Mohammed Morsi: from Cairo to California and back

California in the 1970s was a place of peace and love. But for Mohammed Morsi - now president of Egypt - and his new teenage bride, it was an opportunity to prove their moral worth.

Al-Said (right) and Azza (left), Mohamed Morsi brother and sister talk about the president life in his village in Sharqia

By Richard Spencer, in Cairo, Magdy Samaan in El-Edwa Village, and Philip Sherwell in New York

Daily Telegraph

4:12PM BST 30 Jun 2012

For millions of youngsters around the world, it would have been a dream come true: a scholarship to California in the 1970s, the golden era for Good Vibrations – a chance to make love not war and to wear flowers in your hair, a chance for fun, fame and fortune.

For the two pious young Egyptians, though, it represented a very different opportunity.

For Mohammed Morsi and his new teenage bride, Naglaa Ali Mahmoud, Los Angeles 1978 was an opportunity to prove their moral worth.

They were there to work hard, to resist temptation and to "give something back" to the profoundly Muslim world that had got them where they were.

While fellow students frolicked and smoked pot, he excelled in academia, gaining an engineering PhD, publishing papers in scientific journals and eventually winning a place teaching at a prestigious American university. She chose her own route to integration with her host society, helping to translate religious texts at a hostel for American women wishing to convert to Islam.

Then, when they were ready, they returned home, back to the drab Nile Delta region where Mr Morsi was raised in poverty, and began their slow, worthy ascent to prominence.

But, even as Mr Morsi capped those 35 years of hard slog by being sworn in on Saturday as Egypt's first democratically elected and first Muslim Brotherhood president, this path of endeavour has divided the people over whom he must rule.

They were offered engagement with the outside world, and conspicuously refused to take it – so how can they now represent Egypt on the international stage?

The divisions in Egyptian society are deep, and the margin of victory of 52 to 48 per cent in the battle between the secular and military forces represented by Ahmed Shafiq and Mr Morsi's Brotherhood last week show how much must be done to unite a troubled society.

Mr Morsi was a deliberately non-confrontational choice for the Brotherhood – he became known as the "spare tyre" after he replaced the more charismatic and forceful Khairat al-Shater, a long-term former political prisoner, as their man.

But even his pious blandness raises hackles in an extrovert society; while the more characterful Mrs Mahmoud – Egyptian women use their own name – is in the eyes of many modern Egyptians, particularly liberal young women, even worse.

For them her whole persona, her lack of education, her "khimar" – the all in one headscarf and cloak beloved of working and lower middle class housewives – and her avowed dislike of her new prominence are an affront to a century of gains for Egyptian women in schooling, careers and social life.

"She does NOT represent me in any way!" said Sarah Ebeid, a young woman whose avatar sports defiantly free-flowing hair on Twitter, the favoured social medium for the young elite in Egypt.

Such messages have flooded internet noticeboards, with an equal powerful response of "But how can you say that – she looks just like my mother!" from those wishing to defend the new First Lady.

Not that she allows herself to be called that.

"Who said that the president's wife is the first lady anyway?" she said in an interview last week.

She said that – again in keeping with a tradition much sneered at by more modern types – she would prefer to continue to be known as "Umm Ahmed" – Mother of Ahmed, her firstborn son.

For Mr Morsi, 60, and Mrs Mahmoud, 50, it has been a long and surprising path to the presidential palace.

He was brought up on a small farm allotted his father by the first Egyptian revolution in 1952, and she in a poor Cairo suburb.

Devout and particularly devoted to his mother, his brothers told The Sunday Telegraph from their hometown in the Delta this week, he was a model pupil, told his friends to study the Koran and work rather than to play cards, and won a place at Cairo University.

"He was a Brother before he joined the Brotherhood," his sibling, Al-Said, said.

Mr Morsi's life changed when he won a place to study at the University of Southern California in inner-city Los Angeles from 1978 to 1982. Hers changed too. First cousins, they were formally betrothed before he left, even though she was only 16 – a classic way, many who have trodden the path say, for religious families to help their sons resist the temptations of American society.

Sometimes it works, and that certainly seems to have been the case for the Morsis.

According to those who remember his seven years there – he went on to teach for three years as an assistant professor at California State University Northridge in the San Fernando Valley.

While young California danced or immersed itself in political causes he prayed five times a day, observed the fasting month of Ramadan and foreswore alcohol.

But nor did he grow a beard, sporting only a moustache that was the style of the time, and was never heard to complain about Western social mores, unlike some more outspoken Muslim students.

"He was an affable hard-working young man, a typical graduate student who was certainly conservative but also social and certainly did not espouse radical politics," said Farghalli Mohamed, an academic at USC who first met him in 1978 when he moved to Los Angeles.

Dr Mohamed befriended the then solo new arrival, who sometimes visited his family at their home for meals and joined trips local attractions such as the Magic Mountain amusement park.

Mr Morsi's new wife arrived two years later. At the time, her husband was living in student dormitory accommodation close to USC's urban campus in an area known as South Central that was long-plagued by gang violence.

"It was an elite private school, but the neighbourhood was pretty rough and we knew not to walk on the streets at night," said Dr Mohamed.

Mrs Mahmoud took a job helping at a hostel for Muslim students and translating religious texts for American women interested in converting to Islam.

The couple's mutually reinforcing religiosity has been a key factor in their rise to power, as both admit: he calls his marriage his "greatest achievement" while she has described how when he nervously told her he had been invited to join the Brotherhood, she supported him enthusiastically.

Mrs Mahmoud enjoyed life in California and would have been happy not to leave, she said recently, but her husband wanted their family to be raised in Egypt. It is typical of his life – he does not seem to have expressed an anti-American feelings at this stage – but he was more comfortable at home, and he returned to a teaching position at Zagazig University in the Nile delta in 1985.

He has been there ever since, mixing his teaching duties with a growing prominence in the Brotherhood. Mrs Mahmoud stayed at home, bringing up their children all of whom save the youngest, who is still at high school, have gone on to university.

It has been an anonymous life by choice, and that has left many analysts, diplomats and even those who know them asking for the real Mr Morsi please stand up.

"He is Mr Average," said Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a prominent Egyptian writer and professor of politics, who first met Mr Morsi when both were detained in Torah Prison in southern Cairo – one of two occasions when Mr Morsi's Brotherhood membership was held against him by the old regime.

Mr Morsi was part of the senior cadre of Brotherhood leaders in Block Three of the jail, an immaculately kept enclosure with a well-maintained exterior and even freshly plants flower beds – a tribute to the organisation of the Brotherhood rather than to the efforts of prison staff.

Brotherhood members would exercise, pray, and take lectures, Mr Ibrahim said, and had their own football team. They were also helped by being well-funded from outside.

Mr Morsi was a senior figure in the strictly hierarchical Brotherhood, but he was not a natural leader, Mr Ibrahim said.

"He struck me as decent, quiet, but not much of a leader.

"Whenever I met with them as a group there was always an order in which they spoke, and in the way they sat around."

Mr Morsi, then as now in the hierarchy, was not number one. That position went to Khairat al-Shater, a man who differed from Mr Morsi in many respects – not least his forceful charisma and drive. Mr Shater was the undisputed Brotherhood spokesman in the prison, with the right to address the governor in person over its concerns.

Mr Morsi – along with Mr Shater and other Brotherhood leaders – has been meeting western diplomats, including the British, since 2003, holding dialogues at the Swiss diplomatic club.

But Mr Morsi has remained ambiguous, punctuating speeches with fierce criticisms of American imperialism and in particular of Israel.

On Friday, Mr Morsi told crowds thronging Tahrir Square that he would campaign to free Omar Abdel-Rahmann, the "blind sheikh" jailed in the United States for his role in planning the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings.

