tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2418545187051126902024-02-02T22:13:15.995+02:00Tabula SaraSara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-31383634080472917992015-03-17T08:15:00.000+02:002015-03-17T10:42:53.887+02:00Egypt needs more than investment, Egypt needs individualism. <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>I remember once, as a young child burning with nationalistic fervor ignited by anthems and dramatic war adaptions where sacrificing one's life for the country was portrayed as the highest good, I was chanting "May we die so Egypt may live". I also remember being somewhat disgruntled when a family friend looked at me disapprovingly and remarked that we should instead strive to live for Egypt, because without us there is no Egypt, we make up the building blocks of the country. Far from the common romanticised ideas of nationalistic self-sacrifice, this rare bit of reason stuck with me up until now. </i><br />
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBdW1CG6_y6nrLlWqOYBvUZXlmuWMTETP_8hB8g-x4ds8qd5kFOxNkkJJVTvCOKeWV6uu5bdZLVaCrIK1Xa255wn9lhQvZfec3HhX0rv4IfvVe2Tj2JFrOzSCSUCor06iKkGeClU7CYJqg/s1600/Flag_of_Egypt.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBdW1CG6_y6nrLlWqOYBvUZXlmuWMTETP_8hB8g-x4ds8qd5kFOxNkkJJVTvCOKeWV6uu5bdZLVaCrIK1Xa255wn9lhQvZfec3HhX0rv4IfvVe2Tj2JFrOzSCSUCor06iKkGeClU7CYJqg/s1600/Flag_of_Egypt.svg.png" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Before the revolution, and more so thereafter, Egyptians were fed the idea that the interest of the country requires for all to forsake their own personal interests and stand together behind the common good. This is a prevalent theme in a discourse completely lacking in respect for individualism and oblivious to its importance as a conditio sine qua non of progress in a country which has long been plagued by collectivist notions, whether on a societal, religious or political level. Both revolutionaries and those they opposed have this dangerous flaw in common. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Until this very moment, many revolutionaries believe that the failure of the revolution is due to the fact that former participants in the January 25 protests, left the ranks in order to seek their own self-interest. While the establishment of a democratic system was the purported goal of the 2011 uprising, many who took part in it found the idea of political parties a negative divisive factor rather than a necessity for the functioning of a pluralistic democracy. Diverging political ideologies were considered a threat to the elusive unity so many spoke of, as if the slogan "bread, freedom and human dignity" alone could form the program of a political party and subsequently that of a government. Self-interest, instead of being considered as the natural goal of any faction or person, was branded as evil. This led to a complete failure in playing the game of compromise and balance which lies at the heart of any democracy. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The unity they spoke of was one that negated the individual and put a vague idea of the revolutionary common good above the very real and diverging interests of the population of the country, among whom the revolutionary forces themselves. In such a climate, anyone who dared break the so-called revolutionary rank was considered a traitor, as if to echo the slogan I chanted as a child: <i>we all must die as individuals so the revolution may live.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The same phenomenon appeared and continues to appear on a larger scale. Fired on by state propaganda, ignorant media and statist political forces, an atmosphere is created whereby anyone who adopts an opinion differing from or opposing the official stance, is considered a traitor. Political language is rife in mentions of the need to put aside personal interests and to stand together in face of a common enemy or in support of the government, purportedly the one authority which has the country's interests at heart, in fact, the one force which actually knows what the "country's interests" are. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In such a climate, it is natural to read <a href="http://www.dotmsr.com/details/%D9%82%D9%88%D9%85-%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85-%D8%B1-%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9" target="_blank">an article</a> about the new capital which was announced during the "Egypt The Future" economic conference which took place mid March, stating the following: "<i>In my opinion, what is needed for this capital is for everyone entering it to leave his own ideas at its doors. The capital's doors should not open to anyone who does not fully submit to its special laws and who comes to market his personal ideas in the city.</i>" (own translation) The author continues by arguing that even though his requirement of the abandonment of individualism may seem harsh, it is a necessary cost to pay in order to ensure the country's progress. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This new capital, which symbolizes a new vision of Egypt, sounds like a totalitarian dystopia where all must submit and forsake any notion of personal interests, diverging ideas or individualist discourse. Unfortunately, the author's opinion expressed above is echoed by many. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ironically, this view is expressed against a background of Egypt marketing itself as the hub for investment and economic progress where self-interest is the driving force. Yet a country where the notion of capitalism is still treated as the plague by many and businessmen pursuing profit are considered evil can hardly be a hub for anything other than the failing economy it has been experiencing for a while. Of course, one must not confuse self-interest with corruption nor capitalism with crony capitalism, which is inevitable so long as the state plays a big economic role. A free market is a place for innovation which is driven by competition which, in turn, is the result of diverging interests. This, along with transparency and rule of law, is what attracts investment. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is time public discourse in Egypt changed, not just in an economic context, where the notion of a free market not inhibited by the government is yet to properly find a place, but also in general. There is no Egypt without the individual Egyptians which make up its population. Instead of sweeping diversity under the rug, Egyptians must enter the difficult stage of learning to face and deal with their differences and consequently enjoying the advantages of pluralism. This is what sustains stability and ensures growth based on innovation and technological advancement. No state can create such a climate, it is up to individual citizens pursuing their self-interest in the context of a true free market of goods and ideas to shape "Egypt The Future". This is the lesson the government should heed if it wants Egypt to have any future at all.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-28530611466947855392014-05-01T10:03:00.001+02:002014-05-01T14:06:28.382+02:00When I buried my friend.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I wanted to write this for those who cared deeply about Bassem Sabry and couldn't be there yesterday as he was taken to his final resting place; and there are many, Bassem's friends are everywhere in the world. It is also intended as part of a small effort to honor him, to use just this little incidence which took place even after he died to tell people about him and to make the world realize the extent of the loss it suffered because of his passing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg70jDui1N497Cc0TbBOnrkBLuOrLilUfnorf-UmLphbc4lhhFtfg5NiTiqOe8ihmet51DXwUoPYR7WYNJoxk5b97qHYLNjKyE8N12BaELExTQ_yTTe7CG02r5qglPX-fJ92aocztzxEOis/s1600/ScreenShot2013-04-19at10.02.45AM.png.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg70jDui1N497Cc0TbBOnrkBLuOrLilUfnorf-UmLphbc4lhhFtfg5NiTiqOe8ihmet51DXwUoPYR7WYNJoxk5b97qHYLNjKyE8N12BaELExTQ_yTTe7CG02r5qglPX-fJ92aocztzxEOis/s1600/ScreenShot2013-04-19at10.02.45AM.png.jpg" height="226" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Bassem's funeral was set to take place after Dhuhr prayer (just before noon) on Wednesday 30th of April, the day after he passed away. People gathered at the Mostafa Mahmoud mosque in Mohandesseen, where Bassem lived, in order to pay their last respects. They stood in the Cairo heat awaiting the body to arrive, but it didn't. Soon it was revealed that the burial permit wouldn't be given out until an autopsy was performed. We weren't sure about the extent of the delay, so we went to sit at a place nearby the mosque, each holding on to the phone and trying to find out more news. As the hours progressed, news was spread that the funeral wouldn't take place on that day after all, but would have to be postponed since the paperwork was still not in order. And so people waited and waited, with red eyes from the lack of sleep and the many tears shed over their dear friend. Eventually, it was revealed that the body would be taken straight to the outskirts of Cairo, in the 6th of October district, where the prayer would be held at a small mosque at the graveyard. This was in the afternoon, at around 4 p.m.<br />
<br />
So people rushed into their cars and made the long journey out of Mohandesseen at rush hour in order to get to the funeral spot on time. We waited at a place nearby the cemetery for the car carrying Bassem to arrive in order to follow it to the mosque. As the ambulance carrying him came closer, the cars starting moving. In a spectacle I had never seen before, the cars which were part of the funeral procession, carrying Bassem's friends and loved ones, started moving, all with their flashers on. They took up the entire highway and formed long lines, all headed to the cemetery as the sun was setting. It needs to be noted that it is very exceptional for burials in Egypt to take place after sunset. Yet all these people, in droves of cars, who had originally planned for a funeral at noon in the central Mohandesseen district, ended up on the outskirts of Cairo at around 6 p.m., headed to the cemetery where they would lay their friend to rest.<br />
<br />
After the funeral prayer was conducted, he was carried by his friends to the tomb. It was a solemn scene, his loved ones standing as he was being put to rest, some silently contemplating, deep in thought, while others mumbled prayers and goodbyes, all with tears running down their faces.<br />
<br />
So many people stood there as the sky was getting darker and the stars started appearing and Bassem was placed in his final resting place. So many people loved him dearly and wanted to pay their respects, perhaps say their goodbyes, try to get a sense of what had just happened, to realize the loss that had befallen them. So many people who had experienced Bassem's goodness and kindness, so many people whose lives were touched by him in different ways. And these were only those who were able to attend, there are many more who were there in spirit and in thought.<br />
<br />
To bury a friend who went so early and so suddenly is the hardest, most painful thing. But as I was standing there, watching him being put down, agonizing over the immeasurable loss, I remembered him telling me that it was worth it, love is worth it. It is worth risking having to feel such pain at some point. It was worth it, Bassem, knowing you and loving you was worth it. </div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-75976850014242803382014-02-20T09:07:00.000+02:002014-02-20T09:07:27.033+02:00Between criticism and patriotism: Egypt, a proud and broken country.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the worst things the Mubarak regime
did was to instill the notion that any public criticism of Egypt or shaming of
its authorities is tantamount to expressing a hatred for the country, or worse,
committing actual treason. Those who spoke out about institutional and societal
problems in Egypt, were accused of “trying to ruin the country’s reputation”,
an accusation that is commonly heard in countries without a democratic culture
and with a record of abuses of individual rights. This problem was especially
visible whenever a member of the Coptic community, a Christian minority making
up about 10% of the country’s population, spoke about both state-encouraged and
societally approved discrimination and sectarianism. The reaction consisted of
two layers: one is the denial that such discrimination took place, the other
was to claim that even if such discrimination took place, one shouldn’t
highlight it or speak about it too loudly, certainly not in English. Egypt is
made up of desert for the most part, so there is no shortage of sand for one to
burry one’s head in and unlike other resources in the country, that one was
used very efficiently.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">After the revolution, this excessive concern
with the “country’s reputation” skyrocketed as the can of worms, formerly
hidden under years of Mubarakian dusty stability and security, was finally
opened for all to see. However, one major difference was that the accusations
of treason, condescension and hatred for the country didn’t just come from a
fearful and fragile regime desperately trying to hold on to its image, but from
many normal Egyptians who seem to have internalized that mode of thinking over
the years. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Now, it must be said that many are indeed guilty
of a rhetoric marred by an arrogant superiority complex and a condescending
attitude toward Egyptians and their needs. Such a rhetoric was adopted equally
by those who claimed revolutionary status and those who had hopes of holding on
to the old order, by Islamists and secularists alike. Not only should this
rhetoric be condemned for being distasteful and morally repugnant, it has also
proven ineffective for, as it turns out, calling people “slaves” doesn’t usually
get them to sympathize with your cause.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">However, the harsh criticism I am talking
about is of a completely different nature, it is not inspired by arrogance but
by truthful self-reflection, not driven by contempt for the people, but an honest
will to overcome the many challenges the country faces. If we believe true
change comes from within society, we must be ready to face our demons. Empty
slogans about love for and pride of a country with as many serious and deadly
problems as Egypt are not only meaningless, but actually crippling to any
progress. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">When the host of the political-satire show
Al Bernameg, Bassem Youssef, first started, he said Egyptians were known for
their sense of humor, however, not when the joke was at their own expense. In fact, Egyptians do laugh at their own misery and make jokes at
their own expense quite often, especially in those last years. It is only when that talk gets serious, when the
people are confronted with the magnitude of the lies they have been fed since
childhood by society and through state propaganda, when they realize the number of myths about greatness and
superiority they have been told, that they take offence. The natural response
then becomes denial and suppression of what has to be said. That reaction must change, for true good will for this country
consists of placing its progress above its reputation, placing reason above
myths and putting truth above all else. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-33659350653025797842013-11-06T21:16:00.000+02:002013-11-06T21:21:16.393+02:00هل فشل الإسلام السياسى؟<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-EG" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">كثيراً ما يقولون أن
الأشهر الماضية اظهرت ضعف الإسلام السياسى و فشله كفكر و سقوط الإسلاميين الى
الأبد. فى هذه الرأى يكمن خطراً كبيراً حيث أنه لا يعتمد على رؤية واقعية للأحداث.
