|
Aug 10
2011
|
The Egyptian CrisisPosted by admin in Untagged |
The Egyptian Crisis
By Zubeida Jaffer
“Is it enough for the King to become another citizen without any privileges, or would it be more salutary to chop off his head, so that people could watch the blood flow?
Milan Simecka, Czech writer.
Very few Egyptians believed their deposed president would be brought to trial. I visited the country a few days before his trial began and found widespread scepticism. They thought that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), in charge of the country, would find a way to spare him the humiliation.
But SCAF did not. Eager to convince the public that they were neutral arbiters in the conflict, they bowed to public pressure and wheeled Hosni Mubarak into court lying on his hospital bed.
Bringing Mubarak, his two sons and other key aides to trial represents a groundbreaking shift in both Egyptian and regional politics. The people have brought their leader to trial through the power of peaceful mass protestation. This certainly must be setting alarm bells ringing in some surrounding countries in North Africa where similar conditions prevail.
The issue of how to deal with the deposed president now charged with corruption and murder of protestors settles only one of the serious matters facing this country of over 80 million people, over 40 percent who live just under two dollars a day (the equivalent of about 13 South African rands). During my visit, I participated in a round-table discussion with key Egyptians and international guests where transitional concerns were put under the spotlight.
Three Egyptian groups, the Egyptian Community of Participatory Enhancement, the Egyptian Institute for the Independence of the Judiciary and Cairo University jointly hosted these talks with IDEA (www.idea.int).
The first two of these institutions are NGOs, and are heavily involved in issues relating to the coming constitutional process and the electoral process. IDEA is an inter-governmental organisation comprised of 27 member states including South Africa and works to promote democracy. They brought in representatives from Tunisia, Chile, South Africa, Spain and Morocco to engage with local experts.
What would be the nature of the Egyptian state? Would it be military or religious? This was one of the greatest concerns expressed at the discussions. Local politician, Fareed Zahran, was against both possibilities. “We want a civil, patriotic state,” he said. He expressed concern that the military may cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood and in this way sideline political parties who want constitutional reform. “We are in dire need of a robust parliament and constitutional change,” he said.
Power resides formally in the hands of the military and even though they are cognizant of the power of the people, they know too that Egyptians are generally patient and prepared to give them a chance. According to the discussants it is uncertain whether they will manage the transition towards an outcome that accommodates all the different interests in the country. A Cairo lawyer, Khaled Ali, expressed his reservations about the present transitional ruler. “The military state is a danger,” he said. “Mubarak fell down but not his administration.”
What was to be done to reform the institutions of society?
A former member of parliament from the El-Wafd, Issam Shiha, argued for serious reform of the police, judiciary and the media. “We need radical change in the mechanisms that oppress people,” he said. In addition, he said, there was no acknowledgement of guilt from the state. “The legal and judicial mechanisms continue to practice the hegemony of Mubarak and his regime,” he said.
T he Director of the Hesham Mubarak Centre for Human Rights, Ahmed Ragheb, has set up the Egyptian Police Initiative to discuss how to reform the police. “We need to set up these different initiatives around different issues of reform,” he said. “This will require us to pass new laws.”
How should they handle prosecutions during the time of transition when a new government was not in place?
There was concern about the lack of independence of the prosecutor and the tendency to bring protestors and activists in front of military tribunals instead of the courts. A lawyer with the Arab Network for Human Rights, Jamal Eid, said that there were cases where journalists or bloggers were arrested and not released despite assurances that they would be and were only held as a precautionary measure. “Egypt is still in square one, not in square four,’ he said. “We thought things would be different after January 25th (the day the revolution started) but the military are half tyrants, half guards,” he said.
When efforts are made to identify the snipers who killed many of the protestors, they are fobbed off by the authorities. A representative of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Hussam Bahjat, said that they respond by asking the public to find the snipers so that they can prosecute them. “They know it will be difficult for us to find them,” he said. “We are faced with an imperfect process,” he said. The question for him is how to reach a strategic perspective for real reform.
How will Egyptians reach a unified perspective on what it is they want?
This will not be easy. The revolutionary forces are scattered. There is a tug of war between opposing interests. For example, those in favour of early elections (in November) have won the argument against those who wanted a clear definition of constitutional amendments before elections. AS the tug of war continues, Egypt is by definition a military state. While Mubarak and his party have been smashed, he transferred power to SCAF which holds the key to a future settlement.
These tensions were expressed on the streets on day two of the round-table discussions when tens of thousands of protestors gathered on Tahrir Square in a day dubbed as Unity Friday. The idea was to bring together all the different forces involved in the 18-day protest that had led to the removal of Mubarak.
On the second day of the round-table discussions, thousands of protestors gathered on Tahrir Square in a day dubbed as “Unity Friday”. It was an attempt to bring together the different forces who were part of the 18-day protests that had led to the removal of Mubarak. Islamic and civil powers agreed on focussing on common demands and refraining from religious slogans. However unity was not be achieved. By the afternoon, more than 33 political parties and groups including the Coalition of Youth of the Revolution, April 6, the Free Egyptians Party, the Democratic Front Party, the Egyptian Social Social Democrats, leftist parties and a number of movements withdrew from Tahrir saying that the Islamist group violated the agreement not to make controversial demands.
Two days later on Sunday evening, there were further tensions amongst those encamped in tents on Tahrir Square. Some decided to leave the Square on the eve of the Holy month of Ramadaan while others decided to remain on. These included a number of family members of those killed referred to as the martyrs of the revolution. By the next day, police moved in, chasing away the remaining protestors and taking down their tents. Late into that night I could still see the running battles between police and the protestors. The police armed with shields and batons pushed the protestors to the outskirts of Tahrir Square preventing them from setting up camp again.
I left Egypt the day before Mubarak was brought to trial my mind on a conversation I had with Ayman Ayoub, the regional director of IDEA. He described Egypt as being at a crossroads. “These are very critical times,” he said. He explained that there were broadly two main groups in the country. The first group, constituting the majority, was made up of people who believed they had made a revolution. The second group, smaller in numbers but nevertheless considerable, were those aware that the revolution was far from completed. They were aware that despite concessions from SCAF, nothing was clear. They were concerned that there were forces gaining ground that have shown no signs of being genuinely democratic.
Despite all these difficulties, they have placed the fate of their deposed president in the hands of the judiciary. The verdict may not eventually make everyone happy. While for some, “it is enough for the King to become a citizen without any privileges”. But for others they want the head to be chopped off so that they can watch the blood flow.
These are critical times for this nation indeed.
Ends.