"If he was a fundamentalist, he was a private fundamentalist," said one academic who knew him at the time.

Perhaps the answer does really lie in the figure of his wife.

She may be different from her predecessors – Suzanne Mubarak, the half-British wife of ex-President Hosni, dressed glamorously, loved publicity, and espoused worthy causes while not relaxing at their Sharm el-Sheikh holiday home – but she has, in an expression she would never use, "kept her man real".

Mr Morsi can now cook, says his wife, and at least helps clear the dishes. In return, she says that her own life was suitable for women of 30 years ago like her – but not for modern women, who even if devout need to get out and earn a living. Her own daughter took a science degree at her father's university.

There was a touching moment on Monday morning, when the farmer's son president took his slum-born wife to the Presidential Palace, to show her around. He showed every sign of thrilling to his new home; she less so. She found it impersonal, she said in her interview this week.

"All I want," she said, "is to live in a simple place where I can perform my duties as a wife."

Everything has changed in Egypt, and as with everything else, no one knows whether that promise can be kept.

* Additional reporting by Jeff Maysh and Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles

 

متى ينقلب الإخوان على المجلس العسكري؟!

مجدي سمعان:

تقدير الموقف قبل جولة الإعادة للانتخابات الرئاسية كان يشير إلى احتمال حدوث انتفاضة جديدة في حالة فوز الفريق أحمد شفيق بالرئاسة. وفي ظل وصول البلاد إلى شفا انهيار اقتصادي واحتمال عجز الدولة عن الوفاء بفاتورة الدعم، كان الخوف من أن الانتفاضة الجديدة ستتجه هذه المرة إلى المطالبة بمحاكمة قادة المجلس العسكري، وقد تنحى إلى اتباع نهج مسلح في التغيير على النمط الليبي والسوري.

وبالرغم من أن الشئون المعنوية للقوات المسلحة قد بذلت جهدا كبيرا خلال العام ونصف الماضية في شحن الضباط والجنود ضد "الثوريين الفوضويين" الذين تحركهم أجندات خارجية، إلا أن هذه التبريرات قد تكون مقنعة للتصدى لاحتجاجات محدودة، أما في حالة خروج احتجاجات واسعة واتجاهها للاصطدام بالجيش، فهناك احتمال قوى أن يحدث انشقاق في الجيش في غضون أيام قليلة قد لا تتجاوز الثمانية عشر يوما التي قضاها مبارك حتى انقلبت القيادة الأدنى عليه.

ظن قيادات المجلس العسكري أن نجاح مرشح جماعة الإخوان المسلمين الدكتور محمد مرسي سيكون بمثابة طوق نجاة لهم، لسببين رئيسين:

 الأول، إنه سيتم استخدام وصول الإخوان للسلطة لإقناع الشعب بأن الثورة قد انتصرت، مثلما تم إقناع الناس سابقا بأن الثورة قد انتصرت حين تم تنحية مبارك. وقد يكون التصعيد المفاجئ الذي سبق الانتخابات الرئاسية من قبل الإخوان  ضد المجلس العسكري يأتي في إطار  رغبة الجماعة الظهور بالمظهر الثوري كنوع من التغطية على هذه الصفقة، بعد أن وضعتهم المواقف المنحازة لقرارات المجلس العسكري في مركب واحد معا. وبالتالي سيحققون للمجلس العسكري أهدافه في البقاء في السلطة وفي نفس الوقت ضمان عدم المحاكمة مستقبلا، علاوة على الحفاظ على مصالح المؤسسة العسكرية.

السبب الثاني، ففي حالة عجز الدولة على الوفاء بفاتورة الدعم، وفي حالة خروج احتجاجات واسعة، يتنبأ البعض بأنها ستكون "ثورة جياع" سيتحمل الإخوان وقتها مسئولية الفشل، وسيكون عليهم مواجهة الغضب الجماهيري، بينما سيقف الجيش باعتباره عنصر محايد يعمل على الحفاظ على أمن البلاد في وقت الفوضى المتوقعة. ويسعي الإخوان للخروج من هذا المأزق بتعين رئيس وزراء غير محسوب على الإخوان لتقاسم الفشل في حال حدوثه.

ويأمل المجلس العسكري في الإستمرار في التحكم في المشهد السياسي من خلف الستار، سواء من خلال الإعلان الدستوري المكمل الذي قلص من صلاحيات الرئيس، ومنح حق التشريع لنفسه حتى انتخاب برلمان جديد لا نعلم موعد انتخابه بعد، أو من خلال القوانين التي أصدرها نواب الإخوان لتحصين العسكريين مثل قانون القضاء العسكري.

لكن ما لا يدركه قيادات المجلس العسكري هو أن جماعة الإخوان المسلمين أقوى من قياداتها، وأن الأهداف التي يتربى عليها أعضاء الجماعة منذ نعومة أظافرهم المتمثلة في بناء الفرد المسلم والأسرة المسلمة، وصولا إلى المجتمع المسلم، ثم الحكومة، فالدولة فاستاذية العالم وفقاً للأسس الحضارية للإسلام هي أقوى من قيادات الجماعة المخترقة من قبل الأجهزة الأمنية. في سبيل تحقيق هذه الأهداف فقد كان أعضاء الإخوان يتعلمون الفرق بين مرحلة الاستضعاف، التي كانت تبرر قبول تكتيكات قيادات الجماعة التي كانت تعتبر ها القوى السياسية في كثير من الأحيان خيانة. ومرحلة التمكين التي لن يقبل خلالها أعضاء التنظيم إلا أن يكونوا "الأعلون" وأن يبدأوا في تطبيق أدبيات مرحلة التمكين. والمتابع لأعضاء الإخوان الذين يظهرون في الإعلام يلحظ هذه النبرة التي فيها ثقة مرحلة التمكين! وعليه فأدبيات مرحلة الاستضعاف قد مضى وقتها، والعودة إليها غير مقبول بالنسبة لقواعد الجماعة.

والسؤال الآن، ليس، هل ينقلب الإخوان على المجلس العسكري؟ وإنما، متى ينقلب الإخوان على المجلس العسكري؟ فالعقليات الشمولية لا يمكن أن تقود سفينة رأس برأس! فمهما كانت العلاقة بينهما، فلابد من أن يتجه أحدهما للانفراد بالقرار، لتطبيق وجهة نظره في الحكم، الذي يعتقد أنه "لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه".

هذا درس تاريخي على مر تاريخ الشموليات في العالم، ولدينا هنا في مصر، فقد اشتركا العسكر والإخوان في انقلاب يوليو 1952، ثم انقلب العسكر على الإخوان عام 1954، ونفس الشيء حدث عندما تولى السادات الحكم عندما انقلب على رجال ناصر الأقوياء الذين كانوا يشاركونه الحكم. العقلية الجمعية للإخوان تتذكر جيدا انقلاب 1954، وهم أيضا حريصون على عدم تكراره.

قد يكون انقلاب مرسي على المجلس العسكري صعبا خلال السنة الأولى من حكمه، لكن ما أن تستتب الأمور في يده، حتى يسعي إلى هذا الإنقلاب، الذي قد يأخذ شكل ناعم، أو يأخذ شكل صدامي، مستغلا الإختراق الإخواني لبعض قيادات الجيش من خلايا نائمة ستسعي إلى أن تحتل مواقع القيادة، وستقدم خدماتها لمكتب الإرشاد.