حقيقة الأمر هى ان مرسى و الإخوان سقطوا لأنهم فشلوا فى إدارة البلاد بطريقة حكيمة
و لم يدركوا التوازنات التى تقوم عليها الدولة المصرية و كيفية التعامل معها.
مشكلة الكثيرين مع الإخوان كانت فى ان حياتهم لم تتحسن كما كانوا يتوقعون من اول
حكم جاء بإنتخابات ديمقرايطة بعد الثورة. كان المواطن يعانى من نقص البنزين و
إنقطاع المياة و الكهرباء بشكل شبه يومى و كان ايضاً يعانى من تخبط حكومة ضعيفة لم
تستطع التعامل مع مشاكل البلد المترهلة. فى النهاية سقوط الإخوان فى أعين الشعب
كان لعدم كفاءتهم و فشلهم فى تطبيق خطة ناجحة للنهوض بالوطن. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="AR-EG" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8JYMeinXxNrVF7NoG0TLiA7v9iMM6-JItrtLPM3G9DsuZGnDY3o17hr_6oqHkXfPTl-HFrx_yWJDd7B24Uzh52hdAa0Rn3chboIabyK6Xvx_YIibHMisGI-SpkpC7UwbeZlPNUGwzKEtV/s1600/733903_682137861796349_935148936_n-300x300.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8JYMeinXxNrVF7NoG0TLiA7v9iMM6-JItrtLPM3G9DsuZGnDY3o17hr_6oqHkXfPTl-HFrx_yWJDd7B24Uzh52hdAa0Rn3chboIabyK6Xvx_YIibHMisGI-SpkpC7UwbeZlPNUGwzKEtV/s1600/733903_682137861796349_935148936_n-300x300.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo via onaeg.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span lang="AR-EG" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-EG" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">اما الأيديولوجية،
فكرة الإسلام السياسى الذى يقوم فى الأساس على إستخدام الدولة لتطبيق اليوتوبيا
الدينية، فهذا لم يسقط. معارضة الإخوان لم تأت رافضة لهذا الفكر بل جاءت بعد
إنتشارأفعال و أقوال مشينة للإدارة الإخوانية على
النحو السياسى و القانونى و الإقتصادى</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">مصحوبة بإ</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">شاعات و نظريات مؤامرة</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. كل هذا جعل جزءًا كبيراً من الشعب ينبذ
الجماعة التى رآها غير قادرة على التمسك بزمام الأمور فى مصر. و الدليل هو أن
الشعب لم يختر بديلاً سياسياً للإخوان بل كان إتكاله على الجيش ليخلصه.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-EG" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">قد يقول البعض ان
الشعب لم ينبذ الإخوان لفشلهم السياسى و الإقتصادى فحسب بل رفض ايضاً فكرة خلط الدين
بالسياسة. اما مسودة الدستور الحالية توحى بشئ آخر، السلفيوين الممثلون من خلال
عضو واحد فقط إستطاعوا أن يضغطوا على الجمعية بأكملها فى شأن المادة 219. سوف يتم
تغيير المادة فى الغالب و لكنها ستظل موجودة حتى إذا كانت هناك أغلبية ضدها.
يستطيع هذا الحزب أن يؤثر هكذا لأنه يعرف أن له شعبية اكثر من شعبية باقى أعضاء اللجنة و أعضاء اللجنة
يدركون ذلك ايضاً و ليتهم يدركون أنهم لا يملكون بديلاً أيديولوجياً ليقدموه
للشعب. لذلك يتفاوض حزب النور بتلك الطريقة، فهو يعرف أن رضاه على الدستور القادم
سوف يكون له أهمية كبيرة. إذن الخلط بين الدين و القانون و بين الدين و تحركات
الدولة سيظل كما هو و لكن فى رداء آخر. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-EG" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">و إن إفترضنا أن
الشعب قد رفض الفكر الإسلامى، فهو لم يرفض أبداً الفكر الإقصائى الفاشى و لم يصبح
متقبلاً للنقد او المنطق. بدلاً من نظريات المؤمرة التى تتحدث عن الكفار و الشيعة
و المسيحيين و الدولة العميقة و محاولاتهم لإفشال المشروع الإسلامى، اصبحت الآن
قوى أخرى هى أساس كل مشاكلنا. بدلاً من الإعتراف بضعف هذه الدولة و عدم قدرة
حكومتها على التعامل مع المشاكل العصيبة، ننظر ألى من حولنا كسبب لمشاكلنا و لا
ننظر لأنفسنا فنحن أبناء أم الدنيا، أذكى الأطفال فى الفصل. يبقى الفكر الطائفى و
يبقى الكره الأعمى للآخر و التكبر عليه و يبقى عدم الإهتمام بحقوق الإنسان و
كرماته. إستبدلنا خطابات حنجورية تتسم بالغباء بأغانى فارغة لا تترك المجال لنقد
عقلانى و رؤية واقعية للأمور. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: justify; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="AR-EG" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">هل كانت أحداث 30
يونيو بمثابة تغيير حقيقى فى مصر يمكنه أن يخلق نظاماً سياسياً جديداً تنمو فى
أحضانه الحرية و يتقدم من خلاله الشعب؟ أم اننا نجد أنفسنا فى دائرة مفرغة حيث
القمع و الإقصاء دائماً طريقة معاملة المختلف؟ إذا كانت ثورة فهى لم تأت بتغيير
جذرى. هذا التغيير للنظام يتطلب تغييراً فى الأيديولوجية، يتطلب رفضاً قاطعاً و
واضحاً للدولة القمعية ذات الحلول الأمنية و الخمال الإقتصادى. التغيير يتطلب
الإعتراف بأننا نفتقر لفكر جديد يمكن أن يكون بديلاً عن ما نحن فيه الآن. نلوم على
الإخوان أنهم لم يدركوا أخطائهم و لم يراجعوا أنفسهم و هذا حقنا، فغرورهم اوصلنا و
اوصلهم لهذه المرحلة. لكن يبدو اننا مصممون أن نقع فى نفس الحفرة حتى يقع الوطن فى
نفس المأذق من جديد. </span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-68723694624189007832013-10-22T15:28:00.002+02:002013-10-23T01:49:45.890+02:00Coptic Questions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It is truly mind boggling when, after a drive-by attack on a church which left 4 dead and 17 injured, the first questions to come to the minds of many are "Why wasn't the church secured enough?" or "Where was the police?". Let me first clarify that it stands beyond a doubt that there is blatant lack of law enforcement in the country, whether in sectarian incidents or otherwise. However, it stands to reason that the question "Why do churches require special security in the first place?" should always remain on the foreground.<br />
<br />
With the spread and popularity of conspiracy theories claiming sectarian attacks such as this one and, most famously, the 2010 Qedesseen church bombing on new year's eve in Alexandria, are committed by government forces, there is little room left for reasoned debate. Even though claims of state involvement in committing these acts have never been proven, they are often used to mask the very bleak reality of sectarianism in Egypt. This is not a defense of a state which has historically engaged in discriminatory practices and failed to fulfill its basic duty of protecting the life, freedom and property of its citizens. Even before the security situation deteriorated and chaos reigned, the government always cared more about denying the existence of sectarianism in Egypt than prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of sectarian crimes.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB3lBt9OPPEjezUyYDCDqC455o9t3hyphenhyphenXrpfe57EPnfysC3BJHJBGe60ZoBxC5jCa4u5JMfyYJ9rAtG36KnJixFeSCIeWoQBVwuxYZZLCDbwzm8XOHXrOvPfJzxAGCqYa7XvdmtQ2-Ki8uO/s1600/483231.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB3lBt9OPPEjezUyYDCDqC455o9t3hyphenhyphenXrpfe57EPnfysC3BJHJBGe60ZoBxC5jCa4u5JMfyYJ9rAtG36KnJixFeSCIeWoQBVwuxYZZLCDbwzm8XOHXrOvPfJzxAGCqYa7XvdmtQ2-Ki8uO/s400/483231.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The church of St. Mary in Giza where the shooting took place. Via elyaom.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
However, criticism of government incompetence and failure should never overshadow condemnation of those who threaten, incite and perpetrate such acts of violence. The people in government are but a part of a society ill with sectarianism and they tend to reflect trends shared by large proportions of the population. The latter basks in sectarian thought despite its continued insistence on the illusive "national unity". The Coptic problem is one where both state and society share in the responsibility and sectarianism has become much more widespread than many assume.<br />
<br />
Copts needing extra protection has become the norm because the idea of citizenship in Egypt has become the exception. Instead of requiring the government to rectify a system through which Copts and other minorities are de jure and de facto second class citizens, many simply demand the amelioration of that inferior status. Copts are viewed by many citizens as the weaker, younger sibling who needs protection. In turn, many Copts view themselves not as individuals, equal to other Egyptians, but as a distinctly different nation which, as a collective, should have certain rights. Lost in between nationalism (Islamist or other), collectivism and tyrannical majorities are the concepts of individual rights and individual responsibility.<br />
<br />
With the new constitution currently being prepared, Egyptians need to reconsider how they view each other and how they translate the concept of citizenship. Do Copts remain a marginalized minority, a collective which needs special protection? Or are they citizens whose lives and property are worth protecting simply because they are citizens of this country? When someone explicitly incites the usage of violence against Copts, will he be viewed as a criminal and treated as such or will it require a balancing act between religious feelings, tribal sentiments and justice? Will rights and freedoms remain things to be compromised on by different interest groups or will they be regarded as undeniable and inalienable to each individual citizen?<br />
<br />
We know what the answer will be in the near future, but without a fundamental change in the relationship between Copts as part of society at large and the state, the problems will sadly persist. Egypt needs an understanding of individual rights which makes people attending their religious rites in peace and security the norm, instead of the exception. </div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-56652275629271512962013-10-20T19:09:00.002+02:002013-11-10T15:00:02.075+02:00Reflections on Cairo<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Walking through what used to be the most elegant and beautiful neighborhoods of the city, I try to imagine how they must have looked like in the 40's and 50's: expensive shops with the best fashion has to offer, gold stores, shoe shops with beautiful leather creations. Along the clean sidewalks, women in dresses would be walking along with men in suits and shined shoes. Instead of cat calls and obnoxiously disturbing, loud music thumping from stereo's and cellphones, you'd hear people's conversations in Arabic, Greek, French and Italian as you pass the occasional coffee shop playing Oum Kalthoum. Newly build villa's standing as proud tributes to the architects who built them, lush trees and flower gardens separating one from the other.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnhLjWY3U2Mjmje5CtsRxdSrIqICZwS0G8EdIUIGuTPdW6uBND3aUx48nwcgBiMB6kvh71ZWePLEjAkblMNZzOjagOpJbPL_ffdP60IEWOrvp6HNdegxs67Zm8eO_Z_4GryqRaaOgl7uu8/s1600/9406_10153323773445534_989605233_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnhLjWY3U2Mjmje5CtsRxdSrIqICZwS0G8EdIUIGuTPdW6uBND3aUx48nwcgBiMB6kvh71ZWePLEjAkblMNZzOjagOpJbPL_ffdP60IEWOrvp6HNdegxs67Zm8eO_Z_4GryqRaaOgl7uu8/s320/9406_10153323773445534_989605233_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
And I imagine the slow decay both in society and its outward manifestations, more and more ugly cement Nasser-era buildings. Shops and factories formerly owned by Egypt's large expatriate community nationalized as their owners left the country they had grown to love. One at a time, the beautiful villa's would be left to fall apart, until in the 80's and 90's their owners would demolish them to build high apartment blocks. Streets not designed for all the inhabitants of the newly built blocks of concrete would become overcrowded as street vendors would occupy the side walks.<br />
<br />
As the country lost battle after battle, failing to reach modernity, the city would slowly suffocate from the inside. Millions would come from the country side, leaving behind their lands for dreams of a better life as government employees in the capital. Slums would become the burying ground for their hopes and some eventually moved into the city's cemeteries where they would share their life with the dead.<br />
<br />
The weight of war, defeat and arrogance would take its toll on the people and society would soon reflect the decay the old villa's and luxurious department stores had faced. Extreme Islamism and terrorism would show its ugly face in the 90's and the sick ideas behind it would soon spread to all corners of the land.<br />
<br />
Under the crushing weight of the state bureaucracy, the suffocating, ever present pollution in the streets and in the minds of the people and the corruption, Cairo breathes heavily. As you walk its streets, finally reaching the corniche where the ancient Nile runs through the city, you catch a glimpse of what used to be and what could be and you sigh, along with Cairo, under the burning sun.</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-39465087025543802132013-06-24T03:30:00.000+02:002013-06-29T10:13:14.532+02:00The Death of a Country<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You hear the mob approaching, slogans against your religion are being shouted out as the masses wielding their sticks and daggers get closer and closer. You look out the window, you might get a chance to run, but it's too late, they've spotted you and their cheers get louder. They enter into your house and drag you out. You feel the first blow on your head, the rest of your body has been subjected to beatings from different directions since the very second they laid eyes on you. You try to speak "I didn't do anything, I'm innocent." But the chants of the crowd drown out your voice as you fall to the ground. You struggle to get up and your eyes meet the eyes of one of the aggressors. In that second, that moment of time, your eyes attempt to plead for mercy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The blows on your head and body keep coming and you look into his eyes. You see death, you see hopelessness and cruelty. You think to yourself "I'm Egyptian" but you have nothing in common with those Egyptians, they see you as an enemy, a threat to be exterminated. They have been hearing from politicians, sympathizers of the ruling party, that you are an agent for foreign powers. You think "I am a Muslim", but they've been told by the sheikh in the nearby mosque that you insult the Prophet and that you deserve to die, you're not one of them. The TV preacher told them that you'd burn in hell. Chants of "Allah Akbar" surround you as your teeth get smashed in by a large wooden stick. You taste your blood as you fall to the ground again. This time your eyes look up and meet the eyes of another assailant. You plead, thinking "I am a human being", but there is no humanity left in them. They have become like wild animals, their savagery fueled by the smell of your blood. