their past actions, Mubarek could fly to the moon so long as they could get on with living.  It is these who the blessings of freedom and the protection of their individual, natural and unalienable rights most represent.  To simply live and to be without someone else coming along to tell them how they should do it.  A future that is at risk if the Islamists win the war of ideas in the newly free market place of ideas.


The realization of that paradox has stymied the revolution and stagnated it into a list of demands.  Demands the revolutionaries constantly marching in the square shout out amongst other calls as they interfere with the attempt of these ordinary Egyptians to simply live.  That is not to say that they do not have the right or should not be there, but that they are "losing the crowd", as they say in politics, because their "demands" do not resonate with every day life.  The revolutionaries are too proud of their revolution to actually explain what it means beyond these "demands" and the never ending protests.  Or, how realizing these demands translate into the protection of the ordinary Egyptian's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  


El Baradei, speaking at the ceremony to honor 42 of the hundreds who lost their lives in the Jan25 revolution said, 

these lives will not be wasted, and Egyptians must realize the objectives of the revolution to pay them tribute.

Then went on to list a few of these objectives including a peaceful democracy, a free media and prosecution of "corrupt officials" responsible for killing the protesters.  As if they will ever be able to discover who of the hundreds of men in these positions gave the order, or even had to considering the condition of the security services and their inherent adherence to what can be only cynically referred to as 'casual and routine violence' against the people.  Actions that cannot be changed until the idea of individual, natural and unalienable rights permeates throughout society.

That is one of the great paradoxes.  Here is the man, El Baradei, who drew these forces around him and gave them a center around which to organize after the death of a young man who was exercising his individual rights.  El Baradei who wishes to represent the "youth" and the revolution as the first president of this new era.  A man who does not really know why these young people went into Liberation Square, withstanding the cold, the hunger, the thirst, the tear gas and the fear, some giving their blood and others their very lives.


Or, at least, he cannot articulate it.


They did not stand and die so that Mubarek could be arrested and put on trial.  They did not stand and die so that the hated State Security could be dismantled.  They did not stand and die for some washed out version of a "peaceful democracy" where new laws could be written that pervert and destroy the very reason they went out into Liberation Square, depending on which staid old man with his own agenda can pander to the public and get elected.


These things, in the end, are meaningless and without value when compared to the noble and priceless gift that they paid for with their suffering, their blood and their very lives.  The achievement of these "objectives" will mean nothing unless the gift of their sacrifice is realized.  A gift that is in danger of being lost amongst all the noise of demands, rowdy protesters and triangulating politicians. 

That gift is Freedom.  Freedom that is not protected by "democracy" or "political rights", but is obtained through the promotion, understanding and protection of individual, natural and unalienable rights.  It is these rights that guarantee a free people, the political rights of participation and a responsive democratic government.  A government for the people, of the people and by the people that provides the opportunities, space and security for the people to achieve their hopes and dreams.  None of these can exist without freedom and freedom cannot exist without the protection of individual rights. 

On January 25, 2011, when the protesters marched into Liberation Square, there was only one thing worth dying for: freedom.

Speak it.  Live it.  Be it.

Summary only...

Separation of Religion and Government: Protecting Religion, Defense Against Abuse of Power

Separation of Religion and Government: Protecting Religion, Defense Against Abuse of Power

One of the main arguments used to forward the idea that religion should be separated from government is the protection of the freedom of religion for minority religious populations in Egypt. Among them, Coptic Christians, Shia and Sufis as well as the accommodation of the many schools of jurisprudence of Islam. A diverse civil society must be able to protect the rights of all citizens.

This is only one argument and not even the first argument for the issue of division of religion and government.

Many believe that the call to separate religion from the government is only a call to reduce the role of Islam in Egypt and the Islamic identity of the Egyptian people. This is a fear that is unfounded. The majority of citizens in Egypt are Muslim. The strength of the faith and the long relationship of the majority of the people with their Islamic heritage remains unchanged, regardless of the governments that have existed. It will remain unchanged in a society where freedom of religion is protected and the people may practice their faith as they see fit.

This fear is not surprising when a people have been living under an oppressive regime that used government power and money to control the mosque, the selection of Imams and to influence the message. If someone belonged to a religious group or made public religious sentiments that the government found threatening, the group could be attacked and the people put in prison for a very long time, often times tortured and killed.

The Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar recently announced that he would give back his salary provided by the government because corruption has spread within the institution. Other leaders staged a protest against the corruption born of government interference, payment of bonuses and other devices used to extort responses and control the Ulema.

By these acts the Mubarek regime wished to control the conscience of the people, preventing them from voicing their concerns about the government and the leaders. Acts that are all too familiar in oppressive nations.