سيكسب الإخوان من وراء الإنقلاب على المجلس العسكري شرعية شعبية تعينهم على شراء الوقت لاستتباب الأمور في يدهم، وسيرحب الشعب بالتخلص من المجلس العسكري الذي تلاعب بـ"الثورة"

وبالطبع فإن المجلس العسكري يدرك هذه الإحتمالية وسيعمل على الحيلولة دون حدوثها، وقد يكون ذلك من خلال العمل على عدم استتباب الأمور في يد مرسي، والعمل على ادخال الجماعة في صراع مع القوى المدنية سواء في مرحلة صياغة الدستور أو في الانتخابات البرلمانية المقبلة، وقد يرشح خوف الجيش من سيناريو الانقلاب دعم القوى المدنية للفوز بأغلبية البرلمان المقبل.

انقلاب عسكري ناعم في شهر النكسة

مجدي سمعان

نشر المقال باللغة الإنجليزية قبل جولة الإعادة من الانتخابات الرئاسية في موقع المعهد الأوربي للبحر المتوسط



 

يعرف المصريين شهر يونيو بأنه شهر "النكسة" فهو الشهر الذي هزم فيه الجيش المصري في حرب الأيام الستة أمام اسرئيل. و"نكس" في معاجم اللغة العربية تعني"عودة المرض إلى المريض بعد شفائه" و تعني أيضا: "طأطأ رأسَه ذُلاًّ وانكسارًا." وفي معنى آخر "عاد إلى الضَّلال بعد الرَّشاد". إذا كان نظام عبد الناصر قد سمى"الهزيمة" بلفظ مخفف للتحايل، فإن التعريف الدقيق لكلمة "نكسة" ينطبق على خيارات "الثورة المصرية" خلال شهر يونيو الجاري، فبعدما عاش المصريين نشوة النصر على نظام مبارك، وحلم التحول لدولة تحترم حقوق مواطنيها وتوفر لهم حق الحياة الكريمة، "عيش حرية كرامة إنسانية" نجحت سياسات المؤسسة العسكرية طوال 15 شهرا في جعل الخيارات أمام المصريين كلاها مر، فإما أن يعود نظام الدولة العميقة إلى ممارساته، وإما أن يرحل نظام عسكري شمولي ليأتي نظام ديني-عسكري لا يقل شمولية، وهو ما سيعني إن المصري الذي هتف منتشيا عقب خلع مبارك "إرفع رأسك فوق أنت مصري" سيستمر في النضال من أجل وطن الحرية والعدالة والمساواة.

المفارقة تضع كثير من الأحداث والقرارت المصيرية التي ينتظر المصريين حسمها طوال المرحلة الانتقالية المضطربة في هذا الشهر، وإذا كان أحد تلك الأحداث التي شهدها هذا الشهر، وهو الحكم على الرئيس السابق بالسجن مدى الحياة وتبرئة نجليه ومساعدو وزير الداخلية قد اعتبر على نطاق واسع بأنه "نكسة" فالأحداث المصيرية الأخرى وهي انتخاب رئيس جمهورية جديدة، والاستقرار على اللجنة التأسيسة للدستور ينظر إليها أيضا على أنها ستكون بمثابة "نكسة" جديدة.

أسفرت الجولة الأولى من الانتخابات الرئاسية التي شهدتها البلاد في الفترة من 23 إلى 24مايو الماضي، عن وصول محمد مرسي، مرشح جماعة الإخوان المسلمين، والفريق أحمد شفيق، المنتمي للمؤسسة العسكرية لجولة الإعادة، وهو يضع البلاد أمام خيارين، وهو تحويل الفزاعة التي طالما استخدمها مبارك إلى حقيقة، أو استخدام الفزاعة مرة أخرى لوصول شخصية عسكرية أخرى للحكم.

تقييم لنتائج الانتخابات والعوامل التي حسمتها:

في المؤتمر الصحفي الذي عقده عقب اعلان نتيجة الانتخابات الرئاسية وصف المرشح عبد المنعم أبو الفتوح، الذي حل في المركز الرابع بأنها "هذه ليست الانتخابات النزيهة التي قامت الثورة من أجلها" يشكك الكثيرين في نزاهة الانتخابات، وإنه تم التلاعب في نتيجتها لصالح شفيق.

يشعر القطاع الأكبر من المصريين إنه لم يكن ممثلا في الانتخابات منذ البداية، فالتيار الليبرالي لم يكن ممثلا بعد انسحاب الدكتور محمد البرادعي، واستبعاد الدكتور أيمن نور. كما أن التيار السلفي لم يكن ممثلا بعد استبعاد حازم صلاح أبو اسماعيل، حتى التيار الشعبي الذي يتبنى مبادئ الدولة المركزية المصرية والذي كان متحمسا لترشح عمر سليمان لم يكن متحمسا لشفيق. وإذا أضفنا عدم الثقة في الاجراءات فهذا يفسر انخفاض نسبة المشاركة من حوالي 70% في الانتخابات البرلمانية لنحو 46%.

جاءت نتيجة الانتخابات بمرشحين لا يعبران عن أهداف الثورة، فكلا الخيارين لغالبية المصريين ينطوي على "نكسة" لقيمة أو أكثر سعي المصريين لها. كما يقول الكاتب فهمي هويدي في جريدة الشروق: " الأول (مرسي) يعدنا بمستقبل غامض أما الثانى (شفيق) فيستعيد ماضيا كئيبا." أو كما ينقل عن الشيخ جمال قطب، مسئول الإفتاء السابق بالأزهر "إن خيارنا صار بين تعاطى دواء لم تستطع الشركة المنتجة الترويج له أو إقناع الناس بفاعليته وجدواه، وبين دواء مسرطن يفتك بكل من يتعاطاه ولا أمل فى نجاة من يبتلعه."

واللافت، إن المرشحيين دخلا سباق الرئاسة متأخريين، فجماعة الإخوان المسلمين أعلنت قبل أسبوع واحد فقط من الانتخابات الدفع بمرسي، لكن عنصرا المال والتنظيم لعبا الدور الأهم في ترجيح كفة المرشحان اللذان يخوضان جولة الاعادة، فمحمد مرسي، مع عدم امتلاكه الشعبية الجماهيرية كشخص، لكن القدرات التنظيمية لجماعة الاخوان المسلمين في توجيه أصوات الناخبين من خلال الخدمات التي تقدمها، ساعدته على تصدر الانتخابات. وفي نفس الوقت فقد تم توظيف شبكات الدولة العميقة المتمثلة في قواعد الحزب الوطني المنحل، وجماعة المصالح المرتبطة بالدولة مثل كبار العائلات ورجال الأعمال، أضيف لهم قطاع من الأقباط قلق من وصول التيار الإسلامي للسلطة.

وإذا كان عنصرا المال والتنظيم والدعاية قد لعبا دورا مهما إلا أن ذلك لا ينفي أن كلا من مرسي وشفيق نجحا في مخاطبة هموم ومخاوف لدي الناخبين، فشفيق ركز على إعادة الأمن والإستقرار الإقتصادي، بينما كانت رسائل مرسي واضحة في تطبيق الشريعة الإسلامية.

العوامل التي ستحسم الجولة الثانية:

خلال حديث تلفزيوني مطول امتد حتى الساعة الرابعة من فجر الثلاثاء 5 يونيو على قناة سي بي سي كان واضحا أن شفيق يوجه رسائل محددة لقطاعات معينة من الناخبين، فقد خاطب المخاوف والمطالب لدى الأقباط والنوبين وبدو سيناء، وهي الأقليات التي عانت كثيرا في ظل حكم مبارك، كان أنه كان واضحا أنه يقدم خطابا يعد بإقامة دولة مدنية علمانية، مع استمرار تأكيده على إعادة الأمن للبلاد.