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You are on the ground now, choking on your blood, unable to breathe, pain has overtaken your entire body. You can no longer see, maybe it's for the best, you can no longer gaze in front of you to see yet another one of your killers reveling in cruelty, reveling in your pain.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Everything has gone dark, you can still feel the blows to your body, the cuts from the sharp knives, but it is as if you've left your body and are looking upon it from afar. You hear the chants, one woman was ululating in joy. And then silence comes over you, the only audible thing is your feeble heartbeat... it stopped. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQyBNMTjZ8wideFNgYf4TJSZamO332ko1cB7qmc5JdVSTP9jELfYz6_7cObOW9a_18C8e5REeb5creCl2fx2wQkntpCRGnQJLVyvFhl0hHKtD0rycfAapwue9c57MxknB-PQC_LnYMoAAC/s1600/22.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQyBNMTjZ8wideFNgYf4TJSZamO332ko1cB7qmc5JdVSTP9jELfYz6_7cObOW9a_18C8e5REeb5creCl2fx2wQkntpCRGnQJLVyvFhl0hHKtD0rycfAapwue9c57MxknB-PQC_LnYMoAAC/s320/22.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hassan Shehata, the Shia cleric who was brutally murdered by a mob.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You are no longer. All that remains of you is a memory to those who loved you and a curse from the mouths of those who killed you, damning you to hell. Your countrymen - but is it even really your country? - have always known you were in danger. They too have been listening to the sheikhs proclaiming you as enemies of religion, a danger to society, a threat to all that is godly. They have done nothing. They haven't condemned them sufficiently, they never worried enough about you, they were never disturbed by the amount of hatred that was spreading in all corners of society. They haven't done anything to help you, to fight them. And they will not. Until one day they feel the first blow and fall to the ground and taste their blood as they gasp for air. They have lost their sight already...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Disclaimer: Egypt has been plagued with sectarianism for a long time. It has infiltrated all corners of society. Warnings are ignored and the danger is underestimated. This account was based on this (graphic) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KQDH-Cy4DiE" target="_blank">video</a> documenting the lynching of 4 Shia men in Egypt. </i></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-11778588779957181412013-06-04T09:44:00.005+02:002013-06-04T12:54:27.704+02:00National Embarrassment <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yesterday, the Egyptian president invited a few people with highly questionable intellectual abilities to attend one of his famous 'national dialogue' meetings about the highly sensitive issue of the Ethiopian dam. This warranted a quickly written, angry rant on my part. Although the issue is one pertaining to international law, global politics and Egypt's water and energy supplies, the attendees included people who lack any expertise in the aforementioned areas, among whom religious preachers and clergy members. For of course, as it has become the norm in Egyptian politics, one must always include a sheikh and a priest in every so-called national dialogue lest on think that Egypt has some sort of sectarian issue. After all, no matter how many churches are burnt down, no matter how many villagers are killed or displaced in sectarian fights, the image of the priest hugging the sheikh, their beards gracefully touching, is what makes everything ok in the end. Even better is when members of the three Christian denominations are invited, the more the merrier, national unity has never been truer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOdRvs5Jcs91DNHbdjJHDDtcAV0DtdGRlf6D_VVp3Nq0yU7yk_P0J3Oej7yJ34PHu-uUivrqBJmZUMXzVHKI7LhC5NdUTqaarqQhuim4dl5X-fPXOSc-7lYU5LT1DeDbL4XiauB29as9Gl/s1600/9998385707.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOdRvs5Jcs91DNHbdjJHDDtcAV0DtdGRlf6D_VVp3Nq0yU7yk_P0J3Oej7yJ34PHu-uUivrqBJmZUMXzVHKI7LhC5NdUTqaarqQhuim4dl5X-fPXOSc-7lYU5LT1DeDbL4XiauB29as9Gl/s400/9998385707.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But of course, the church representatives are there for a different reason as well, namely because one of the plans, in an attempt at so-called soft diplomacy, is to send Egyptian church representatives to pressure the Ethiopians to do Egypt's bidding. The Coptic and Ethiopian churches have strong historical and spiritual bonds and this, of course, means that Ethiopia would relinquish its own national interests in order not to upset the Pope.. at least that's how Egyptian 'intelligentsia' see it. I will no longer comment on this for there is still so much to say.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I admit I haven't watched the entire meeting, partly because of how perplexed I was. After all, this is the first 'secret meeting' I've heard of that got aired on live television. Oh, I forgot to mention, the organizer, one of the president's female advisers (Oh yes, FEMALE, look at how modern and open the Muslim Brotherhood is!) apparently forgot to mention to the guests that their words would be brought to the living rooms of millions of viewers. So there they sat, surrounded by enormous TV-camera's talking about their secret plots, unaware of the embarrassment they were bringing to themselves and others.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Only later on during the meeting, when someone literally said "I swear that all that is said here will remain secret" before sharing his own fool-proof plan, did it occur to the president's clearly highly capable female adviser to point out that the meeting was being televised.. live. But it's not a big deal really, everyone is allowed some mistakes, except that the Muslim Brotherhood administration has been making use of that allowance quite a lot ever since they came to power.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second reason I didn't watch the entire meeting is a personal problem. In Egypt, when people are angry and frustrated, they like to express that in an animated way by pointing out how their blood is boiling or how their gallbladder is about to burst. Out of concern for my internal organs and general health, I couldn't watch the whole thing. However, what I did see was the incompetence and ignorance that has typified the Egyptian 'elite' for the past years.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am not going to write down what was said during those meetings, I am sure international media will take care of that, indulging you with the ingenious plots our beloved public figures came up with. There are just a few points I'd like to highlight.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dear Egypt, you are not the smart kid in class. You see, Egyptians* have the tendency to see themselves as the masters of the universe, the Egyptian child is the smartest child in the world and all Arab people should be thankful to Egypt because without us teaching them everything they know, they would have been left prey to ignorance and despair. Africans must just look to Egypt with silent admiration, hoping to learn something from this great nation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The funny thing is that one of the attendees pointed out that Egyptians do tend to look down on Africans and that this should be remedied. His suggestion was that a group of Egyptians should go to Ethiopia and ask them, in what undoubtedly would be a very humble tone, "What can we do for you?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Instead of arrogantly asking about what you can do for those 'poor, underdeveloped countries' (as opposed to yourself, a country with a booming economy), dear Egypt, how about you do yourself a favor and spit out the 'elite' which has caused you nothing but embarrassment? Dismissing those who have been consistent only in being wrong while being oblivious to the amount of damage they caused with their faulty political analysis, is the first step to recovery. A humble realization of our strengths, but mostly also our weaknesses, is the way forward for our arrogance and our delusions have served us little. So instead of asking what you can teach others, dear Egypt, teach your own elite a lesson!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*Please spare me any mention of how I am generalizing. Yes, I should hope my readers realize that I wasn't speaking about every single one of Egypt's 90 something million people. </div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-33046138074227990722013-06-02T15:44:00.002+02:002013-06-02T16:20:58.311+02:00The Last Summer of Reason<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Exactly 20 years ago today, Algerian secularist writer and journalist Tahar Djaout was assassinated. He was an outspoken critic of Islamists and a proponent of secularism.<br />
<br />
Today, the danger of those who would stifle freedom of conscience and freedom of speech is still very much apparent. People who dare to dissent, to voice their disagreement and use their pen as a weapon in the war of ideas are often in danger, their lives and their freedoms under threat. Let us never forget those who died because they wouldn't let threats stop them from speaking. Let us always remember those who wouldn't let darkness overshadow their light of reason. Let us keep the memory alive of those who bravely fought with the pen, even when the ink was their own blood.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzUc79ei4ahgwmMQ9iACnVWEYd9flxYeglWRqY0MFvetjDNZgG38gTvLT6HNTxoekusyMfb-sLcpQCg0MCDG5NrCIaBLp2IaJLVnbLZNCTcsWEBkI1Rjq-KHsVtfVbtUICLAeDrdDvSGXt/s1600/220px-Tahar_Djaout_(writer).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzUc79ei4ahgwmMQ9iACnVWEYd9flxYeglWRqY0MFvetjDNZgG38gTvLT6HNTxoekusyMfb-sLcpQCg0MCDG5NrCIaBLp2IaJLVnbLZNCTcsWEBkI1Rjq-KHsVtfVbtUICLAeDrdDvSGXt/s400/220px-Tahar_Djaout_(writer).jpg" width="360" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I took the liberty of translating an excerpt from Tahar Djaout's book "The Last Summer of Reason". It was published after his death.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><b>"He
could easily have managed to lead a peaceful existence in this life, and, who
knows, maybe also in the next. The warmth of the herd gives one safety,
reinforces certainty and arms one against the iron hold of doubt. The herd
shows you the way: it offers the illusion of the right path which leads you to
paradise in a loud and uncivilized manner. The sheep which distances itself
from the herd instantaneously becomes scabby. It is flooded with snarls and
growls, with images of damnation, the rhetoric of curses which dogma mobilizes
to punish intelligence and to distract from her questions.<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><b>The present
brings with it much sadness. Piety has become the norm for greatness. Faith: a
gravel desert with a fading face. He wanders between that desert of faith and
the paradise of the books. The books, his old friends, filled with the
invigorating power of dreams and intelligence together!</b></span></div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><b>Now, at this moment, they have burned all his books in
a cleansing fire. They recognize the danger of the words, all the words they
can never tame or extinguish."</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">May he rest in peace.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 6.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-89092928650713240752013-06-02T12:31:00.002+02:002013-06-02T20:21:56.079+02:00English Summary of Constitutional Court Decision<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Today, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court issued its decision regarding the constitutionality of the law which regulated the election of the Shura Council, Egypt's Upper House. This is the English summary of the ruling as it was <a href="http://gate.ahram.org.eg/News/354271.aspx" target="_blank">published</a> on Al Ahram newspaper.<br />
<br />
1. Article 2.1 of the 2011 version of the Law nr. 120 of 1980 is unconstitutional.<br />
2. Article 8.1 of that same law (as amended by the law nr. 109 of 2011) is also unconstitutional. This article gave both independents (not belonging to any party) and party members the right to run for seats reserved for individual voting (as opposed to electoral lists).<br />
3. Article 24 of the same law is unconstitutional for providing that art. 9 bis a of the Law nr. 308 of 1972 re. the People's Assembly applies to the Shura Council as well.<br />
4. This verdict is not to be implemented until a new Lower House is elected as article 230 of the Constitution stipulates.<br />
<br />
