It can be emphasized that most
of the revolution’ goals have not been met in many aspects during the era of
“Muslim Brotherhood”, as economic crises exacerbated in a way that Egyptian
citizens couldn’t transcend crises of hunger and repression, in light of a
serious security loose and a strong dominance of the “Brotherhood” over
sensitive sectors such as the police forces and the army. The duplication of
several images was manifested; in thoughts and ideology, supporters and
opponents between civil and religious sectors and even in the concept of
revolution itself.Read more…
If no one disputes the legitimacy of “Morsi” as a president on the basis of his
arrival through legitimate elections, during which a wave of optimism among the
people – who carried so many hopes after the revolution – prevailed; one year of
his reign was enough to deliver Egypt to the edge, even to a standstill. We must
admit that ruling any state after a revolution is not easy at all, especially
that people’ expectations often exceed the possible; however, the solution –
according to many analysts – lied in early elections. Morsi’ denial of this
proposal and his commitment to his rule legitimacy has led to the emergence of
new movements that managed to gather around large groups led by “Rebel /
Tamarod” movement, it has also led to a significant change on the levels of
political and ideological alliances inside and outside Egypt.
The post–“Mubarak” military rule period; led by Field Marshal “Mohamed Hussein
Tantawi’, has experienced the continuing rise of debt values by more than 16%,
with a clear decline in the value of foreign debt due to the depletion of
foreign exchange reserves. Under these circumstances, “Morsi” became a president
after presidential elections run in June 2012; and so, by the end of his rule,
the value of the public debt should have been significantly increased. Such
inheritance formed a huge obstacle to improving the economic situations in the
era of “Morsi” rule; however, the reasons of his government failure were not
limited to this accumulated legacy; as also the Brotherhood's government was
unable to provide an effective response to people aspirations concerning their
poor economic, social and political conditions.
During a year of his rule, it was clear that “Morsi” suffered a state of
confusion that was clearly manifested in his decisions and strategies; as
suffocating crises that directly touched people in their daily lives (gasoline,
electricity, food prices, etc) continued – not to mention his weak speeches and
failure at the level of foreign affairs, all led people hungry to get out of
their crises to be disappointed. The era of “Morsi” rule was also characterized
by “brotherhoodization” policy of the state; where he founded several
headquarters for his brotherhood’ fellows, who badly sought after involving
themselves in all of the vital sectors such as the police, army and media in the
absence of a constitution that clearly defines the authorities of the president.
All of these factors increased the size of the opposition forces who felt
threatened by the possibility of changing the whole state identity and the
domination of one ideology over each of its facilities and leading positions.
It could be assumed that “Morsi” was unable to manage a state of the magnitude
of Egypt, languished by severs crises. With the likelihood of a premise that
“Morsi” is not the one who really governs Egypt, but the powerful elements
within the brotherhood led by the general guide “Mohammed Mahdi Akef” and his
deputy “Khairat Al-Shater” who was the original brotherhood’ candidate in the
presidential elections before being ruled out; are the real rulers. So, it was
natural that new opposition movements were created in addition to the strong
opposition forces mainly present.
In light of the security chaos and given to the bullying of the brotherhood’
alliances abroad, and with “Morsi” stuck to his assertion as the legitimate
president under an implicit threat of the brotherhood spreading chaos if he was
removed, as well as rejection of early elections proposition to contain the
anger; protest movement has evolved into massive demonstrations in June 30 2013,
prompting the Field Marshal “Abdel Fattah al-Sisi” to take the decision to
terminate his reign. Then the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court
“Adly Mansour” was assigned to rule the country as an interim until holding
early presidential elections.
Al-Sisi’ decision was one of the most important turning points in the path of
democratic transition in Egypt; one of the largest Arab countries that witnessed
revolutions. Such decision created vast reactions between supporters and
opponents with the escalation in the pace of bloody clashes and violence in all
provinces, with the highest magnitude in Cairo. With the row over to call it a
coup or a revolution, the military ended the rule of the “Muslim Brotherhood”
and began a new phase of which features are not yet clear. Field Marshal
“Al-Sisi” was able to create a vast popularity for himself, and started talking
about the possibility of his candidacy for the presidency. Although his first
speeches were denying this possibility, where the military has firmly confirmed
that their mission is limited to civilian arrangements to ensure a peaceful
transition of power in accordance with the requirements of the constitution,
which was disrupted in July 3, 2013 (i.e. they were mainly entrusted with
rectification of the revolutionary path), but a new statement appeared
confirming that “Al-Sisi” may stand for election if people demand it and if the
army authorizes it. This statement provoked a storm of reactions among those who
saw the decision as a normal end of military coup and those who supported and
welcomed “Al-Sisi” as president of Egypt.
This reflects nothing but serious shifts in the Arab Spring revolutions path,
where the Arab movement led to the arrival of specific currents to power, which
has created huge obstacles facing the emergence of the modern civil state;
obstacles of cognitive, political and social nature, and the direction of the
Arab Spring countries toward typical religious-military state.
The support of broad categories to “Al-Sisi” could be understood through looking
up the German thinker “Max Weber” studies of politics and ideology of force;
where he confirmed that “as far as societies become more complex, the domination
by force becomes the only solution for the continuity of the state”. It seems
that “Al-Sisi” – by his request for a mandate from the people and the army –
only wants to “legitimize” his power and use it in a way that authority is
transformed into an “honor” to practice it.
There is no doubt that there are many psychological motivations that influence
the political behavior of individuals and groups, paying an individual to
obedience and submission. These motivations are simply “fear and hope”; fear of
disturbances and deepening crises, and hope to change the political situation
with any possible alternatives. The authority in control is not satisfied with
such motives that urge the individual to only obey; rather it seeks the
“recognition” as the authority that has the right to dominate. It is also
striving to appear as “legitimate” as possible, and this is precisely what is
happening in Egypt today.