إذا كان نظام مبارك قد استخدم جماعة الإخوان المسلمين كفزاعة، فالمجلس العسكري الحاكم، والمرشح التابع له مستمران في اسستخدام الإخوان كفزاعة، فقد ساهم المجلس العسكري في تقوية التيارات الإسلامية بعد الانتفاضة، عن طريق غض البصر عن مصادر تمويلها الضخمة والتجاوزات التي ارتكبتها خلال الانتخابات البرلمانية، ومن جهة أخرى استفاد من تحالفه معها في شق صف القوى الثورية وإضعافها. والمفارقة المثيرة للسخرية هي أن الإخوان تستخدم نفس أسلوب التخويف من عودة النظام القديم في حالة وصول شفيق للحكم.

كما تحاول جماعة الإخوان المسلمين استغلال الاحتجاجات التي خرجت عقب الأحكام الصادرة في قضية الرئيس مبارك وقيادات وزارة الداخلية للترويج لمرشحها باعتباره المرشح المعبر عن الثورة، لكن شفيق رد على ذلك خلال أحد اللقاءات التلفزيونية متهما الجماعة بأنها كانت أيضا جزءا من النظام القديم مدللا على ذلك بأنهم عقدوا صفقات مع النظام ولعبوا دور المعارضة له.

المؤكد إنه في حالة فوز أي من المرشحين فلن يهدأ الشارع السياسي وستستمر الاحتجاجات بدرجات متفاوتة. لكن هذه المرة فالاحتجاجات سيكون لها قادة حيث وضعت نتيجة الانتخابات المرشحان اللذان جاءا في المرتية الثالثة والمرتبة الرابعة، صباحي وأبو الفتوح كقيادات ميدانية للشارع. ويتوقع أن يلعبا إلى جانب الدكتور محمد البرادعي دورا في توجيه وقيادة الشارع الثوري.

إذا كان مبارك برر الاستمرار في سياساته السلطوية بأن عملية التحول الديمقراطي ينبغي أن تتم بإسلوب الخطوات التدريجية، فبينما كانت الخطوات التدريجية التي اتخذها نظام مبارك كان بمثابة سير في المحل، فإن الإسلاميين كانوا يتخذون خطوات تدريجية حقيقية نحو أسلمة المجتمع، وكان النظام يساعدهم في ذلك من خلال الإعلام والتعليم.والمفارقة أن الإخوان يتحدثون الآن عن خطوات متدرجة، ليس لتحرير المجتمع، وإنما نحو استمرار أسلمته وصولا لتطبيق كامل للشريعة الإسلامية بشكل لا يؤدي إلى رد فعل عكسي.

قبل اسبوعين من الانتخابات الرئاسية طرح حزب الحرية والعدالة مشروع قانون لزيادة رواتب العسكريين بنسبة 400%، كما أجازت قانون القضاء العسكري الذي يعطي حصانة للعسكريين، وينيط بالمحاكم العسكرية نظر الدعاوي التي طرفها عسكريين، ويمكن اعتبار ذلك بمثابة رشوة انتخابية يقدمها الإخوان للجيش لضمان قبوله بنتيجة الانتخابات في حال ما أتت بمرسي.

سيكون من نتاج فوز مرسي استمرار منهج أسلمت المجتمع واستخدام الدين لضرب الحريات العامة أملا في السيطرة على الحركات الشبابية المتنامية المطالبة بالديمقراطية. وسيؤدي إلأى هيمنة الإخوان على المؤسسة التنفيذية، بعد هيمنتهم على المؤسسة التشريعية. يدرك الإخوان إنهم إن لم يستغلوا قوتهم في وقت ضعف المنافسين، فسؤدي مناخ الحرية إلى فقدانهم هذه الميزة ومن ثم قد تنحسر عنهم الأضواء.

أما وصول شفيق للسلطة فسيكون بمثابة فرصة للمؤسسة العسكرية لإعادة ترتيب أوراقها، وضمان استمرار المصالح التي بنيت خلال حقبة مبارك، مع استمرار هيمنة العسكريين على المناصب القيادية، أما انتخاب مرسي سيعطي

Egyptian Presidential Elections: from the First to the Second Round

By Magdy Saman

IEMED Obs

June is known in Egypt as the Month of "Naksa" or "Relapse" - the month in which the Egyptian army was defeated in the Six Day War against Israel in 1967. Arabic dictionaries give as a definition for "relapse": "The return of the disease to the patient after his recovery," and also an alternative "bowing his head in humility and regret." If the Nasser regime gave its defeat a euphemism to downplay it, the term seems exactly appropriate to the options for the "Egyptian revolution" during June this year.

 

Egyptians have lived through the euphoria of the end of the Mubarak regime, and the dream of the transition to a state that respects the rights of its citizens and provides them with right to a decent life - "bread, freedom, human dignity" was the slogan - but they have ended up in the forthcoming presidential election with the same choice as before between the military and the Islamists. They must either go back to the practices of Mubarak's "deep state", or submit to an Islamic regime, which would mean that the people who shouted, after ousting President Hosni Mubarak, "Raise your head up, you are Egyptian" will have to continue in the struggle for freedom, justice and equality.

 This paradox brings a lot of fateful issues that Egyptians have been waiting to resolve during the long, messy transition period to a head in this unfortunate month. If the sentence against ousted President Hosni Mubarak of life imprisonment, and the acquittal of his two sons and of aides to the Interior Minister, were widely seen as a "relapse", upcoming events such as electing a new president and choosing the Constituent Assembly are further scenarios of possible "relapse ".

The first round of the election has brought Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister of ousted President Hosni Mubarak, and the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Mursi, into a run-off scheduled for June 16-17.

On June 14, just two days before that, the Supreme Court will begin considering whether Shafiq should be able to run at all. The court will be weighing the constitutionality of the so-called “political law of isolation,” passed by the new Islamist-dominated parliament, which bans former senior Mubarak allies from participating in politics for the next five years.

The court also will begin hearing a complaint about the constitutionality of the Law of Parliamentary Elections issued by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF), which allowed members of political parties to run for seats normally reserved for independent candidates.

There are two possible scenarios: the first is to postpone the election, depending on the ruling of the Supreme Court, and return once again to discussion of setting new dates for presidential and parliamentary elections. That would mean the continuation of SCAF rule, with a possibility of new uprising. The second is to continue with the election on its current timing, and install as the new president either the military figure Shafiq or the Islamist Mursi.

Many Egyptians question the integrity of the result of the first round of the presidential election, asserting that it was manipulated in favor of Shafiq. In a press conference held after the announcement of election results, presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who comes in fourth place, said: "This is not the fair and free election for which the Revolution came to the streets".

 The result brought two candidates into the run-off who does not reflect the goals of the "revolution". Both candidates for the majority of Egyptians invoke a "relapse" from the values that Egyptians were seeking. As Fahmy Howeidi, the prominent Egyptian Islamic writer, concluded in an article in Al-Shorouk newspaper: "The first (Mursi) promises us a vague future, while the second (Shafiq) will return us to the bleak past." He also quoted Sheikh Gamal Kotb, a former Al-Azhar Fatwa official, as saying: "Our choice has become between taking a drug which its manufacturing company has been banned from promoting or persuading of its efficacy, or a carcinogenic drug that kills whoever takes it."

The largest sector of the Egyptians feels that they are not represented in the elections. As a result, there have been strong calls to boycott the election or to go and spoil the ballot.

The two nominees who are competing in the run-off entered the presidential race in the last moment. The Muslim Brotherhood announced its participation in the election only one week before the date of nominations, but its financial and organizational capacity played a strong role in promoting its candidate, even though he is widely felt to lack charisma. Shafiq also started his official campaign late, but the support he got from the deep state networks pushed him forward.

