Shadows of Protest: Reflections of protesters in water used to put out a fire at Cairo's ministry of interior this week, after police demanded the interior minister's resignation. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
It was an impressive election, for a first: Egyptians went to the polls earlier this week to decide whether to speed up the election process. Some 41 percent turned out, and 77 percent approved changes such as imposing strangely western-like term limits on the presidency: no more than two four-year terms. The president would have to appoint a deputy. The amendments were the military's idea, drawn up by a judicial panel under its--should we say boot? To some extent, yes: the military is in control, and has been all along since the revolution began. Its choice not to step in was one of its strategically most astute moves, reinforcing rather than undermining its power. It's not using that power--as a power-broker.
But why are reformers worried that the referendum is a set up for a conservative succession to Hosni Mubarak, a succession where the younger, more liberal voice of the revolution is sidelined? Because the military is not about to relinquish power. The military is an essentially conservative institution, its hand in large swaths of the economy (it manufactures its own products, it runs its own businesses). But it doesn't have a an overt political arm. So reformers are also worried about what looks like an unholy alliance between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood backed the referendum because it is limited in scope, and narrows reforms to a few potentially cosmetic rather than far-reaching changes. It also speeds up the process, enabling its own political machinery, which is extensive, to outflank anyone else's, which must be started from scratch. The Brotherhood appears already to be in full demagogue-electioneering mode. It circulated the following flier in the streets of Egypt before the vote, urging constituents to approve the changes if they didn't want broader, more secular changes to be implemented: "The problem is that our country will be without a religion," the flier read. "This means that the call to the prayer will not be heard anymore like in the case of Switzerland, women will be banned from wearing the hijab like in the case of France. And there will be laws that allow men to get married to men and women to get married to women like in the case of America."
The Brotherhood isn't about to take over Egypt. Far from it. But religious forces, particularly the Brotherhood, know that they can assert themselves best in a vacuum, before it's too late. This is their moment. They can't asser themselves too overtly, too strongly: Egypt is not Iran, and Egyptians don't want a Salafist, hard-right religious state on their hands. They're conservative, yes, but not fanatical about it, and certainly not eager to put their economic fortunes at the mercy of an Islamic regime. The problem isn't a lack of aspirations, but of leaders able to articulate the alternative to the conservatives and the military.
The voice of the revolution was young, vibrant and untrained. It's still looking for its director. Meanwhile, the military and the Brotherhood will gladly continue to set the tone.
See Also:
Comments