The verdict is based on the controversial article 5 (<a href="http://tabulasara.blogspot.be/2012/06/different-perspective-on-dissolution-of.html" target="_blank">which I mentioned in my article about the Dissolution of Egypt's Lower House a year ago</a>) of the law nr. 120 of 2011 which stipulated that to run for the third of seats reserved for individual voting, the candidate had to be independent, thus not belonging to any political party. That article was later cancelled by law nr. 123 of 2011.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6pKadh3n8nPwGH9tAhmzqBlAECCoizweXmySjCrd9Z8sKETBk1yrAxz9VFZbmgi3sR-mXIhckXmgFEcqpyt-v_5tEcXag3uHMixmQiI_-iSlM05_VtPXYN206wS0zK7ckSrAhptrW-r7D/s1600/SCC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6pKadh3n8nPwGH9tAhmzqBlAECCoizweXmySjCrd9Z8sKETBk1yrAxz9VFZbmgi3sR-mXIhckXmgFEcqpyt-v_5tEcXag3uHMixmQiI_-iSlM05_VtPXYN206wS0zK7ckSrAhptrW-r7D/s400/SCC.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<b>The Court clarified that its judgement is based on the old constitution, being the Constitutional Declaration which was issued on the 30th of March 2011 and amended by the declaration of 25 September 2011, as the new constitution isn't retroactively applicable</b>. The old constitution being the one which was valid when the disputed articles were promulgated. The new constitution of 2012, in fact, goes in against the disputed law nr. 20 of 1980 because it states in article 231 that both independents and party members are allowed to run for all seats in parliament.<br />
<br />
The Court continued saying that art. 38 of the Constitutional Declaration of 2011 which was applicable during the parliamentary elections stated that the electoral system would combine a system of electoral lists for two thirds and an individual system for the remaining third. The principle of equality and non-discrimination would suggest that this means that if only party members were allowed to run for the two thirds reserved for electoral lists, then independents should have been exclusively allowed to run for the remaining third of parliamentary seats.<b> The system which allowed party members to run for all seats available while independents could only run for one third was deemed discriminatory and contrary to the principle of equal opportunity.</b><br />
<br />
Therefore, the aforementioned parts of articles 2, 8 and 24 of the Law nr. 120 of 1980 were deemed unconstitutional by the Court.<br />
<br />
The Court then mentions that since the people are sovereign and since they have voted upon the new constitution, it became the highest law in the land. This, regardless of whether that constitution fulfilled all aspirations or failed to do so in some aspects.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the Court reconfirmed that, even though the unconstitutionality of the aforementioned articles leads to the invalidity of the Shura Council, the effects of that invalidity have been halted by the new constitution of December 2012. Article 230 of the new constitution specifies that the Shura Council takes over legislative powers until a new Lower House is elected at which point the legislative powers are transferred to the latter. A new Shura Council is to be elected within 6 months of the date of the first meeting of the new Lower House.<br />
<br />
<b>So the Shura Council remains the holder of legislative powers as article 230 of the constitution stipulates. After a new Lower House is elected, the effects of this verdict can take their course.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
PS: You can read my analysis of the Court's Dissolution of Parliament last year <a href="http://tabulasara.blogspot.be/2012/06/different-perspective-on-dissolution-of.html" target="_blank">here</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Edit: emphasis added in bold for ease of reading</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-16878562052299310942013-05-05T11:21:00.000+02:002013-05-05T12:54:52.370+02:00Why you got the Brotherhood wrong<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“Just how
scared should we be of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood? In numerical terms, it
doesn't present much of a threat. Membership is in the low hundreds of
thousands, and in a fair election, the Islamists would not be expected to win -
in 2005, only 3% of the population voted for the Brotherhood.” Thus read a
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2032260,00.html#ixzz2QNb0ELa6" target="_blank">piece on Time magazine</a> in November 2010, just two months before the start of
the revolution that would topple Mubarak and, indeed, bring the Muslim
Brotherhood to power. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: inherit;">“The
Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in
Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of
credibility because of liberal parties have been a struggle for thirty years.
They are in favor of a secular state. they are of –they are in favor of an
institution that have bread lines, they are in favor that every Egyptian have
the same rights, that the state is in no way a state based on religion. And I
have been reaching out to them.” (sic) Words of El Baradei, as <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/01/30/141496/oppostion-leader-elbaradei-threat-of-muslim-brotherhood-is-a-myth-lacking-one-iota-of-reality/" target="_blank">published</a> on the 30th
of January 2011, as protests were ongoing in Tahrir Square and elsewhere in
Egypt.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> “There is no real danger that the revolution
will be just the opening that Islamists need to take control.” And </span><span lang="EN-GB">“Now there
seems to be a concern that if President Hosni Mubarak leaves too soon, chaos
will ensue and the Muslim Brotherhood could emerge as the biggest winner. But
Egypt’s state structure is strong enough to withstand Mubarak’s ouster and
there is no reason to think the protests will turn violent again.” </span><span lang="EN-GB">Amr Hamzawi <a href="http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/02/10/u.s.-fear-of-islamists-undermines-egypt-democracy/475j" target="_blank">said</a> on the 10<sup>th</sup>
of February, 2011, one day prior to the announcement by then vice-president
Omar Suleiman that Mubarak has decided to step down. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMttG4HWWgl2r-2BZ9T0R8-8OOyM72YhkgY1d-mhllLDpKfnbNqnNuXZVpHUH-9wwT0WbgAj2DmWqk4rXZ5eRtZ7GOgczb2v8qbPhfopuSBiZfhXfDrlNzVKrAMYVyL4gofAsZwCiD1AIj/s1600/Muslim-Brotherhood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMttG4HWWgl2r-2BZ9T0R8-8OOyM72YhkgY1d-mhllLDpKfnbNqnNuXZVpHUH-9wwT0WbgAj2DmWqk4rXZ5eRtZ7GOgczb2v8qbPhfopuSBiZfhXfDrlNzVKrAMYVyL4gofAsZwCiD1AIj/s400/Muslim-Brotherhood.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Source: <a href="http://www.enumclaw.com/wp-content/uploads/Muslim-Brotherhood.jpg">http://www.enumclaw.com/wp-content/uploads/Muslim-Brotherhood.jpg</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Many have only recently started to realize how
wrong they were when they supported the Muslim Brotherhood, hailing them as leaders
on the forefront of a transition to democracy. Many analysts underestimated the
group’s power and popularity, most importantly, they belittled any fears and
worries about their threat. While many remain wary of loudly saying ‘mea
culpa’, things in post-revolutionary Egypt have already revealed a lot. The
Brotherhood’s undemocratic and illiberal practices are now being highlighted
more than ever.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">In this context, an honest discussion is needed
in order to understand how and why so many got the Muslim Brotherhood wrong. It
is useful to take a step back and consider how the group managed to use events
to its advantage, convincing many that it was the right choice for those who
believed in the stated goals of the Egyptian revolution. If anything is to be
gained from Egypt’s failed democratic experiment, it should be an awareness of
how an organization such as the Brotherhood was able to project an image of
itself that later turned out to be a mere mirage. The goal is to avoid such
public displays of deception from succeeding in the future.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">There are two sides to the story. On the one
hand, the Muslim Brotherhood has been able to fool both fellow countrymen as
well as foreign analysts and politicians with talk about its plans for
tolerance and inclusion. On the other hand, Western analysts have often thought
and written about Egypt in such a fundamentally flawed way, that they
themselves were particularly susceptible to being misled. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">I shall discuss a few aspects of the Muslim
Brotherhood’s strategy while also highlighting why it succeeded and why it was
often received with such naiveté.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Firstly, the Muslim Brotherhood have a media
team focused on its communications to the outside world. Apart from its famous
Twitter account @Ikhwanweb, the Brotherhood also has <a href="http://www.ikhwanweb.com/" target="_blank">a website in English</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"> which, contrary to what some might
think, doesn’t simply contain translations of what the Brotherhood’s Arabic-language
platform has to offer, but a tailored array of articles aimed to project a
certain image to the Western reader. A couple of Twitter users, aware of the
misleading nature of this arrangement, have recently started <a href="http://mbinenglish.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">a new website</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"> in which they translate the actual Arabic
content from official Muslim Brotherhood online outlets. That website is full
of anti-semitic, sectarian rhetoric as well as a wide array of outlandish
conspiracy theories.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The problem
here is not simply that some analysts were ‘lost in translation’. People like
Sondos Assem and Gehad El-Haddad, who is also the executive director of the
Brotherhood’s “Renaissance” project, are supposed to represent a different kind
of Muslim Brotherhood. As journalist Nick Kristof <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/kristof-joining-a-dinner-in-a-muslim-brotherhood-home.html" target="_blank">said</a> in December 2011</span><span lang="EN-GB">: “First, meet my hostess: Sondos
Asem, a 24-year-old woman who is pretty much the opposite of the stereotypical
bearded Brotherhood activist. Sondos is a middle-class graduate of the American
University in Cairo [...]. She speaks
perfect English, is writing a master’s thesis on social media, and helps run
the Brotherhood’s English-language Twitter feed, @Ikhwanweb.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">This export
brand of Muslim Brothers (or Sisters in this case) is meant to instate the idea
of the presence of a young, progressive, open-minded stream within the
Brotherhood. This idea has also been espoused by many within Egypt itself, but
the reality is that the older, traditional Brotherhood members are the ones who
run the show. Furthermore, it is questionable to even state that the younger
generation is more open-minded. Dissidents who fall out of line too much can
only seek their refuge in leaving the organization as opposed to ‘changing it
from within’. This has happened with numerous young members of the organization
as well as with one of its leaders, Abul Fotouh, who left to contend in the
presidential race.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The faces
of the revolution as they appeared in most media outlets, were young,
tech-savvy activists who were quite progressive and ‘West-friendly’. The
aforementioned image of younger Brotherhood members fit that narrative. All
these progressive, young Egyptians, no matter their political background, would
supposedly shed the bonds of patriarchy and embrace modernity and help Egypt
embrace democracy in the process. That is ultimately what many wanted to
believe and the Brotherhood simply catered to that wishful thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Secondly, it is obvious how the Brotherhood
depended on the naiveté and lack of political experience of its opponents to
sway public opinion in its favour. In 2011, after the fall of Mubarak,
parliamentary elections were held which resulted in an overwhelming victory for
Islamists. Calling any opposition to the latter “elitist” or “in contempt of
(the will of) the people” or “islamophobic” became normal and widespread and
was sadly condoned, both explicitly and implicitly by Egypt watchers under the
guise of political correctness. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">During and after Egypt’s first
post-revolutionary presidential elections, one of the strongest weapons used by
the Brotherhood was the word “felool” (remnant of the old regime). Slowly but
surely the word infiltrated all political discussions, lost its original
meaning and was used to discredit all opponents of the Brotherhood. In the
run-off round, accusations of being pro-Mubarak and “slaves of the (military)
boots” were hurled at anyone who dared not support the Brotherhood candidate.
Play on emotions was widely used as those voting for Shafik were said to be
signing their ballots with the “blood of martyrs” and committing high treason
against the revolution and the country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">But of course, as it would become clear later
on, those who voted for Shafik did so for many different reasons and they
weren’t all sympathetic to the Mubarak regime, let alone actual members of its
network. It was the belief that it was Shafik – and not Morsi – who was the
“lessor of the two evils” that played an important role in many voters’
decisions. Many had in fact predicted a lot of what the Brotherhood ended up
doing once it came to power and it turns out they chose Shafik for very
legitimate reasons after all. Yet all those valid concerns were successfully
discredited by the Muslim Brotherhood and as usual most people took the bait. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">When the theory that SCAF would define the
outcome of the presidential elections by rigging them in favour of Shafik was
proven to be utter nonsense, a new distraction was sought. And so the theory of
the “deep state” as propagated by the Brotherhood started gaining momentum.