The Brotherhood lost all its elections before 1952 to secular parties. In 1952, a group of military officers – many of them members of the Brotherhood – staged a coup that brought an end to Egypt’s nascent experiment in democracy. Since then, the military establishment has used the Brotherhood as a scarecrow to justify the suppression of democracy, while at the same time tolerating the Islamization of society at the hands of the Brotherhood.

The scarecrow was used to circumvent democratic demands during the first Arab spring witnessed by Egypt and Palestine in 2005 and 2006. Islamist electoral victories – in which the Egyptian Brotherhood won 20 percent of the seats in Parliament following a deal with the Mubarak regime and Hamas won 57 percent of seats in the Palestinian Parliament – gave authoritarian regimes a pretext for scaling back democratic reforms as a counterweight to the rise of political Islam.

It seems now as if the military candidate is reaping the harvest overseen by that scarecrow during the current tricky transition. Both military and Islamists seem to be the major beneficiaries from the January uprising. They exchange interests through their announced alliance as well as secret deals. They both help each other: first the Islamists helped SCAF control the demands of the uprising by supporting the military's schedule for the transitional period, beginning with its support of the key constitutional amendments, which allowed the division of political power between the two camps, Islamists and "civil powers"; then at the same time SCAF assisted the Islamist parties win the majority in the parliament through closing its eyes to the suspicious funding which enabled them to dominate the election by illegal practices such as indirectly buying poor people's votes and manipulating illiterate people by using religion in political competition.

But at the same time we shouldn't ignore the possibility of a conflict inside the military institution, which can itself enable the Brotherhood, a scenario which can serve to help control society by the application of religious laws.

Two weeks before the presidential election the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party drafted a bill to increase the salaries of military personnel 400%, and passed the Military Justice Code, which gives immunity to military personnel and (Magdy: Didn't understand this bit) entrusts to military courts the consideration of claims that its tip the military, which has been seen as a sort of election bribe by the Brotherhood to ensure the acceptance of election results in the event that Mursi succeeded.

Shafiq present himself as the civil candidate versus the Islamic state project presented by MB candidate Mursi, while Mursi is trying to present himself as the revolution candidate, but for many Egyptian neither Shafiq nor Mursi are representing the civil state or the revolution goals, as the first is comes from the military and his policies will keep its upper hand on the political arena, and the second will work for a religious state.

If Mursi wins, the Brotherhood will continue to dominate the political scene by controlling executive power, as well as legislative power, and it will be in a strong position to apply Islamic law in a clear collision with public freedoms and even, some fear, democratic values. This is not incompatible with military control of society, only using God's word as its tool. The Brotherhood is aware that if it does not exploit its position at a time when its competitors are weak, it will lose its advantage in the face of the freer atmosphere that would be brought about if Egypt really did turn into a substantive democracy. It will continue Islamizing society by using religion to attack civil liberties and the growing youth movements to control the growing pro-democracy movement, but the hard political and economic situation in Egypt can nevertheless be an obstacle to the total success of the Muslim Brotherhood in tightening its control over the country.

If Shafiq wins it will be an opportunity for the military to re-arrange its position in the country, and ensure the continuation of interests that were built up during the era of Mubarak, with the continued dominance of the military leadership.

In any case, whoever wins, Shafiq or Mursi, the military will keep controlling the country from behind the scene, and the dynamic revolutionary trends will feel that they were defeated, and that their demands have not been fulfilled yet, and the presidential election will be coronation of a military coup. That suggests that protests will continue in varying degrees.

Syria massacre: UN observers greeted by smell of rotting flesh

The sight that met the first United Nations observers to visit the Syrian hamlet of al-Qubeir yesterday was of homes gutted and burned. The smell in the air was rotting flesh.

By Ruth Sherlock, Beirut and Magdy Samaan

7:15PM BST 08 Jun 2012

On Wednesday, some 78 people were massacred inside this hamlet. Yesterday, farmhouses stood charred and abandoned, with pools of congealed blood in dusty streets. Fragments of mortar bombs lay mingled with cooking pots and other hurriedly abandoned possessions. Bloodstained clothes and shoes lay scattered. Flies buzzed around the bloated corpse of a donkey.

Then came evidence of the murders; a stick smeared in blood, bullet holes scarring a wall. One eyewitness saw a piece of brain outside a building. Others testified to the smell of burnt flesh.

"I have not seen anything like this since Bosnia," said one UN monitor.

Laith al-Hemary, one of the few survivors, said: "The village is empty, there is nobody left. The houses are burned. The mosque is destroyed.

"The UN monitors saw the bullets and sticks that were used to kill people."

Video footage showed a woman in full black burka standing alone in the desecrated village screaming: "Assad did this. Security forces killed our boys".
No bodies were found in the village. Activists told the Daily Telegraph that many had been swiftly buried in line with Islamic tradition. "We waited and waited for the monitors to come on Thursday, but they did not. We held funerals and buried them," said Mr Hemary.
Who perpetrated the crime has yet to proven. Residents described the massacre as an act of sectarian revenge, blaming pro-government militiamen from the minority Alawite sect of President Bashar al-Assad.
A 35-year-old female survivor using the pseudonym Fatma al-Hamory told the Daily Telegraph of the moment the attackers arrived. If true, her account implicates the regime's security forces in a massacre that counted among the bloodiest incidents since the onset of Syria's uprising.
"When it happened, I was 200 meters away," she said. "I was taking some food to my brother who was out irrigating our land.
"[When the attack began] my brother ran back to our house. They [the perpetrators] shot him in the leg, and hit him at his head. And then they placed him on a tank and took him".
"They were shouting; 'Assad or we burn the country'."
As the opposition Syrian National Council blamed the regime for the killings, rebel fighters went on the offensive against government forces.
Lieutenant Khaled Ali, spokesman for the opposition Military Council in the nearby city of Hama, said they undertook two operations yesterday, both in "revenge for the Qubeir massacre". Rebels of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) attacked three checkpoints with rocket-propelled grenades, capturing one, and destroyed three tanks, he said.
The escalation reached the capital, Damascus, where a bomb was reported to have killed two soldiers on a military bus.
Describing the peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, as "dead", Lt Ali added: "We have the capacity to step up operations more than this... but not to the point of winning control of the whole country if we do it alone. We are fighting a strong national army that has been arming itself for 40 years."

Daily Telegraph

Syria: full horror of al-Qubeir masacre emerges

The voice of Laith al-Hemary's brother whispered on the mobile phone: "There are shouts and screams coming from outside," he said. "They are killing everyone they find." Then the line went dead.

By Ruth Sherlock, Beirut and Magdy Samaan in Cairo

6:35PM BST 07 Jun 2012

This was the last time that Mr Hemary, 30, spoke to his brother before he was killed inside the family home in the Syrian hamlet of al-Qubeir on Wednesday.

He was among 78 victims who are believed to have died in a frenzied onslaught in this village in a farming district some 15 miles from the city of Hama.

The full horror of the atrocity was betrayed by bloody videos of mutilated children's bodies and charred corpses.

In a few hours, almost the entire population of al-Qubeir was massacred in what appears to have been one of the bloodiest incidents since the start of the Syrian uprising.

Forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad were responsible, according to opposition activists. They said that regular forces were working in tandem with a pro-government militia, known as the Shabiha, recruited largely from Mr Assad's minority Alawite sect.