What is surprising is that people who have experienced this repression and point to this corruption are so willing to consider the continuation of this same construction of religion and government. All with the apparent belief that this time it will be different.

Summary only...

Egypt and Democracy: A New Coat of Paint

'Freedom Painters' bring new life to Nasr City walls

Groups of young people, armed with paints and brushes have been running around, painting the "new graffiti" of Freedom.  One gentleman suggests:

“Imagine a mural running the length of the corniche,” he suggested. “Or government facilities bearing artistic logos and murals -- it would be a vast improvement on the depressing buildings we have now,” he said, claiming that these government institutions are not only old-fashioned and “sick-looking,” but remnants of “an age that has been brought to its long-overdue end.”

“It wouldn’t cost much,” he reasoned. “Paints, brushes, art supplies -- those things aren’t that expensive. A single generous businessman could sponsor such an effort independently.”
“It makes sense,” he insists. “A new coat of paint for a new beginning.”

That was after he complained that most of the writing was in English, that Egyptians spoke Arabic and the art should be for Egyptians.  Then he changed his mind.  Freedom is Freedom in any language.

Summary only...

Middle East Revolutions: Everybody Wins - Al Qaeda Says It's Good News

Al-Qaeda hails "Tsunami of change" in Middle East

Western and Arab officials say the example set by young Arabs seeking peaceful political change is a counterweight to al-Qaeda's push for violent militancy and weakens its argument that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

But Yemeni-U.S. cleric Anwar al-Awlaki argues , in an article published online on Tuesday entitled The "Tsunami of Change", that the revolutions are good news for Islamic extremists and said the removal of anti-Islamist autocrats meant Islamic fighters and scholars were now freer to discuss and organize. 

This comes as no surprise from those in the west who have been saying that the potential for Islamists to emerge as a controlling power or major influence in politics and culture in the Middle East is all but assured.

The issue is whether these populations will succumb or be forced to adhere.  In reality, the Salafi Wahabi strain of Islam is Islam's and, to a greater extent, the Arab's problem to resolve.  Salafis v., for instance, Egyptian Muslims, it is a war between modern Islam and regressive Islam.  The United States and the West, however much they are attacked, are the side show.

From the outset, Al Qaeda's goal, formulated by their Salafi Wahabi ideology, has been to force Muslims to choose between Dar al Islam (the house of peace; within "correct Islam" as they see it) and Dar al Harb (the house of war; outside of Islam).  While the original intent was to establish the geographic boundaries of Islamic controlled states v. other states, Al Qaeda and it's fellow travelers have gone even further to suggest that Dar al Harb includes Muslims who are not "Islamic" enough (do not follow Salafi practices).

This is one of the reasons that Al Qaeda and it's fellow travelers feel that they have a free hand in attacking and killing Muslims.  If they are outside of Dar al Islam (bad Muslims), they are bad Muslims or kufar or takfiri who deserve to be punished.  If they are "good Muslims" that die as collateral damage, then they, as martyrs, are assured an eternal life of pleasure in paradise.

The other issue is that Salafis believe they have a right and an obligation to enforce Islamic law by force or "Hisbah".  That is what appears to be going on some areas of Egypt where Salafis reportedly broke into a home and accused a local woman of being a prostitute as well as harassed women on the street. They have also protested outside of a Christian Church and recently tried to enforce their ideology in a local village outside of Cairo where an armed conflict broke out after the Salafis tried to shut down liquor stores and coffee shops.  Obviously, the locals are not going to follow along quietly.

For Salafis, the reason that Muslim's have fallen from grace is the presence of outside influence, largely western, in the Muslim Arab world.  Obviously, since the Qu'ran is the infallible word of Allah and Mohammed the Rightly Guided Prophet, then Islam itself is blameless and no Muslims can be faulted for this decline except that they are tempted as all men are from the grace of Allah.  It has to be some greater evil.  The west becomes, in essence, the scape goat for all of the ills the Salafis find.

This evil is not just political or military, it is commercial in nature since every western product is imbued somehow with these ideas and is subversive by nature.  Aside from attempting to degrade the United States' economy as the driver for it's military power, the attack's on 9/11 were aimed at the World Trade Center was basically a two for one event.  Not only did it hope to impact the amount of money the US would have to support it's military, but it would also severely hamper the ability to export these bad influences on the Muslim world.

In that moment, of course, their over all goal was to provoke the US into an act of aggression against Muslim's in general that would force Muslim's to decide whether they are Dar al Islam or Dar al Harb.  In essence, Muslims would have to take sides.  In their eyes, Muslims had to choose between being "rightly guided" by Salafi principles or be forcefully converted or die. The struggle, as they see it, to convince Muslims of their "correct path" is on going.

