Western media simplistically cast the divide between revolutionaries and the Brotherhood in secular-Islamist terms
Sara Khorshid
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 January 2012
".....My cause is Egypt, the revolution, and seeing my country become a true democracy. My fear is the prolongation of military rule, of transformation to a system that gives the military special status above civil institutions, or one that grants the army and its budget immunity against parliamentary accountability.
The Brotherhood's priorities are different from mine, and their objectives have occasionally conflicted with those of the revolutionaries.
There were striking examples of that in November and December. As revolutionaries were asserting their demands and thwarting the violent attack on their sit-ins by the army and interior ministry, official press releases from the Brotherhood and the party called for stability, expressing concern that such violence could hinder the electoral process.
Stability is the antithesis of revolution, and Egypt's revolution has not ended. Not as long as thousands of civilians are being tried in military courts and the emergency law is still in place. The murderers of the revolution's martyrs have not been sentenced.
The interior ministry, which has a history of using torture and brutality against citizens, has not been restructured. Protesters continue to be beaten, tortured and killed.
The "social justice" measures that the revolution called for have not been enforced. The assets of Hosni Mubarak's family and their associates have not been restored to the country's budget. Governmental bodies have not been cleansed of corrupt leadership affiliated to Mubarak's time.
Above all, the revolution must continue as long as the military and its leaders (who were part of Mubarak's regime) still enjoy authority over civilian leaders and have their economic assets shrouded in secrecy.
In their pursuit of "stability", the Brothers have occasionally sided with the ruling military council – the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf) – in defiance of the demands from Tahrir and other squares in Egypt. They say stability will benefit the revolution, and holding elections will lead to peaceful transition of power to civilians.
But revolutionaries disagree, on the grounds that the regime's remnants – many of whom are still in power across the hierarchies of governmental bodies (including the army and Scaf) – will not relinquish their power easily and peacefully. Elections are not a magical solution when it comes to making powerful, corrupt figures let go of advantages they have enjoyed for decades and instead face justice.
In the midst of their conflicting and vague statements, the Brothers have given some disturbing signals. Last November, for instance, during the Mohamed Mahmoud street battle, in which tens of protesters were killed and hundreds injured after the army and interior ministry attempted to forcefully disperse a sit-in, the Brotherhood said it would stay neutral. Yet, some of its leaders made statements against the protesters and their demands.
Brotherhood spokesperson Mahmoud Ghozlan rejected the protesters' demand that Scaf steps down: if Scaf leaves, chaos will prevail, he said. Even more shockingly, on 3 January Ghozlan said his group might agree to granting members of Scaf immunity from prosecution
Sara Khorshid
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 January 2012
".....My cause is Egypt, the revolution, and seeing my country become a true democracy. My fear is the prolongation of military rule, of transformation to a system that gives the military special status above civil institutions, or one that grants the army and its budget immunity against parliamentary accountability.
The Brotherhood's priorities are different from mine, and their objectives have occasionally conflicted with those of the revolutionaries.
There were striking examples of that in November and December. As revolutionaries were asserting their demands and thwarting the violent attack on their sit-ins by the army and interior ministry, official press releases from the Brotherhood and the party called for stability, expressing concern that such violence could hinder the electoral process.
Stability is the antithesis of revolution, and Egypt's revolution has not ended. Not as long as thousands of civilians are being tried in military courts and the emergency law is still in place. The murderers of the revolution's martyrs have not been sentenced.
The interior ministry, which has a history of using torture and brutality against citizens, has not been restructured. Protesters continue to be beaten, tortured and killed.
The "social justice" measures that the revolution called for have not been enforced. The assets of Hosni Mubarak's family and their associates have not been restored to the country's budget. Governmental bodies have not been cleansed of corrupt leadership affiliated to Mubarak's time.
Above all, the revolution must continue as long as the military and its leaders (who were part of Mubarak's regime) still enjoy authority over civilian leaders and have their economic assets shrouded in secrecy.
In their pursuit of "stability", the Brothers have occasionally sided with the ruling military council – the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf) – in defiance of the demands from Tahrir and other squares in Egypt. They say stability will benefit the revolution, and holding elections will lead to peaceful transition of power to civilians.
But revolutionaries disagree, on the grounds that the regime's remnants – many of whom are still in power across the hierarchies of governmental bodies (including the army and Scaf) – will not relinquish their power easily and peacefully. Elections are not a magical solution when it comes to making powerful, corrupt figures let go of advantages they have enjoyed for decades and instead face justice.
In the midst of their conflicting and vague statements, the Brothers have given some disturbing signals. Last November, for instance, during the Mohamed Mahmoud street battle, in which tens of protesters were killed and hundreds injured after the army and interior ministry attempted to forcefully disperse a sit-in, the Brotherhood said it would stay neutral. Yet, some of its leaders made statements against the protesters and their demands.
Brotherhood spokesperson Mahmoud Ghozlan rejected the protesters' demand that Scaf steps down: if Scaf leaves, chaos will prevail, he said. Even more shockingly, on 3 January Ghozlan said his group might agree to granting members of Scaf immunity from prosecution
in return for the peaceful transition of power, and families of martyrs could be compensated financially instead of seeing their sons' murderers being brought to justice. Widespread uproar at this caused him to pull back his statements later.
Having seen the Brotherhood make a series of compromising stances over the past year, I can't trust it to be capable of achieving the revolution's objectives...... "
Having seen the Brotherhood make a series of compromising stances over the past year, I can't trust it to be capable of achieving the revolution's objectives...... "
No comments:
Post a Comment