According to that viewpoint, the old regime was still in control of the state
through a presence in its institutions which it used to systematically fight
the revolution personified in president Morsi. This theory served as a
scapegoat which helped the Muslim Brotherhood escape responsibility for its
failure to make political or economic progress. It also became used as dangerous
justification for any of the president’s illegitimate decisions such as the
<a href="http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/58947.aspx" target="_blank">constitutional declaration</a> issued in November 2012 and the consequent
presidential appointment of a new public prosecutor</span><span lang="EN-GB">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Thridly, the Brotherhood’s choice to help
perpetuate the revolutionary – “felool” paradigm was one of its best
strategies. The revolutionary group in Egypt, which includes the Muslim
Bortherhood itself, is a very diverse one, with no unified ideology. Muslim
Brotherhood, clear proponents of a religious state were able to bypass many
revolutionaries’ rejection of such a state precisely because of that. When it
comes to actually governing a country, there was no “revolutionary” way. After
Mubarak fell, the differences between revolutionaries came to light. Instead of
the revolutionary – felool dichotomy, alliances should have been formed based
on the kind of state each group wanted, based on ideology instead of slogans.
In that process, those who were against the revolution or those who were part
of the NDP for various reasons (without being implicated in any criminal
activities) should have been involved. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Finally, it is not acceptable for those
claiming to fight orientalism, neo-colonialism, Islamophobia and racism to
stifle criticism of the Brotherhood in the name of cultural relativism while
ignoring the organization’s blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of
law. You got the Brotherhood wrong because you allowed considerations of
political correctness to make you ignore the facts. You got the Brotherhood
wrong when you chose to see the world through the paradigms they propagated,
ignoring the complexity of the political situation. You got the Brotherhood
wrong when you agreed that their “illiberal democracy” is still a democracy
worth supporting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-16228745541196645302013-04-11T19:54:00.001+02:002013-04-11T19:54:39.133+02:00Egypt's President: Tweeting an Offline Nation | Atlantic Council<a href="http://www.acus.org/egyptsource/egypts-president-tweeting-offline-nation">Egypt's President: Tweeting an Offline Nation | Atlantic Council</a>Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-72819759888227168322013-04-08T11:58:00.000+02:002013-04-11T21:34:33.593+02:00The first rule of sectarianism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reports ranged from "Mob of angry Copts are at the cathedral protesting against the Pope (while a funeral was going on, nota bene)." to "The church is to blame for the crisis, after all, they dared to have a funeral at the cathedral." to "Christians used their guns, conveniently stored in the cathedral, to fire at MOI." to "The church planned this out to be a civil war". </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are typically four stages to a full-on sectarian crisis in Egypt. First, you have the long, hard, arduous work of actually spreading sectarian venom in society. Luckily, there is no shortage of people willing to take that noble task upon themselves. Whether it is the ruling Muslim Brotherhood or one of its offshoots, or your random, friendly, neighborhood (TV-)preacher or your regular public figure, even a presidential candidate (dubbed "moderate Islamist" by the never-naive mainstream Western media), hate speech has become common. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a constant flow of rumors about the Coptic 'state-within-a-state' and the alleged vast amount of weapons stored within the churches. These rumors are not only unsubstantiated, but the ones which qualify as clear & direct incitement to the use of violence are almost never condemned, let alone punished by authorities. The Egyptian mind has often proven fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Not only Copts, but all other minorities, whether Baha'i, Shia or atheist are sometimes considered agents for foreign powers out to stifle Egypt's mindblowing democratic/economic progress. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUahhtkmYXrA4v3oggDZtXRlpEbboi5ywtXNXbIxEPNgat0v6Twp17RGJxqVCZqwydP7XrhkKiozg5VH-rHh0OHkl4uLTYt1M6od-k-4rAqKTCUZlAmucfO-1Dsh34YN6vdwGggbTOAP0P/s1600/church+attack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUahhtkmYXrA4v3oggDZtXRlpEbboi5ywtXNXbIxEPNgat0v6Twp17RGJxqVCZqwydP7XrhkKiozg5VH-rHh0OHkl4uLTYt1M6od-k-4rAqKTCUZlAmucfO-1Dsh34YN6vdwGggbTOAP0P/s400/church+attack.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo of the attack on the Coptic Cathedral - via Ahram Online</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Anyhow, after the successful spread of such rhetoric, the second stage of a sectarian crisis can begin. All it needs is a little spark, nothing big: a girl and a boy who happen to be from different religious backgrounds are rumored to be in love, a fight between two merchants, a Facebook status update, a scribble on a wall etc. Anything really is enough to be construed as proof for those who believe the Copts are out to destroy the Egyptian state with weapons stored in their churches (apparently, a meager 10% of the population with a history of sectarian violence are very likely to be plotting something like that). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
So what happens? Random mob violence is what usually happens, and collective punishment of entire communities. A small group might start the violence, but then people join in, fired up by chants and calls (or media reports) which echo in the streets as shops are set on fire, houses are looted and people are literally forced to flee for their lives. Usually there are a few dead here and there. That's pretty much it really. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The majority of people who are involved in these attacks are arguably not paid to do so, nor ordered to so by some political figure. They are people whose minds are saturated enough with that venomous broth which has been slowly simmering in society for a long time. It is not Mubarak or Morsi who order these attacks, as some like to believe. Yes, they bear some responsibility for either leaving criminals unpunished or actively promoting sectarianism, but the fact of the matter is that sectarianism is well-founded in society so it doesn't need a top-down approach. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
So the violence happens, the third stage can commence. No sectarianism without victim-blaming. The circle is full when the incendiary rhetoric that was used in stage one is repeated again, this time to justify the violence or to claim it was the Copts themselves who are at fault (or whichever community is attacked). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
When it comes to media, one important factor in stage three is reporting about the facts as "clashes" instead of attacks. Because it just sounds better or is more politically correct, or because journalists choose to ignore facts or not do their jobs. In the end, the facts are misrepresented as clashes between two equally responsible sides. This theory can be supported if one assumes people having a funeral (of victims of another sectarian incident, nota bene) in a cathedral is somehow an attack warranting a counter-attack with various weapons. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Finally, the fourth and most important stage of any sectarian crisis commences. It is the part in which a lovely state representative with a wide smile tells us there is no sectarianism in Egypt. He then recounts stories from his youth in which he used to have a Muslim/Christian neighbor with whom he used to play in the street, or alternatively, depending on the level of apparent tolerance needed, in whose house he used to eat during feasts and special occasions.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The first rule of sectarianism: you do not talk about sectarianism. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-11249305511651212022013-03-26T00:19:00.000+02:002013-03-26T20:36:36.770+02:00A Renaissance gone bad<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Once upon a
time far away in that mystical place called the Orient, there was a Kingdom in
distress. So three Musketeers set out to save the land. One used to be a hero
in his youth, many lifetimes ago, troubadours once roamed the land singing
tales of his bravery. The second was known as the stuttering star.. in the
West. His encounters with the powerful forces of the East couldn't prepare him
for what he would meet in the Kingdom of Pharaohs. Long ago, he had worked with
the Dark Lords (before they shed their white cloaks) thinking they were on his
side, but they eventually turned on him. The third of the Musketeers was of the
plebs, but he had one gift, his magical hair wooed the public, that special way
he liked to comb it to the left made all the young maidens go wild. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvG625ISkMwQwqkL3WE3CEVuZ4uMKiLfnFFqPSnQxlCYs4GswkDpUlwjlwQJpQjuKUKDqVRZDSrFn_FQLNqjJb-Ypza4t3rPPgUhMM5gTHBrLKzT1UxQFPuNzPWj3dfqHQErAiQiXIjJuF/s1600/mount+doom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvG625ISkMwQwqkL3WE3CEVuZ4uMKiLfnFFqPSnQxlCYs4GswkDpUlwjlwQJpQjuKUKDqVRZDSrFn_FQLNqjJb-Ypza4t3rPPgUhMM5gTHBrLKzT1UxQFPuNzPWj3dfqHQErAiQiXIjJuF/s400/mount+doom.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The three Musketeers
weren’t always so close, but once the Dark Lords rose to power, they decided to
form a union in order to defeat them. Many were not pleased with this union of
interests: Greybeard was one of them even though there was a time when he
thought of joining in.It didn’t work out well in the end, partly because “The Four
Musketeers” just doesn’t have a ring to it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">But that
wasn’t the only reason, Greybeard had once been one of the elders in the
Council of the Dark Lords, he had sworn an oath of fealty to the Supreme Lord
of Darkness, a bond not easily broken. When Greybeard decided to disobey his
Lord, he was banished from the pack, cursed to always roam the land, to be
everything and nothing all at once. Not black nor white, but always in between,
that was Greybeard’s place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The
Younglings were of little stature but with hearts of gold. They followed the
tales of the three Musketeers closely, first with joy, but later with growing
resentment and disappointment. It became clear the Musketeers were no match to
the Dark Lords who had gold and could always count on the support of the
Elephant Prince who lived in a far away land. The Dark Lords lived in a big
castle on Mount Doom but always maintained close contact to their allies
abroad.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The whole story
started when the Younglings challenged the Fat King who had ruled the land for
many many years. The Fat King was loved once, but as he grew older, his hearing
weakened and so did his eyesight. After a long ride, he couldn’t land softly
anymore. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">When the
Dark Lords felt his time had come, they joined the Younglings in their quest
for power. The Dark Lords had been dreaming about this for a long time and it
would become their first step to world-dominion. Once the Fat King fell, the
true nature of the Dark Lords was revealed and they took off their white cloaks. In
order to keep the Younglings on their side, they devised an evil scheme. They brewed a yellowy potion and gave it to the naïve Younglings who drank it
joyously. The drink tasted good in the beginning, but as with many things in
this story, later turned out to be an acidic poison. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">And thus everyone
waged battles against everyone in a war of all against all in the Kingdom of Pharaohs.
Plagues hit the land and locusts left green fields behind as barren places of
despair. Even in Mount Doom, confidence and arrogance had made way for discord
and frustration. The Heir to the Supreme Head of the Council of Darkness was
unhappy that his brother, the Spare, had become King. The Mad King, as he
became known, felt unappreciated and unwanted. He had grown up jealous of his
brother and thought becoming King would make up for his lost childhood. He used
to threaten his subjects with things which cannot be named in a fairy tale such
as this, suffice it to say that his threats only brought more misery upon him
and his people and they lived happily never after.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-79471928649939119402013-03-15T21:33:00.000+02:002013-03-15T21:41:44.682+02:00Everything is relative<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It is time analysts and commentators lay off and stop criticizing Arabs for not being 'democratic', 'liberal' or 'human rightsy' enough. The truth of the matter is that Arabs aren't made for the whole democracy thing nor do they care for so-called human rights. In fact, polls suggest that dictatorship comes natural to Arabs and runs in their veins together with the unnaturally high amounts of tea they consume while sitting outside in the afternoons discussing Arab-stuff.<br />
<br />
It is also time we are honest about those, from the West or from within the Arab world itself, who engage in public condemnation of actions committed by Arab rulers to protect society from foreign influences. These people are either paid agents or self-loathing Arabs who don't understand or appreciate their culture.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzPyoBAkqVX5l25lhXra67VL_O25HrXagwcgxNaE-uxGZtR5moqDAIIsHxz09gZYys0M-TOdyBFKo0Nc7uj9qliyOxmBS_Dk5g_DT5y7sDVxyTsic1NnbkrKxtqSyv9YByAIJx5EimS8mW/s1600/Ikhwan+relativism.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzPyoBAkqVX5l25lhXra67VL_O25HrXagwcgxNaE-uxGZtR5moqDAIIsHxz09gZYys0M-TOdyBFKo0Nc7uj9qliyOxmBS_Dk5g_DT5y7sDVxyTsic1NnbkrKxtqSyv9YByAIJx5EimS8mW/s400/Ikhwan+relativism.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Let's discuss the case of the <a href="http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731" target="_blank">statement</a> issued by the Muslim Brotherhood regarding the discussions recently held in the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The Muslim Brotherhood, being the only true representatives of the Arab people, as polls suggest, epitomize universally held values in the Arab world. Their rejection of the possibility of marital rape is but a reflection of what Arab and Muslim identity really stand for. We must trust that this is only in the interest of protecting society from "complete disintegration" as they say in their statement.<br />
<br />
As the wise Protagoras said back in the 5th century BC (that is before all Western analysts became hell bent on destroying Arab identity) "Everything is relative". We must remember that like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, the right to physical integrity is also a mere Western construct that is not necessarily fit for Arab consumption. When the Muslim Brotherhood sees it fit to legalize FGM (female genital mutilation) or allow child marriages, it is an act of courageous rebellion against Western intervention. Things like police torture and trials of consciousness for atheists are absolutely normal in an Arab context, even if they're frowned upon elsewhere.<br />
<br />
To the Western reader, I say, you must understand that democracy and Arabs don't mix. It is an achievement already that they were able to resort to the ballots, requiring them to fulfill the other complex requirements of a fair democratic process is asking too much. Arabs love dictators and hate democracy and this is why they are restoring dictatorships after they fell during the Arab Spring revolts. It was wrong to condemn the rulers then as it is wrong to condemn them now for simply trying to protect their societies. If the so-called human rights of individuals have to be sacrificed for the sake of the collective, then that is their prerogative.<br />
<br />
And to those Arabs who advocate for human rights, I say that they must review their position. They must realize that they are tools in the hands of those who<span style="font-family: inherit;"> <span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">want "the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies" as the Muslim Brotherhood warns. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<span style="line-height: 17.98611068725586px;"><i>Disclaimer: Just in case it wasn't clear: this is a parody of moral relativists and their dangerous views on the Arab world.</i></span></div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-67363122623306141002013-03-10T23:07:00.001+02:002013-03-14T19:04:30.349+02:00Perverse Paternalism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently,
the American administration decided it wouldn’t give Samira Ibrahim the “Woman
of Courage” award she was supposed to get. The reason for the change of heart
was a series of tweets which demonstrated hatred, intolerance and dangerously ignorant
thinking. This has caused much controversy and stirred up a lot of debate that
deserves some analysis.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Samira
appeared in the spotlights last year when she claimed she had been subjected to
so-called “Virginity Tests” by the army. In a society where victims of sexual
harassment are often blamed for the abuse they had to endure, it takes a lot of
nerve to stand up and admit one has been the victim of such harassment.