The regime's troops began the attack on Wednesday afternoon with a heavy artillery barrage, said the activists. Then Shabiha militiamen entered the hamlet armed with sticks, guns and knives. They attacked homes and farmhouses, shooting and slaughtering all the inhabitants they could find.
Mr Hemary and his cousin were among only a handful of survivors of the massacre. "I could see thick smoke rising from al-Qubeir," he said. "I called my brother constantly on the mobile. He was hiding in our home. He told me cars full of Shabiha had come to the village and were attacking everyone and burning houses."
At 5.10pm, three hours after the attack began, Mr Hemary's brother's voice died away and he stopped answering his calls. Pushing open the door of his home several hours later, Mr Hemary found the bodies of his mother, three sisters and three brothers lying bloodied on the ground.
"They had been beaten on the head by sticks and stabbed with knives," he said. "I went to other homes. I saw family after family slaughtered by knives."
After the militia departed and al-Qubeir fell quiet later that evening, people from nearby villages ventured into the stricken hamlet. "I saw a two-month-old child without a head," said Abou Hisham al-Hamouli, who lives in a village just over a mile from al-Qubeir. "I saw the burnt corpse of a woman. Her two children were wrapped around, hugging her. They died like that. There were two many burnt bodies."
Other eyewitnesses reported how the militiamen sang songs in praise of Mr Assad.
A former soldier who joined the rebel Free Syrian Army said that he reached the village within hours of the massacre, but left quickly because Syrian government troops were still in the area. "I went into houses and saw children without a head, and others without arms. Some were burned and some were without eyes," he said.
There were only five known survivors, he added. The exact number of victims could not be confirmed, but people from the nearby village of Maarizab said they had buried 57 corpses. A further thirty bodies were missing and had not yet been buried, said activists.
With almost no foreign reporters in Syria, the accounts of what happened in this remote farming village cannot be independently verified.
The massacre comes less than two weeks after an atrocity in the town of al-Houla in Homs province, where eyewitnesses blamed the killing on the same Shabiha milita.

Mubarak is jailed for life over role in 850 murders

Egypt's ex-dictator sent to prison where former enemies were held


For nearly 30 years he was the pharaoh-like ruler whose word was law, the plunderer of billions of pounds of government money and controller of Egypt's brutal police state.

Before the judge issued his verdict some soldiers were eating Ice Cream to break the hot weather

Photo by Magdy Samaan

By Nick Meo and Magdy Samaan in Cairo

Sunday June 03 2012

Last night Hosni Mubarak began a new life as a convicted murderer. A broken and humiliated man of 84, he was flown by helicopter to Torah prison -- where many of his enemies had once been jailed -- just two hours after hearing a Cairo judge pronounce a life sentence on him for complicity in the murder of 850 protesters.

He appeared to be in tears and at first refused to leave the plane as he realised that he had not been taken to the military hospital where he had spent most of the nine months since his trial began.

Last night, amid rumours that he might have suffered a heart attack, he was in the hospital wing of the Cairo prison -- the first leader toppled by his own people in the Arab Spring to attend his own trial and be jailed in one of his own prisons.

Convicted alongside him was Habib al-Adly, the former interior minister and a loyal ally, who had been in charge of the nation's internal security as police cracked down on demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir Square, and in town and cities across Egypt, during a week of intense violence at the end of January last year.

But Mubarak was cleared of corruption charges, along with his two sons, Alaa and Gamal, who are said to have amassed a €265m fortune during their father's rule and who still face a separate trial for insider trading.

To the fury of the crowd waiting outside the courtroom -- in a former police barracks north of Cairo, protected by a phalanx of riot police -- six other security officials and senior policemen were acquitted of the charges against them, and so was a property developer friend of the Mubaraks accused of offering them bribes.

For the mothers, fathers and brothers and sisters of slain protesters gathered outside, it was a moment of intense emotion when Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison -- although most had wanted him hanged. But then the crowd grasped that Mubarak's henchmen, those they hold directly responsible for killing their friends and relatives, were not going to prison. The mood suddenly changed.

A young woman screamed at the riot police, who had minutes earlier been eating ice cream in the hot sunshine and were soon firing stun grenades to help ward off the angry crowd.

Inside the court, Mubarak, wearing dark glasses, showed little emotion as Judge Ahmed Refaat described the popular protest that had been crushed by his regime. "It was a ray of white, bright hope for the great people of Egypt, dreaming of a better future," he said.

Mubarak's sons looked dismayed as the verdicts were read out, even though they were acquitted. But many in the courtroom reacted angrily at the acquittal of most of those on trial. In particular, there was astonishment at the acquittal of the police chiefs who were in control during the week of most intense bloodshed.

Sunday Telegraph

Egyptians choose their leader for first time in 5,000 years

There are no more pharaohs any more. One by one, the men who would rule over Egypt's 80 million people arrived at their polling stations, posed for the cameras, and with self-consciously modest smiles walked to the back of the queue.

By Richard Spencer, and Magdy Samaan in Cairo

6:55PM BST 23 May 2012

It never used to be like this. The moment Egyptians finally lost their respect for President Hosni Mubarak, whose joyless grin dominated their lives for three decades, came when a state newspaper carried a photograph of Middle East leaders at the White House grotesquely photoshopped to show him standing not behind but in front of President Obama.

Now men like Amr Moussa, used to receiving sheikhs and monarchs with due pomp and ceremony as head of the Arab League, and Mohammed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood have waited decades for their chance at power, had to wait behind their fellow citizens, like everybody else.

There were few overt signs of celebration on this, the first of two days of voting in Egypt's presidential elections, at how everything had changed.

There was enthusiasm that voters would get to choose their leader for the first time in 5,000 years of glorious history, but no whoops or fireworks.

Some of the excitement of the Tahrir Square revolution last year has undoubtedly worn off, and voters are nervous too about what lies in store

It has not been a clean transition of power, and there is not even as yet a constitution laying out what powers the new leader will have.

Many voters are disappointed with the choice of candidates, even though there are 13 of them - none would be said even by their supporters to have both the hoped-for charisma and a detailed plan to rescue Egypt from poverty and chaos.
But many also seemed to realise this was not such a bad thing - that having a choice at all was as important as how to exercise it; and that, barring some new dictatorship, they would have second chances, to vote out the man they now vote in should he disappoint them.
Some of the young liberals who brought this day about by fighting the police, their rifles and their tear gas, chose to boycott the vote, complaining it had become a contest between "felloul" - remnants of the old regime - and Islamists who did not share their modern values. They also feel that, whoever wins, the military will not give up its power lightly.
Though there were no official figures, turn-out was reported to be significantly lower than at the parliamentary elections in December and January.
The performance of parliament, which often appears to television viewers to be little more than an argumentative rabble, has been held to damage the chances of the Brotherhood, which is the largest party.
It may have dented democratic confidence altogether, and certainly far more voters than last year's revolutionary fervour would suggest said they were voting for Ahmed Shafiq, the "felloul" candidate, a former air force general and Mr Mubarak's last prime minister.
But most who did turn out thought a boycott a wasted opportunity. "If you boycott the elections now, when will you participate?" asked Bassem Mohammed Sayed, 38, an accountant. "This is something we have never seen before - the first time we have had an election and we don't know the winner in advance."
Mohammed Abdul Aziz, a teacher, said it was a celebration. His main concern was that whoever won, the choice would be respected. "I think the election will be fair," said Omar al-Sioufi, 25, at a polling station in the middle class Cairo district of Mohandessin. "I don't trust the army, but the Egyptian people know how to protest." No-one thought the vote would be perfect. There have been several reports of vote-buying, particularly by the campaigns of Mr Shafiq and Mr Morsi.
There were breaches of an election law banning active campaigning in the two days of voting, with Mr Shafiq giving press conferences and interviews in his own cause.
Farouk Sultan, the head of the presidential election commission, said these two campaigns and that of the "moderate Islamist" Abdulmoneim Aboul Fotouh would be referred to the prosecutor's office, though he also stressed the alleged breaches were not serious.
People often did not know what to do. One complainant to Mr Sultan was an elderly man whose hand was shaking so much he asked the polling station's presiding judge to mark his ballot for him - and then claimed the man had ticked the wrong box.
Oliga Yusef, 80, coming out of a polling station in Cairo, said: "I cannot read or write. I asked the man inside what to do, and he said I should mark whoever I liked - so I ticked a box, but I have no idea who I voted for."
By no means perfect, then. But even those who did not know how to vote, knew why it was important. "I came here for my sons, so that they can have a better future," Mrs Yusef said, walking off proudly.