Now Al Awlaki says that the Salafis have been given an "in" by the presence of democracy and the ideas of free speech (ideas that, if they were in charge, would go right out the window).  This is true.  However, as he points out, these things tend to work both ways.  Now, whatever the Salafis say can be countered, in the open, in majority Muslim country.  They get a chance to make their case, but they can also be rejected.

Of course, the Salafis and Al Qaeda types do not take well to being rejected.  The likelihood of Muslims coming under even more violent attacks rises with every step a Muslim state takes away from rejecting democracy and and away from accepting Salafi Islam.  The war then returns full circle from where it was born and Muslims will be, once again, on the front lines in both the ideological and physical war.

Summary only...

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: Why the Muslim Brotherhood Is Supporting El Baradei for President

While there is yet to be an official report on the matter, according to the rumor mill on twitter, it is believed that the Muslim Brotherhood will throw it's support behind El Baradei in the upcoming presidential elections.  


Viewers in the west won't be surprised.  From the outset, El Baradei has appeared to be the Muslim Brotherhood's front man.  The smiling, nonthreatening face of liberality and psuedo-western attitude and political knowledge that the Brotherhood wanted to use to belay the idea that the revolution and the MB were a threat to the west.   

In Egypt, El Baradei had two more roles.  For the "revolutionary youth" he served as a rally point.  Someone who said all the right things about democracy, freedom and Egypt's future as a free state.  El Baradei is intelligent and capable, a "deep thinker" that appeals to Egypt's middle class, educated youth.  Others have viewed him as a "Johnny Come Lately", an opportunist who had spent the last ten years in and out of Egypt, like a tourist, while they were the ones who suffered under Mubarek's regime.


It is difficult to assess El Baradei's true position.  He continues to speak "above the noise" talking about democracy in Egypt, even as some supporters express concerns that he is still to detached from the Egyptians on the street.  In an odd split from the MB's support of El Baradei, the MB went on the record as supporting the amendments to the Constitution in the March 19 referendum even as El Baradei rejected the amendments and the rush to elections.  

He stated that the political parties in Egypt needed time to organize and present candidates.  Many of the "revolutionary youth" supported this approach, fearful that the only parties organized and funded well enough to contest the upcoming elections successfully were the remains of the NDP and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Regardless of their objections, the referendum was passed by an overwhelming 77% 'yes'.  


Now the Muslim Brotherhood is apparently considering El Baradei as their candidate of choice for President.  Some of El Baradei's liberal secular supporters wonder if the MB is trying to sabotage El Baradei's chances by peeling off liberal secular supporters.  That is probably not the MB's calculation.  


The Muslim Brotherhood has been playing very smart politics throughout the revolution and post Mubarek regime, even as it has seen some internal struggles to define and move the party forward.  It remained in the background as a whole organization even as the MB Youth went into the streets with the revolutionaries.  To some this appeared that the MB was hedging it's bets against the possibility that the revolution would fail.  The loss of some of it's young members would have been hailed as the participation of martyrs in the eternal struggle even as the MB attempted to negotiate with the ailing Mubarek regime.  


In the end, the revolution prevailed and the MB was able to denounce these conferences as individuals taking their own initiative.  The MB as a whole did not even appear in the streets until the revolution had been assured ascendency.  


It is this ability to play to more than one side while finding their own path to power that puts them behind El Baradei.  The only other viable candidate at this time is Amr Moussa, previously Egypt's ambassador to the Arab League.  When he re-appeared in Egypt, there were many reports that his posting to the League had been a move by Mubarek to distance a potential trouble maker and reformist from the NDP and presidency.  Others disagree, insisting that Amr Moussa is still a stalwart NDP man and connected to the Mubarek Regime.  The MB would be hung out to dry by it's opposition in the revolution if they showed any real attachment to Moussa.  


Moussa's support seems to come from the part of Egypt that is wary of the radical shift in politics and the instability caused by the revolution.  They seem to be looking for a familiar face who has some idea what it means to work with other countries in the region and garner support.


Aym Nour is far too liberal and has the taint of a conviction against him, even as he wears it as a badge of honor, insisting that he was a victim of political jury rigging.  Batawasy, a judge and a known reformist who was mildly persecuted by the previous regime, seems to be the choice of the intelligentsia.  He is a high minded individual who speaks in very broad terms.  His focus in general has been the reformation of the judiciary as an independent body.  A noble and necessary step on a subject that has concerned many Egyptians that saw the judiciary as nothing but a puppet of the regime. 

However, this is not the stuff a presidential bid.  In fact, his focus and position as a judge who has made a career of the law may make him a danger to the MB as much as or more so than Moussa.  It would be likely that Batawasy would attempt to insure the presidency remained within the letter of any law of the constitution proscribing the president's powers and those of the Assembly when signing any law into being or using the presidential powers to enforce any law.  