Furthermore, Samira’s case wasn’t just against anybody, it was against the
institution which was then still in charge of the country. With over 100.000
Twitter followers, Samira is now a public figure whose case drew a lot of media
attention both domestically and internationally.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_XZfU8AVKTw6MQrZqQxJIfDA3iwAaybaPU8GBXHLWf5lZOBrAFZm-aA_irGGMjqoZp3kugTaDA4X_l7eejOel-lN5yI95mjjBekKnejGln-Q5KT9Rd9fVOII2qqFA_UJvotjcwkB6lopo/s1600/samira.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_XZfU8AVKTw6MQrZqQxJIfDA3iwAaybaPU8GBXHLWf5lZOBrAFZm-aA_irGGMjqoZp3kugTaDA4X_l7eejOel-lN5yI95mjjBekKnejGln-Q5KT9Rd9fVOII2qqFA_UJvotjcwkB6lopo/s400/samira.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">In her
tweets, Samira had wished for America to burn and this on the anniversary of
9/11. Furthermore, she expressed her joy at a terrorist attack which killed
several (Israeli – does that matter?) civilians in Bulgaria. She also positively
quoted Hitler as saying that the Jews are behind all the world’s problems. With
regards to the anti-Islam film which has caused a lot of anger when it appeared
last year, she said that the diaspora Copts are not the only ones to blame, but
the entire West. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">My aim is
to discuss the responses to Samira’s tweets and the reactions they got.
According to some, Samira was wrong in saying what she said, but shouldn’t have
been deprived of the award regardless of that fact. In their view, the award
was supposed to be for her courage in her ordeal with the army and shouldn’t be
dependent on views she expressed in public. Ironically, Samira’s first reaction
after people became aware of her tweets was to claim that her account had been
hacked and that all racist or hateful tweets weren’t hers. Courage, as
apparently some don’t know, is also about taking responsibility for one’s
opinions and admitting the mistakes one makes. When it was clear she wouldn’t
be getting any award, Samira made the claim that she had been pressured to
apologize to the Zionist lobby for her tweets, claiming the Zionist lobby was
the only problem. According to that theory, the U.S. would have gladly and
readily rewarded a woman who wished for them to burn if only the “Zionist Lobby”
hadn’t intervened. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The next
important response is the one in which it is claimed that her statements should
be put in context. The argument goes that since many Arabs use that kind of
rhetoric, what Samira did “isn’t really that bad”. This reasoning is flawed on
many levels. Firstly, there is the assumption that this kind of anti-Western,
anti-Jewish, anti-Coptic rhetoric is a natural thing to Arabs and therefore
excusable in some way. It’s as if the proponents of this view believe that "Arabs just can’t help it".
Needless to say, those who adhere to this idea insult Arab individuals in a very profound way. Secondly, the
pseudo-logic of justifying a mistake “because someone else did it” might be
expected of children aged 5-7, but surely not of anyone who wishes to be taken
seriously in a grown-up world. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">Finally,
some people rushed to the defence of Samira Ibrahim claiming she is a poor,
uneducated girl who simply didn’t know better. Apparently, one needs to go to
Harvard to learn that reveling in the death of innocent civilians is wrong. Also
clear from this reasoning is the very nasty habit which many (mostly leftist)
pundits have adopted in which poverty is used to justify unacceptable behaviour. Again, in the assumption that “poor people just can’t help being bigoted, intolerant and
inhumane individuals”. Surprisingly (well, not really) those who claim to
defend the interests of the poor by speaking on their behalf, are insulting
them in a very paternalistic way. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-GB">The fact of
the matter is that what Samira Ibrahim did was wrong. And it was possibly even
worse to deny it and then claim hero-status for having
supposedly resisted immense pressure from the Zionist lobby (nota bene: the
tweets mentioned above weren't about Israel or Zionism at all). Thankfully many
activists loudly denounced what she did, but there remains a large portion
which believes defending such behavior can somehow be beneficial. The reality is that it
will only perpetuate the problem. We need harsh self-criticism and strong
principles in the realization that we won’t move forward unless we start taking
responsibility and demanding that others bear the consequences of their actions
as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>You can read more about the facts of the story <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-and-john-kerry-honor-anti-semite-and-911-fan_706547.html" target="_blank">here</a></i></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-56268885139240101052013-02-03T14:45:00.002+02:002013-02-03T14:46:11.855+02:00Thatcher refuses to jump<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I recently came across this video of an interview with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In the context of the interview, guests are apparently asked to do something out of the ordinary, namely to jump up in the air. When the interviewer asks Thatcher to do this, she refuses and says the following: <b>"I see no significance whatsoever of making a jump up in the air, I made great leaps forward, not little jumps in studios." </b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/QiMs165tVdw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Now, this video might be viewed as humorous by some, but what struck me in the quote I mentioned above is the simple wisdom contained in it. Thatcher contrasts jumping up and down with moving forward, in both cases there is movement, both are dynamic expressions but only one involves actual change in position.<br />
<br />
This got me thinking about the Arab World and the aftermath of the uprisings that swept through the region in the course of the past two years. <a href="http://tabulasara.blogspot.be/2012/05/myth-of-revolutionary-candidate.html" target="_blank">I wrote before</a> about the mistake of insisting on a united revolutionary front which deludes the meaning of the revolution for the different groups and individuals who participated in it for different reasons and with different goals in sight. A lot of what has been happening by insisting on something which isn't possible in reality like that artificial unity is that people have been protesting, getting their hopes up and trying in vain, they have been jumping up and down. They are active, they feel they are doing something when in reality they haven't moved forward a bit.<br />
<br />
In reality not much has changed in Egypt, in fact, things have gotten worse on many levels, and I think the problem is that so much energy and so much potential go to waste by insisting on using the same methods which have proven ineffective so many times in the past. It might be more exciting to jump up, to feel the euphoria of being detached from the ground, from reality, for just a little while. But when you come down again after jumping, you find you are still in the same place and the energy you used making that jump will have gone to waste.<br />
<br />
Instead, it might be worth considering trying different methods to move forward, even if the steps are small and the process is slow. It might not be as invigorating, but it is most probably more consistent and will, in the long run, yield better results.<br />
<br />
The interviewer, trying to convince Thatcher to do what even Gorbachev did, told Thatcher that her jumping up and down might be a chance to show people that she is actually doing something, not just talking. Thatcher answers saying that she wouldn't jump in a studio during an interview to please an audience, but is intent upon gaining and preserving their respect for her by working on the ground. There are different kinds of actions, some more appealing to those who seek entertainment and excitement, others less visible but perhaps much more valuable and lasting. We have been criticizing the political elite in Egypt, we see them daily on television, but when we look in reality they are nowhere to be found and their influence nowhere to be felt. It might be useful to reflect upon Thatcher's response when put in the situation she was put in.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-62862856293954883892013-02-03T01:45:00.001+02:002013-02-03T01:57:08.467+02:00What we need..<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In between those lessons we learned, those we are learning right now and those we will soon forget, one thing is clear. Regardless of the revolution, regardless of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the Muslim Brotherhood, there is one task we who claim to fight for liberty are entrusted with. A movement needs to flood the public sphere with ideas that have thus far been hidden, buried under the failing political rhetoric of an outdated, uninspired and most importantly, uninspiring political elite. What we need is a fully-fledged wave that will leave nothing standing in the same way, through which the light will reach spheres which had known nothing but immobile darkness.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNp1_SsKRJ9uconhYS1aTKhVl75oMIA1C4KzWVBSvsgLsEb62wxoqGmuOymnbx_Ou32n7iTg2EBWmDuP9z4gW_CEFJt9ySBemB2Tf-g-Qhq1ZtRUzJ6UKBuWXN952ZaE-qrcUcYu7EtKam/s1600/voice-traning-pic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNp1_SsKRJ9uconhYS1aTKhVl75oMIA1C4KzWVBSvsgLsEb62wxoqGmuOymnbx_Ou32n7iTg2EBWmDuP9z4gW_CEFJt9ySBemB2Tf-g-Qhq1ZtRUzJ6UKBuWXN952ZaE-qrcUcYu7EtKam/s320/voice-traning-pic.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
What we need is a liberal and secular movement in the Arab World. A movement which knows no boundaries, a movement that is non-sectarian. A movement much bigger than political parties, of which we have many now, names devoid of content and effect. What we need is a cultural, philosophical, social, economic and religious movement, one that is seen and felt in every town, in every village. A movement with no grandiose leaders, but passionate advocates in all corners of our region. A current that challenges the status quo without being in conflict with society itself. One that springs forth from within the heart of every community, one that grows from the pains of the reality of everyday life but which offers a completely new kind of medicine.<br />
<br />
A movement made up of entrepreneurs, leaders young and old. Those who dare, those who can inspire. Those who have decided to let their ways be guided by the ever-shining light of human reason, and, if they so choose, an all-encompassing divine love. Those brave enough to take on bigotry head on, brave enough to shock, opening up discussions which many a tongue dared not touch. Creative, inventive souls, using whatever media they can get their hands on, looking to change their communities, their surroundings and eventually the world. We need creation instead of the constant imitations and limitations which we place on ourselves. A movement which wins the trust of those people who have known nothing but big promises with no one to keep them, disappointment after disappointment.<br />
<br />
We no longer need the empty slogans, their time has passed. This must be bigger than politics, not to be confined in dusty old televisions in sitting rooms. We need well-versed, educated and committed people who will debate, challenge instead of blaming their failures on the other whoever it may be. To preach unalienable, God-given rights in face of those who preach slavery to a state speaking in His name. To know history, to know we are right, to believe our cause is just, our cause is worth the struggle and the fight. The awareness that we may only be planting seeds the fruits of which we will not see, but which could eventually spread in society the way fire spreads in a dried up forest. Because dried up it is, morally bankrupt and intellectually weak, it needs renewal. Not destruction for the sake of destruction, but weeding out that which is useless to make place for better things, for greater things. And one day, after the all-consuming fire eats away the old, green could appear again, it will be strong and resilient, aiming for the blue sky. And we may not live to see those seeds turn into something big, but we must know that it is our effort today that will make that even remotely possible in the future.<br />
<br />
Those who have taken up masks on the political theatre, can keep them on. The curtains will soon close and the stage will be set for those who don't wear masks, who don't look down upon their societies unless to see their own feet on the ground, firmly connected to the land and its traditions and its history. Fully aware of who they are, not looking at things from a bird's eye perspective, but looking in the mirror, seeing themselves among others. Not those who go against the values for the sake of being different, no, those who dare change them, in themselves, in their own reflection above all else.<br />
<br />
So far, we have only talked about events, about people, about theories of outlandish conspiracies. What we haven't talked about are ideas. Ideas, more powerful than anything, ideas which penetrate even hard surfaces, which will speak to that part in all of us which has for long been subjected to deafening silence. Bigger than a revolution and bigger than politics, what is needed is in each of us, a belief in a sacred freedom, a sacred right which belongs within our minds before it manifests itself in our surroundings. An idea. What we need... is to bravely proclaim the idea.</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-62261692782294918142013-01-19T19:31:00.001+02:002013-01-19T19:55:49.675+02:00Challenges for Secularism in Egypt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
"No religion in politics!" A sentence that is often used by those who call themselves secular and/or liberal (the term 'secular' has mostly been shunned and 'liberal' or 'civil' became umbrella-terms for all non-Islamists) on the Egyptian political scene. But what does it really mean and is it an adequate slogan to represent the secular stream in Egyptian society (which is itself a diverse group of course)? Any spectator of current Egyptian affairs will have noticed the uneasy relationship between religion and politics which has become an omnipresent subject in almost all political discussions. The following is an attempt to explore the issue from a different angle.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is not unusual for Egyptians to hear political opinions being laid out while attending Friday prayers, in fact, there have been some reports recently of skirmishes occurring within mosques because some felt the sheikh had crossed a line by endorsing a political party or condemning its political opponents openly. The line between politics and religion however, is very flexible and vague in a country where according to some interpretations of religion, it means more than just religion and becomes "religion and state". In the Coptic Church, the Pope's political opinions were criticized not just for their content but for their supposed influence on Christians. In other churches, especially after the revolution, certain political opinions of the leaders are identifiable as well. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many of those who call themselves secular have criticized clergy or religious preachers for openly expressing political opinions, but are men of religion only confined to talking about religion at all times? Can't they express political opinions purely in their capacity of Egyptian citizens? The reality is that one cannot and should not stop these men from expressing their views on politics, that's not to say there can't be internal regulations forbidding the use of the pulpits for political campaigning. The true problem, after all, is not that some people are using religion in political speech, it's when religious rules are enforced using state power and that is, in fact, what seculars should be fighting. The new constitution, for instance, determines that a body of the renowned Islamic institution Al Azhar is given the power to interpret religious rules which, in their turn, are the main source of legislation in the country.<br />