Syria Houla massacre: 'for hours I heard the screams of women and children, and always gunshots'

The killers at Houla were casual: casual in the ease with which they killed and maimed, casual in their language, casual in the way they left survivors to describe their crimes.

By Ruth Sherlock, Magdy Samaan and Richard Spencer

9:03PM BST 29 May 2012

Fawzia, a mother of four daughters, fainted after she was shot through the hand. The men who were firing indiscriminately at her family made no effort to finish her off. When she came to, the scene that greeted her was one of horror.

"When I regained consciousness, I looked around, and I found my daughters dead," she told The Daily Telegraph by telephone from Houla yesterday, still weeping uncontrollably. "One of them – her hand was cut off. My cousin and her four sons were killed. My sister and her a six-week-old daughter were killed.

"I want someone to save us. Where can I go, where in the world is there anyone to protect us? What is the guilt of a six-week-old child?"

One of Fawzia daughters, aged six, had in fact also survived. She came to the telephone to speak, but could not. She has not spoken since Friday night, when the militia struck, her mother says.

The militia, who by the universal agreement of the victims were armed gangs from nearby Alawite villages loyal to President Bashar al-Assad, arrived as Houla came under a fierce bombardment of tank and artillery fire.

Fawzia said in her shock, as she took in the scene afterwards, she fled to the roof of her house. "I looked out from the rooftop, and I found them burning the houses around. They killed the Othman family, who lived next door."
As rescuers arrived, they found a scene of chaos, with smoke rising from the houses, children screaming for their mothers and paramilitaries still running through the street; in fact, more were still arriving by bus, said an activist who was one of the first on the scene, and gave his name as Abu Jawfer. Still the shells continued to fall.
They were forced to hide for several hours as the paramilitaries continued their work.
"For hours I heard the screams of women and three times of children, and always gunshots," Abu Jawfer said. "Then the voices stopped. The silence was the most terrible thing.
"We moved into the first house. There were bodies everywhere. The mother behind the door was motionless but alive. She had been kicked in the chest, her eyes were open and she had watched her children be slaughtered. We counted 14 dead. The father's skull was crushed. They had killed him by beating him with the butt of a gun. He had been the first to die. The children had all been shot.
The men moved from house to house, discovering room after room of slain men, women and children.
"I started trying to carry the bodies away. We carried children who had holes in their eye sockets, who had had a gun put to their right ear and the bullet had gone straight through. Some had cut necks, others severed limbs. One woman had run outside to defend her husband. They shot him in front of her. In the panic she fled, forgetting her children. They killed her children. Now she is crying, crippled with guilt."
More than 10,000 families have moved to other parts of Houla, further away from the front line. But yesterday activists contacted in the town said the shelling had continued overnight, and snipers continued to rake the street.
"Some are sleeping out in the fields," Abu Jawfar said. "They are too frightened to go home and have nowhere to go.
"I can never forget what I saw in Houla. It keeps coming back to me, every horrible detail. What happened is unimaginable. It is not human."

The Dream of Creative Arab Youths in the Face of the U.S. Administration’s Old Strategies

Magdy Samaan
Fikra Forum


If you ask the average man on the street in Egypt, “What role should the United States play in supporting democracy in Egypt?” he will answer with the question, “Does the U.S. truly want to support democracy in Egypt?!” or say, “Leave us in our situation."


This is not only the sentiment of the average person you meet, but also that of Arab liberals, who once bet on President Bush's freedom agenda for the Middle East, but have now become skeptical of the sincerity of U.S. intentions after the U.S. administration failed them and left them in the middle of the road. The United States’ credibility has been losing ground among people in the Arab world, especially with the issue of foreign organizations operating in Egypt, which has greatly tainted the image of the United States. The Military Council portrayed these organizations as dens of spies working against the Egyptian revolution.


More so, the U.S. has lost much of its credibility due to its two-faced discourse witnessed over the past decades, chanting slogans in support of democracy and human rights while simultaneously supporting non-democratic regimes on the ground. So, the question now is not “How can the U.S. support democracy in Egypt?” but rather, “How can the U.S. repair its relationship with the Egyptian people?” Sooner or later, the U.S. will have to deal with whomever the Egyptian people choose.


During her testimony in the case of foreign organizations operating in Egypt, Egyptian Minister of Planning and International Cooperation, Fayza Abul Naga, stated that the “goal of the U.S. in financing organizations during the period between 2005 and 2010 was to put some pressure on the former regime that would not amount to aborting it.” She also noted that the United States was aiming at provoking weak actors in the former regime who would comply with its wishes and improve its image internationally as caretakers of human rights by funding these organizations.


In my opinion, there does not seem to be any fundamental change in the U.S. strategy in dealing with Egypt and the countries of the Arab spring. While Arab youths have used creative ideas to overcome the control of the ruling authority, which is on its way to extinction, the U.S. administration has used the same classic strategy that it has used since the end of colonialism after World War II. This strategy is essentially the alliance with authoritarian regimes hated by their people, and can be controlled by waving principles of freedom and democracy before the American people, which disturbs these regimes.


Training programs relating to the support of democracy are the last thing that Egyptians need right now; there is a strong political road that knows what it wants. The obstacle hindering democracy in Egypt does not lie in their ignorance of how it works, but in the fact that the ruling army in control of the country has no political will for this to happen. We need Washington to stop taking the side of anti-democratic forces in Egypt, whether at home or abroad, and the Egyptians themselves will take care of the rest that needs to be achieved.


The deposed President Hosni Mubarak used the Islamists and the preservation of peace in the Middle East as tools to block democracy. The same cards used by Mubarak can be reversed and used to support democracy by pressuring for peace in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians on the one hand and pressuring Islamists to comply with the essence of the democratic system on the other hand.


Islamists represent an obstacle to the democratic transition in Egypt. Until now, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic religious parties cannot be considered democratic forces. The unfolding conflict in Egypt since the uprising of January 2011 can be summarized as a conflict between democratic forces and non-democratic forces, the Military Council and Islamic movements on one side and the democratic civil forces on the other. When Dr. Mohamed El Baradei withdrew from the upcoming presidential elections, having been the most prominent competing civil force, the power struggle in Egypt in the presidential elections scheduled for later this month shifted to a competition between two forces that have a tainted and questionable understanding of democracy.


The U.S. position in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to reach power was one of the main reasons for the group to reverse their decision not to compete for power in Egypt. The MB is aware that the economic situation in Egypt does not hold them responsible for international isolation similar to Iran or even Gaza. It is not required to exclude Islamists--that is unrealistic and ineffective--but their commitment to democratic norms--to which they have not complied so far--is required. The United States should tell us in advance its position in the event that the Islamists do not abide by the terms of a democratic system established by the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which was stated repeatedly. In case of their access to power, will the U.S. deal with them in that case or not?


Perhaps the Military Council, an ally of Washington, has succeeded in aborting the revolution, while reproducing a façade of a democratic system, directing it from behind the scenes to save their interests as well as the international and narrow regional interests, which is the same as what Washington wants. However, controlling the aspirations of the people in the Arab world is difficult. Young people leading political movements on the street now have a dream like the dream of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mandela, a dream to be part of the free world and part of a homeland that provides a free and dignified life for them. Standing by their side is in the best interest of peace and mutual interests.