El Baradei is much less dangerous to the MB.  First, the main coalition supporting him is disorganized and politically weak.  Their ability to capture any significant numbers of seats in the parliament is questionable by the MB's standards as well as analysts in the west.  For any presidency to be strong enough to resist potentially popular, but detrimental laws, he would need a good base of support in the Assembly and Shura counsel.  Enough support that they would be able to soften or modify any laws presented by the MB before they came to his desk and forced him to either make an unpopular decision to veto it or forced him to fall in line with the populists to the detriment of Egypt.  

The MB's assessment of El Baradei's political weakness is not only a matter of his disorganized support, but the outcome of the referendum.  El Baradei called not only for a 'no' vote, but was asking for an entirely different procedure to be in place for the interim government and writing of the constitution.  A process that would have given the liberal/secular groups at least an equal power to formulate the document and the future law of the land.  El Baradei's voice was practically drowned out in the cacophony of joyous rush to the polls.  To the Brotherhood, this would be a sign that El Baradei does not enjoy popular support.  At least, not without them behind him.  Without support in the assembly nor popular support in the greater body politic of Egypt, El Baradei's term as president would be incredibly weak.

Second, without strong, liberal allies in the assembly, El Baradei would be much more open to persuasion.  Due to the nature of the previous regime and the power of the presidency, a power that remains intact until the constitution is written, El Baradei would be much more likely to limit his use of presidential powers.  There would be no decrees that would thwart the MB's plans.  The presidency under El Baradei in the interim period would be considerably weaker than the power of the Assembly.  Especially, if El Baradei was reluctant to use even the balancing power of the veto.

Worse, El Baradei has no real connections to the military.  The military, for better or worse, are playing the role of the broker in Egypt's nascent democracy.  For now, possibly for the future, the military represents the real power structure in Egypt.  Without allies in the military, El Baradei would find himself caught between a rock and a hard place.   A position that would likely find him leaning towards the Brotherhood for support, strengthening their position.  

Third, the interim period of governing and creating a workable constitution will be messy and dangerous.  The person that sets on top of this process is not likely to be viewed as a savior by anybody at the end.  The process is going to require compromise and caution, neither of which any part of the Egyptian polity is very willing to accept if the 'yes' vote on the referendum is any measure to go by.  That will make even the most adroit politician practically unelectable for the next presidential election.  

El Baradei may be the candidate most likely to help push the constitution along and achieve "unity" for the Egyptian people.  The issue here is that, in the end, he will likely be seen as an obstructionist by the Islamist/MB camp and a sell out by those who supported him because he compromised on an issue near and dear to their hearts.


The Muslim Brotherhood is playing politics like the very old hands that they are.  They know that the election to win today is the upcoming vote for assembly representatives.  The next assembly will write the constitution.  All of Egypt's future laws will flow from this document.  It will set the tone for Egypt's political future for decades to come.  It will also be the document that lays out the powers of the various branches and offices of government. 

In the future, the role of the president may be greatly inhibited by this document.  That reduction in power would be likely supported by the people who are justifiably leery of a single person having too much power.  If Iraq and other parliamentary governments emerging from dictatorship are anything to go by, most of the power granted by the constitution is likely to fall into the hands of the assembly and the Prime Minister. 

The Prime Minister is not elected separately, but is chosen by whatever party or coalition of parties is able to constitute a governing majority out of the elected assembly members.  If the MB is calculating right, they likely believe that they will either have this majority in hand or will have enough of a presence to form a coalition with several weaker parties, even Salafists or leftists, who will be in no position to field a candidate for approval from the assembly nor be able to thwart the MB's selection. 

Once the writing for the constitution is achieved, the presidency will likely be a non-issue.  A position that the MB might not even attempt to obtain as it will get much of the country's umbrage and very few perks.  They will then be secure in their positions in the Assembly, always forming at least part of the governing coalition, close to the seat of prime minister and filling numerous cabinets with the power to control the apparatus of government along with making the laws.  

In the end, if the Muslim Brotherhood announces their full support of El Baradei for the presidency, it won't be because they see him as an "honest broker", but because he is the least dangerous to their aspirations. 

In the end, the liberal/secular focus on the presidency instead of the assembly elections will be their down fall.  The presidency will mean nothing without adequate support in the assembly and definition by the new constitution.  This will not be an all powerful presidency ruling over the assembly, but a presidency that is either subservient to the will of the assembly or, if the position has a stroke of luck, an equal partner, depending on how the constitution is written. 

Any hopes of a truly free and equitable Egypt with a limited Islamic bent will depend not on the presidency, but on the first parliamentary elections for the People's Assembly.  The first parliament writes the constitution.  After that, it will be a matter of Egyptians trying to live under those rules for a very long time.

Summary only...