<br />
Ironically, so-called champions of secularism in Egypt have themselves used religion in their campaigning, the "Egyptian Bloc", for instance, which consisted of three secular parties, used this banner, which reads "The Quran is our Constitution", a slogan often used by religious parties and those calling for a religious state.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGlMfLKgzT0tZB_RCKQzmEBks_gQNHv01dQ4fiyrzq7zOPkX_dx64Vz5Z3kWDz-UABc0UJTl73xaOIp_Aw_d877Rr2mSgBsgrn4DJMNHBKNBI3sq145XoshpxnINw8PjYE__3J9uoELTb2/s1600/27122011320.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGlMfLKgzT0tZB_RCKQzmEBks_gQNHv01dQ4fiyrzq7zOPkX_dx64Vz5Z3kWDz-UABc0UJTl73xaOIp_Aw_d877Rr2mSgBsgrn4DJMNHBKNBI3sq145XoshpxnINw8PjYE__3J9uoELTb2/s400/27122011320.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: http://www.almasryalyoum.com//sites/default/files/imagecache/highslide_zoom/photo/2011/12/27/69411/27122011320.jpg</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In one of his videos (AR) which was used as part of a campaign calling on people to vote no on the new Constitution in December 2012, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the secular Dostour Party, said: "we say no to the constitution because we want the Sharia".</div>
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y4Zx-CHDd3U?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
In another instant, El Dostour party campaign flyers had been distributed to people attending Eid prayers. Muslim Brotherhood figure El Brens <a href="http://elbadil.com/egypt-news/2012/08/19/60134" target="_blank">was reported saying</a> that this signifies "the official burial of the saying 'No religion in politics'".<br />
<br />
In a country where religion or at least the appearance or mention thereof play a big role in public life, can Egyptians have a meaningful political dialogue while completely shunning the subject? It is important that secular and/or liberals first know what it is exactly they are striving for and that they let go of slogans and/or methods which have proven unhelpful. As a political stream, they must reconcile with the idea that religion does play a big role in public life. Instead of calling for 'no religion in politics', it might be time to highlight the dangers of having religious rules forced on citizens by the state through legislation and the potential of abuse this has; while making clear that religion and religious freedom are respected. An important issue, for instance, has been the independence of Al Azhar. It should be made clear that no such independence can exist when the institution is given the power to interpret religious rules for the courts, thereby making it an important target for whoever is in power.<br />
<br />
But above all, it is important for secular politicians to determine what they stand for on other issues, which will inevitably lead to their division in multiple parties based on their opinions on several social and economic questions (as opposed to one umbrella party that doesn't really stand for anything except its opposition to the Islamists). Political parties which are unable to reach citizens with well-researched programs and concrete plans for ways to take on the countries' many problems, will not get the citizens' votes. It is not enough to highlight the dangers of what the Islamist parties in Egypt are striving for, what is needed is an alternative. One that doesn't alienate the citizen nor patronize him or her and certainly one that respects that in Egypt, religion holds an important spot in many people's hearts. Egyptians don't need the government to teach them how to pray, instead, they require someone to create a legal environment where they can freely live and work, where economic growth can be achieved in a way that benefits all citizens, seculars should strive to be that someone. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-40330728182125703312012-12-26T19:02:00.001+02:002013-05-05T19:31:48.763+02:00"Christians in Egypt" and other novelties..<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Long-awaited guidelines, intended to help unsuspecting citizens identify members of a newly emerged sect in Egypt called "Christians", have finally been issued. The document describes "Christians" (or "Copts" as they sometimes call themselves) as a monolithic collective of people who have appeared in Egypt recently under very suspicious circumstances. Even though not much is known about this new religious community, the advent of which introduces the concept of "religious diversity" to a historically religiously homogeneous Egypt, scientists and analysts have been able to collect some vital data about them hoping to raise awareness about the dangers they pose to the country.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Christians have been observed to consume disproportionately high quantities of<i> fava</i> beans for long periods of time during the year thereby endangering Egypt's strategic <i>fava </i>bean reserves. Their exact origins are unknown, but they have been said to come from an undiscovered planet called "Diaspora" hoping to raise havoc in the country. They seem to dispense over an unlimited supply of money and weapons which they are known to store inside their houses of worship where they reportedly also keep their pet lions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgji7kq2cXaQUWU2B6NlmLiyIPuM7PA_-RFprXIjm9J6Oh31gw7sTsXNp2PBzOxYAH7bc5gxP5Rx2MxDtKoMkkmCyFHS2aCsqBlyVqzB7zWutj01K4h-QajAa5uyFNw2FHgjHI1sIRj5ZhH/s1600/6a00d8341c630a53ef00e550eb2c438833-800wi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgji7kq2cXaQUWU2B6NlmLiyIPuM7PA_-RFprXIjm9J6Oh31gw7sTsXNp2PBzOxYAH7bc5gxP5Rx2MxDtKoMkkmCyFHS2aCsqBlyVqzB7zWutj01K4h-QajAa5uyFNw2FHgjHI1sIRj5ZhH/s400/6a00d8341c630a53ef00e550eb2c438833-800wi.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Coptic deacons chanting at the Cathedral</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition to that, investigations have revealed that they are also in possession of vast areas of land around some of their more remotely located houses of worship where they claim to spend their time in contemplative prayer. These so-called "monasteries", however, are suspected of being no more than a façade for clandestine practices, possibly hiding places for ultra-sophisticated nuclear arms factories. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a recent incident where their dangers have become apparent, Christians carried out a diabolical plan by which they led several Armed Personnel Carriers (APC's) to a trap using their own bodies as bait. It has to be mentioned that some insightful media outlets with a heightened sense of responsibility attempted to warn the general populace of the evil nature of that plot, though unfortunately to no avail. This incident has resulted in considerable damage to the wheels of the APC's coupled with high clean-up costs which, in turn, have had dramatic effects on the country's otherwise stable economy. Not to mention the stolen APC's which authorities still haven't been able to recover, they might be found hidden in the monasteries as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Although the majority of Christians have succeeded in perfecting their Arabic language skills, an attentive listener can, with a bit of effort, pick up on their distinct Christian accent. This trait has helped to identify them in recent times, permitting experts to determine their exact participation percentages in protests by listening to them chant. Aside from that, they seem to have developed a separate language which they presumably use to communicate with their foreign associates, most likely members of occult organizations.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even though they have only been in the country for a relatively brief time, they have managed to blend in well to the extent that they were able to partake in the political process by pretending to be regular citizens. Although their numbers are very small, insignificant one might say, they seem to possess a supernatural ability to increase in numbers at public gatherings and protests, but also during presidential elections. It is still unclear whether these are the only supernatural abilities they possess, but there have been unconfirmed reports claiming they also have invisible fingers, which are known internationally to be means of thwarting democratic transitions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regulations obliging Christians to wear visible signs identifying themselves as "Christian" are expected soon so as to make it easier to discern between them and normal Egyptians. In the meantime, citizens are strongly advised to exercise extreme caution when dealing with those they suspect of being Christian until more is known about their kind and how to neutralize their threat. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Disclaimer: This is a satirical piece intended to highlight the disturbing rise of the use of sectarian rhetoric in Egypt. </i></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-12661628605019128512012-12-24T01:32:00.003+02:002012-12-24T03:25:25.898+02:00Who Owns the Revolution?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We're approaching the second anniversary of the Egyptian revolution and seeing how we are apparently still stuck with the same "revolutionary - felool" paradigm (felool being a term originally used for old regime remnants but one that has come to mean anyone who opposes revolutionaries and/or the Muslim Brotherhood), it is time to critically evaluate the positions of the different actors on the political stage. Many have claimed that the Egyptian revolution had distinct goals, clear ideals that can function as a way to measure and determine whether someone was revolutionary or not. However, it has become clear that the slogan "bread, freedom and social justice" can hardly fulfill that goal. Under the umbrella of the revolution were united people who hold completely different views about the very basics of political and societal organization. The only thing that united these people was a hatred for the old regime and this for various reasons which aren't all common to all of them. Some, for instance, don't seem to want to change the system as much as the people who were in it, while others hoped for a more thorough change. It is obvious in any case, that once that common enemy fell, the revolutionary movement disintegrated into several groups each holding on to a separate meaning of the revolution and claiming to 'continue the fight' for its sake. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq9CCTc8jRcA9JU4zoCJA9zwkzh2MFooOFS3kHB5QRyusgQ6zOzNIOGXCv-o7Rlu_FBeonp6J5Qy3EevRjxE0Yv1YHQ_XE-xhQVWrGpMTPpf5xa7Bj68pP02RrZZa1ufCI3peWZt_XzUXt/s1600/album_large_4050251.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq9CCTc8jRcA9JU4zoCJA9zwkzh2MFooOFS3kHB5QRyusgQ6zOzNIOGXCv-o7Rlu_FBeonp6J5Qy3EevRjxE0Yv1YHQ_XE-xhQVWrGpMTPpf5xa7Bj68pP02RrZZa1ufCI3peWZt_XzUXt/s400/album_large_4050251.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Celebrations in Tahrir Square after Mubarak stepped down</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the accusations hurled at the Muslim Brotherhood was that they 'stole' the revolution (a variation has them 'riding' the revolutionary wave). This rhetoric, though comforting for revolutionaries who feel frustrated they couldn't transform their ideas into reality, must be viewed with scrutiny. For what does it mean to 'steal the revolution'? Regardless of when they joined the street protests, the Muslim Brotherhood at one point also stood in the squares and also screamed for bread, freedom and social justice, also demanding that Mubarak step down. Why would their interpretation of the revolution be considered inferior to that of the (other) 'revolutionaries'? Why can't the Islamists claim that the establishment of a theocratic state is in fact a way of fulfilling the demands of the revolution as they understand them? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Similarly, as Maikel Nabil was talking at a university in Israel, some have taken it upon themselves to deprive him of the 'revolutionary' label. He has no right to call himself a revolutionary, according to them, because his beliefs aren't in accordance with theirs. And this regardless of whether he was in the squares like them, screaming the same words and calling for the downfall of Mubarak as well. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What many fail to understand is that the only thing the people in the square had in common was a hatred for the Mubarak regime and a desire for change. What direction that change would go and what exactly it would entail wasn't something they all agreed on, not by far. There were different factions from the beginning, people who have little in common. Most well-known pictures of Tahrir square which were spread on the media show the full square from afar, even most videos show the same image of a unified collective screaming loudly with one voice. But zoom in and you see the true picture, with all its political colors and nuances. A Salafi, a revolutionary socialist and a classical liberal all stood together, but their unity would end once their common goal was achieved, their visions about the post-Mubarak Egypt diverge in an extreme way. An important side note here is that not all those who hated the corruption of the Mubarak regime were in the squares. The so-called "Kanaba party", people who didn't really join in street action, aren't all one block either. The reality is much more complicated than the simplified black and white version many are advocating. There were those who, while reviling the system and the way things were going, didn't believe a revolution would bring any relief. Yes, there were those who believed slow, piecemeal reform would eventually yield better results than what they considered an uncalculated, risky regime change. