´óÏó´«Ã½

Same interview could have happened in the 1640's talking to Cavaliers and Roundheads. Democracy takes a generation. Media lacks patience..deadlines, you understand.

Ìý
Re: Freedom and Justice & al-Nour parties:

Having been voted in, would they allow themselves to be voted out?


"It's much too soon to tell."


People being permitted to voice differing opinions is a good sign. Long may it continue.

To fetishise western democracy as in some way an ideal is naïve. What matters is well expressed in the ideals of revolutionary France liberté, égalité et fraternité. Being free from unjust oppression, having the same rights under the law (and the same duties) and a feeling of brotherhood and mutual support for and by ones neighbours.

We in the west are in by no means ideal societies - there is increasing unfairness all around with the rich and well connected sucking up the wealth of the poor. However we do have constitutions that purport to provide equality under the law. Getting from an autocratic dictatorship to something approaching the French ideal takes time (or even the British revolutionary ideal!)

But what is certainly wrong is the imposition of one way of achieving greater equality. The key is to work towards the abolition of corruption and selfishness in every society. The abolition of Clarksonism in every aspect of life!

The question always arises as the purpose of the revolutionary elite. One answer has to be the negative - that is what they should hot achieve. They should not work towards dynastic quasi-regal dominance by the new elite - if this is the outcome then they have failed.

The rich and wealthy have to be constrained by law and in fact or corruption take over to the exclusion of all other aspects of life. This requires and independent judiciary and equal access to law. The police and investigating authorities my also be free from corruption and one focused upon the fairness agenda.

I'll stop now as thousands of books and learned treatises have been written on the subject over the years.

In essence all administrations can be judged by the very simple measures of fairness - is the society fairer after their term in office than it was before - if not they are a failure.

It is as yet impossible to reasonable conclude anything about the Arab Spring, in Tunisia, Egypt. But the mode of assessment I suggest above works for all countries and all administrations.

They are good if the society is fairer afterwards and vice versa!

Egypt's military rulers are still hoping parliamentary elections will help them regain the upper hand, by co-opting Islamist & liberal parties & isolating militants.
Large numbers of people who greeted the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) as heroes for ousting Mubarak in February now see SCAF as a counterrevolutionary force.
The protests won a series of concessions, including the resignation of an unpopular civilian cabinet that provided a fig leaf for military rule. But as a replacement, the army appointed as PM (former Mubarak supporter) Kamel el-Ganzoury.
The military dug in to hold onto power by proposing a new constitution that would put the armed forces above civilian authorities.
New demonstrations followed. The turnout was massive. The square was really roaring with chants against SCAF & against its head, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. The consensus in the square was that a presidential council or a salvation cabinet must take power, made up of independent people who have absolutely nothing to do with Mubarak or National Democratic Party (ruled under Mubarak's regime).
So, to date, Egyptian Green Spring has yet to spring.

The ongoing demonstrations put pressure on a few liberal figures to put themselves forward as being ready to form national unity government or national salvation cabinet. Mohamed ElBaradei, a key liberal figure, agreed to cancel his presidential bid if he were asked to form a national unity government that would include liberals, Nasserists & moderate Islamists.
That's generally what happened out of the big demonstration in Tahrir. But there were other demonstrations in other parts of the country on the same day. The new development is that there are also demonstrations in Upper Egypt which is considered more backward, less industrialized. It wasn't fully a part of the January uprising. So this is a new development. It is slowly catching up with the revolution.
ARE WORKING-class and economic demands coming to the fore in these demonstrations, or are they focused more on getting the military out of politics?
THE POLITICAL and the economic are completely intertwined. There is a general unifying demand among the million people in Tahrir that the SCAF must go. But the underlying reason is that the economic situation has deteriorated in the last several months. Many people tell reporters that life is getting harder, that unemployment is unbearable, and that the previous government failed to improve their lives. The SCAF has failed miserably on this. So the anger over economic hardship and the yearning for political freedom are inter-connected.

SCAF is the continuation of the Mubarak regime. Egyptians are beginning to understand connection between political & economic issues. They are beginning to grapple with the role of police in society. And they are the ones who understand that the ruling class played a trick on them by using Mubarak as a scapegoat in order to save the rest of the political system.
People are more hesitant about the power SCAF.
On a different level, it was much easier for the ruling class to get rid of Mubarak. Getting rid of the SCAF, or pushing it back to the barracks, is a much harder task. Many people outside of Tahrir also want the SCAF to go back to its barracks, but they don't think there is the organization on the ground to win something like that.
Majority of people believe that elections will be the way to establish a civilian government and to get the army out of political life. There is a majority consensus on this, other than a crazy right-wing minority that wants the SCAF to stay in power.
The majority of the country wants a democratic system. They want a civilian government. They want to be able to vote and to exercise political control over their lives. And they believe this is the way to get the army out of their lives for the first time in 60 years.
In new constitution, the Brotherhood says it will not implement Sharia law. But its version of Sharia is different from the Salafists, who have a very reactionary view against women and Coptic Christians, and for carrying out the most brutal punishment for those who break the law. The Muslim Brotherhood's views are a lot closer to their Turkish counterparts. So there are divisions between Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood. A very popular Salafist presidential candidate, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, has a following of millions. So a group of Salafists are attempting to outflank the Muslim Brotherhood.
In Egypt the Green spring has not sprung.

What's happening in Egypt, is a good lesson for Nigerians as we seek radical change through our current protests. Hopefully, we will not fall prey to a military intervention that takes us for granted as much as the corrupt politicians currently do.

I maybe an optimist in believing that the votes for the Islamic parties are in part a protest against the pro-West & pro-Israel Egyptian elite. This may be a case of the Egyptian Will flexing its muscles.

On the other hand it is an immature democracy with a lack of proper political parties. This may make ideal conditions for a new dictatorship to take over. From what I have been reading and seeing on TV I get the impression that the Egyptians are too 'revolutionary democratised' (for what of a better phrase) for this to happen.

As AJ Muste once implied, when the populous is revolutionary, it doesn't need violence to take power - the point is to transcend the violence that was used by the regime and to prove that violence does not pay. Peace is permanence.