When American principles are in conflict with their interests, the U.S. administration prefers interests than principles, which is their right and duty, but the game of dual speech, secretly working for their interests and improving their image by pretending to support democracy, has already been revealed and is unacceptable. Egyptians will not accept that anybody uses their blood to improve their image. More so, the U.S. government has to look for a new formula when dealing with the Middle East and take the people into consideration as a first step in repairing their relationship with the growing Egyptian street, rather than repairing the collapsing Military regime.

حلم الشباب العربي المبدع في مواجهة الازدواجية الأمريكية التقليدية

مجدي سمعان

منتدى فكرة

10-5-2012

لو سألت رجل الشارع العادي في مصر عما يجب على الولايات المتحدة فعله لدعم الديمقراطية في مصر، سيرد عليك إما بالسؤال مستنكرا: "وهل حقا تريد الولايات المتحدة دعم الديمقراطية في مصر؟!" أو بالقول: "يتركوننا في حالنا"

ليس فقط رجل الشارع العادي، فحتى الليبراليين العرب، الذي راهن قطاع منهم على أجندة الرئيس بوش للحريات في الشرق الأوسط، أصبحوا الآن متشككين في صدق النوايا الأمريكية، بعد أن خذلتهم الإدارة الأمريكية وتركتهم في منتصف الطريق.

فقدت الولايات المتحدة كثير من مصداقيتها بسبب خطابها المزدوج على مدار عقود بترديد شعارات دعم الديمقراطية وحقوق الانسان من ناحية، ودعم أنظمة غير ديمقراطية على أرض الواقع من ناحية أخرى. والسؤال الآن ليس في كيفية دعم الولايات المتحدة للديمقراطية في مصر، ولكن في كيفية ترميم علاقاتها مع الشعب المصري، فإن إجلا أم عاجلا سيكون على الولايات المتحدة التعامل مع من يختاره هذا الشعب.

خلال شهادتها في قضية المنظمات الأجنبية العاملة في مصر، قالت فايزة أبو النجا، وزيرة التخطيط والتعاون الدولي المصرية، إن الهدف الأمريكي من تمويل المنظمات خلال الفترة بين عامي 2005 و2010 "كان ضغط على النظام السابق بدرجة لا تصل إلى حد إسقاطه."وأشارت إلى أن الولايات المتحدة كانت تستهدف إثارة القلاقل في النظام السابق بما يرسخ الخضوع لها، إلى جانب تحسين صورتها دولياً كراعية لحقوق الإنسان عبر تمويل تلك المنظمات.

لا يبدو لي أن تغيرا جوهريا قد طرأ على تلك الاستراتيجية الأمريكية في التعامل مع مصر ودول الربيع العربي. وبينما يستخدم الشباب العربي أفكارا مبدعة في مواجهة محاولات السيطرة من قبل السلطة الحاكمة، تستخدم الإدارة الأمريكية نفس الاستراتيجية الكلاسيكية، التي استخدمتها منذ سقوط الاستعمار القديم عقب الحرب العالمية الثانية، التحالف مع الأنظمة الشمولية المكروه من شعوبها، والتي يسهل التحكم فيها بالتلويح بالمبادئ الأمريكية في الحرية والديمقراطية، التي تزعج تلك الأنظمة.

إن برامج التدريب المتعلقة بدعم الديمقراطية هي آخر ما يحتاجه المصريين الآن، فهناك شارع سياسي قوي يعرف ما يريد، فالعائق أمام الديمقراطية ليس في جهل المصريين بآالياتها، وإنما في غياب الإرادة السياسية لدى الجيش المتحكم في إدارة البلاد. إن المطلوب من واشنطن هو الكف عن الوقوف في صف القوى المعادية للديمقراطية في مصر سواء في الداخل أو الخارج، وسيتكفل المصريون بباقي المهمة المنوط بهم وحدهم تحقيقها.

استخدم الرئيس المخلوع حسني مبارك ورقة الإسلاميين والسلام في الشرق الأوسط كأدوات لضرب الديمقراطية، وقد يكون اللعب بنفس أوراق مبارك مدخلا لدعم الديمقراطية، وأقصد بذلك الضغط من أجل احلال سلام عادل في الشرق الأوسط بين الإسرئيليين والفلسطينيين من ناحية، الضغط على الإسلاميين للإلتزام بجوهر النظام الديمقراطي، ومن ناحية أخرى.

يمثل الإسلاميون عقبة أمام التحول الديمقراطي في مصر. لا يمكن اعتبار الإخوان المسلمين أو الأحزاب الدينية الإسلامية الأخرى قوى ديمقراطية حتى الآن. يمكن تلخيص الصراع الدائر في مصر منذ انتفاضة يناير 2011 بأنه صراع ما بين القوى الديمقراطية والقوى غير الديمقراطية، المجلس العسكري والتيارات الإسلامية من ناحية، والقوى المدنية الديمقراطية من ناحية. حين خرج الدكتور محمد البرادعي، مرشح القوى المدنية الأبرز من المنافسة على الرئاسة، أصبح صراع السلطة في مصر في الانتخابات الرئاسية المقرر اجرائها أواخر الشهر الجاري بين القوتين التي يشوب مفهومهما للديمقراطية علامات استفهام.

كان الموقف الأمريكي، غير الممانع من وصول الإخوان المسلمين للسلطة، هو أحد الأسباب الرئيسية لتراجع الجماعة عن قرارها بعدم المنافسة على الحكم في مصر. يدرك الإخوان أن الوضع الإقتصادي في مصر لا يجعلها تتحمل عزلة دولية شبيهة بإيران أو حتى غزة. ليس مطلوبا اقصاء الإسلاميين، فهذا أمر غير واقعي وغير فعال، وإنما المطلوب دفعهم على الالتزام بالقواعد الديمقراطية، التي لا يلتزمون بها حتى الآن. على الولايات المتحدة أن تخبرنا مقدما عن موقفها في حالة ما لم يلتزم الإسلاميون بشروط النظام الديمقراطي التي وضعتها وزيرة الخارجية الأمريكية هيلاري كلينتون في تصريحتها المتكررة، في حالة وصولهم إلى السلطة. هل ستتعامل معهم في تلك الحالة أم لا؟

قد يكون المجلس العسكري، حليف واشنطن، قد نجح في اجهاض الثورة، ويعمل على إعادة انتاج نظام ديمقراطي صوري يوجهه من خلف الستار لحفظ مصالحه والمصالح الدولية والإقليمية الضيقة، وهو نفس ما تريده واشنطن، لكن السيطرة على تطلعات الشعوب العربية هو أمر صعب، فالشباب الذين يقودون الشارع السياسي الآن لديهم حلم شبيه بحلم غاندي ومارتن لوثر كينج ومانديلا، حلم أن يكونوا جزء من العالم الحر، وجزء من وطن يوفر لهم حياة حرة كريمة. إن الوقوف في صف هؤلاء هو ما سيصب في صالح السلام والمصالح المتبادلة.

حين تتعارض المبادئ الأمريكية مع مصالها فإن الإدارة الأمريكية تفضل المصالح على المبادئ، وهذا حقها وواجبها، لكن لعبة الخطاب المزدوج، بالعمل سرا من أجل المصالح والتجمل بالتظاهر بدعم الديمقراطية، أصبحت لعبة مكشوفة وغير مقبولة، فلن يقبل المصريين أن يتجمل أحد بدمائهم. وعلى الحكومة الأمريكية أن تبحث عن صيغة جديدة للتعامل مع الشرق الأوسط تضع الشعوب في اعتبارها، وأولى الخطوات هى ترميم العلاقة مع الشارع المصري الصاعد بدلا من ترميم النظام العسكري المنهار.