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When the second round of the presidential elections was held, many dubbed it the ultimate test to determine someone's revolutionary score. Nevermind the fact that there is <a href="http://tabulasara.blogspot.be/2012/05/myth-of-revolutionary-candidate.html" target="_blank">no such thing as a "unified political program for the revolution" upon which a so-called "unified candidate" can get all the revolutionary votes</a>. And indeed, Morsi, Sabbahi and Abul Fotouh were all considered revolutionary candidates by their followers, even though their respective political programs differed greatly. In the end, Morsi was dubbed "the revolutionary candidate" even though his plans for the country were fundamentally and completely different from those of a liberal revolutionary or a socialist revolutionary. And that same "revolution" which was used to usher in the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, was later on used to justify the way they ruled the country. It was somehow expected that all revolutionaries accept this in silence or be dubbed felool, remnants of the old regime, supporters of corruption. They fell victims to the dichotomy they created wereby one is either a revolutionary who stand for justice or a felooli who supports corruption and nepotism. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, it is time to let go of naive simplifications of reality and start realizing the complexity and diversity that exists in the Egyptian case. In the end, what counts should be the actual ideological opinions and concrete plans for the country the person or group in question has. This is the divide we should focus on, this is the divide upon which parties and coalitions should be built, not the empty revolutionary - felool dichotomy! It is outrageous that those who didn't support the revolution or who supported Shafik should be treated as morally inferior to the so-called revolutionaries. Not after it became clear that some revolutionaries would in fact use that revolution to usher in a new age of dictatorship, <a href="http://tabulasara.blogspot.ch/2012/12/constitutional-highway-to-theocracy.html" target="_blank">this time in the form of a totalitarian theocracy.</a> Some of those who opposed the revolution from the beginning and who voted for Shafik later on did so exactly because they had predicted this scenario. The vast majority of those Egyptians aren't criminals, nor people who approve of corruption, they are simply people who disagreed with the 'revolutionaries' on how this country should be run and how its problems should be solved. Try and punish the criminals of the old regime, but don't alienate those who did what they thought was best for their country and continue to do so. They don't need to justify themselves or apologize for breaching the "revolutionary" code in order to be accepted among the ranks of those legitimately opposing the current regime.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Egypt now stands before a difficult struggle. A struggle for freedom from state oppression, a struggle against a government that wishes to put itself above the law, a regime that would trample basic rights under the pretext of 'purging' state and society from 'evil elements'. In this fight, the distinction shouldn't be based on the meaningless revolutionary - felool divide, but on something more pertinent in face of the current threats. As I write this, a quote by George Orwell comes to mind, one that seems to have been written exactly for the situation we're in today: <b><span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians."</span></span></b></div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-38475405605285224082012-12-11T15:25:00.004+02:002022-07-05T17:37:20.950+02:00Constitutional Highway to Theocracy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is no secret that the Egyptian Islamists (most importantly represented in the Constitional Assembly by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Da'awa Salafiya) who, together with clear sympathizers, possessed more than half the seats in the Constitutional Assembly, all want a religious state, a theocracy of sorts, a system where purely religious rules are enforced using state power. This demand has been at the heart of their chants in protests, their parties' political programs and their members' words whenever they appear in the media. In fact, during the discussions in the Constitutional Assembly, some members of that group wanted to remove the word "democratic" from the draft altogether, because it would imply putting the people's will above that of God (cf. infra).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this article, I shall discuss some of the constitutional loopholes and mines through which the drafters wished to implement their plans of having the government play a big, intrusive role in the lives of citizens by invoking religion. Let it be clear that this article does not aim to belittle the role of religion in both private and public life in any way nor is the point to discuss a particular religion in se. I simply mean to clarify what the draft constitution entails and how it will be interpreted so as to counter claims by some so-called experts claiming it is not very controversial or that protests against it are exaggerated. It is therefore that I would like to discuss <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95rXAdSAxAs&feature=g-crec-a" target="_blank">Dr. Yasser el Borhamy's words</a> (AR), published by "<a href="http://www.anasalfy.com/" target="_blank">Ana El Salafy</a>" (I, the Salafi)*, a famous Salafi website. After having finished the constitutional draft, El Borhamy, who is a prominent Salafi member of the Constitutional Assembly, is seen in the video defending and explaining the draft to fellow Salafi sheikhs, among whom the prominent Sheikh Mohammed Hassan. The reason for this, was that there were some attacks on the draft from within the Islamist front itself.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh14GeCegWjzn2ju3FsksdqaC0s_9oLQl9YJyzkl5-0khPC3EgW6lpbjicuQsPJuU7ZyOOU2LNlzxIAQiq6GwhwGA7rhFKtei4Ul5SDjY9bt3B4dh0XC4bSFA2kx6T5d7w5bc7NjHndJmpe/s1600/51330399869424680312.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh14GeCegWjzn2ju3FsksdqaC0s_9oLQl9YJyzkl5-0khPC3EgW6lpbjicuQsPJuU7ZyOOU2LNlzxIAQiq6GwhwGA7rhFKtei4Ul5SDjY9bt3B4dh0XC4bSFA2kx6T5d7w5bc7NjHndJmpe/s400/51330399869424680312.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Dr. Yasser El Borhami, member of the Constituent Assembly</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
El Borhamy starts off by stating the importance of article 2 of the constitution which proclaims that Islam is the religion of the state and the principles of Islamic law (Shariah) are the main source of legislation. It is important to note that Salafis believe the article, as it was interpreted in the past by the Supreme Consitutional Court (SCC), had a range that was too narrow for their wishes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
El Borhamy then clarifies that although only 50% of the Assembly were Islamists (while mentioning that Islamists should have had more than 70% but agreed to 50% in the end in order to avoid problems with SCAF and the SCC), many members from the "non-Islamist" group were in fact also "religious" and supported the "Islamist project". He concludes that there was thus a majority for Islamists in the end.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He continues by saying that they wished to replace the word "democratic" in <u>article 1</u> of the draft with the word "shura". The word "citizenship" was also considered a problem by some Islamists, because, just like "democracy", it was suspected of being unislamic. However, since the SCC had interpreted "citizenship" to mean that citizens feel they belong to one nation and that their interests are interlinked, El Borhamy explains that it contains nothing that goes against religion per se. In the end, they decided to keep the word "democratic" in the first article, but define it by adding "shura" to its explanation in article 6. The reason for this addition was to make clear that democracy in Egypt would have a "ceiling", that there would be primacy for God's law (of course, always as interpreted by humans) over the will of the people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The next article discussed is the controversial <u>article 2</u>. According to Salafis, the article had been void of meaning and was merely "decor" in the past. It is therefore that they wished to rewrite the article so as to make its range broader. In the end and after much discussion, the Islamists suggested adding article 219 which defines the words "principles of shariah". It is this article, which is contained in the final draft, which the Salafis consider a "red line" as they feel it is the article that defines the entire constitution. El Borhamy even stated that adding <u>article 219</u> is better than cancelling the word "principles" in article 2 (which was a previous Islamist demand) so that it becomes "Shariah (and not just its principles) is the main source of legislation".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Afterwards El Borhamy addresses some complaints he has heard about <u>article 43</u> which guarantees freedom of belief. He points out that article 81 which concludes the chapter about "Rights and Freedoms" in the draft is the solution to the problem. This article stipulates that the exercise of rights and freedoms contained in the constitution must be in accordance with basic principles laid down in the chapter about "State and Society", which, as he explains, entail the principles of shariah contained in article 2 and explained in article 219. He mentions that Christians had objected to adding that article, but that it passed despite that. He exclaims that Anba Bola (the church representative) had the audacity to object to the article just because it refers to the shariah. An important quote that I'd like to make the reader aware of is El Borhamy saying <b>"This constitution has restrictions [on rights and freedoms] that have never been included in any Egyptian constitution before."</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When it comes to Bahai's, El Borhamy mentions that they will be able to legally exclude them from the application of the constitutional articles related to rights and freedoms.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another essential point of discussion was an article El Borhamy found to be a most terrible article, namely <u>article 76</u>. The wording of this article in the old constitution is one most jurists in the world are familiar with, "<i>nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege</i>" or "no crime and no punishment without a law". These words are considered fundamental safeguards of freedom and rule of law and are included in most constitutions in the world. El Borhamy explains that this article is dangerous because it would mean that consensual adultery, bank interests and sodomy wouldn't be considered crimes. Because all jurists in the Assembly were adamant on including that article in the constitution, according to El Borhamy, they were forced to include it. However, with the help of Dr. Selim El Awa (a former candidate for the presidency), they managed to change the wording. The altered article states<b> "no crime, no punishment without a provision in the law or the constitution"</b>. El Borhamy explains that this alteration will enable them to include article 2 of the constitution and its explanation in article 219 as grounds for incrimination, <b>making it possible to try and punish citizens for crimes not expressly mentioned in the law!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, El Borhamy repeats something he had said quite a few times before, namely that article 219 which explains the meaning of the "principles of shariah" as mentioned in article 2, is a "red line", not open to discussion. He adds that this article was accepted by the "Committee for Senior Scholars".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would like to point out that the "Committe for Senior Scholars" which is part of Al Azhar, is mentioned in an article El Borhamy didn't address in the video. <u>Article 4</u> stipulates that it is obligatory to ask the opinion of the "Committee for Senior Scholars" in Al Azhar in all things related to the shariah. The importance of this article cannot be overestimated. If a judge is presented with a case in which someone is tried for an act which isn't punishable by law, but which (according to the altered article 76) may be punishable by purely religious rules, a judge would be forced to ask the opinion of the Committee. Now, although article 4 doesn't expressly say that the opinion of the Committee is binding, it will be so de facto since it is unimaginable that many judges would go against the decision of a body of Al Azhar (considered one of the most respected religious institutions in the Arab world) when it comes to religious matters. This is merely one example of the possible effects of this article.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This constitution puts the power to interpret things related to the shariah with the "Committe for Senior Scholars" thereby putting them not only above the courts, but also above the legislator. A group of religious men from Al Azhar will have a say in how the country is run and how laws are applied and those who claim to be for the independence of Al Azhar must be aware that no such thing can exist when they are so close to power. So both religious texts (including human interpretations thereof, obviously) and certain religious scholars are intentionally placed above the law and the constitution. Now, call me alarmist for saying that this constitution paves the way for theocracy...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This article doesn't contain all the reasons why this constitutional draft should be rejected, the draft contains many dangers in other chapters about private property, the separation of powers and judicial independence for instance. However, I hope it does give a clearer view on the actual meaning of this draft and its possible consequences. It may also be necessary to note that, in this context, it might not be those protesting the draft and the referendum who are against democracy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*I'd like to thank Samuel Tadros for bringing that video to my attention. </div>
</div>
Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-21892550466563061572012-08-06T16:48:00.000+02:002012-08-06T16:53:21.891+02:00Revolutionary Felool<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">They are many and their numbers seem to be
growing daily. They used to complain about the corruption that was so typical
of the Mubarak era, they wanted change but didn’t quite know how to realize it.
Some dreamt of a revolution, but thought such a thing was impossible in Egypt
and would remain a dream. When the anti-Mubarak protests broke out in January
of 2011, they supported them from day one, some stood in Tahrir, faced the
hardships and finally saw before them a new Egypt, a fresh start they could
actually realize. They chanted “down with the regime”, some of them were
wounded or know someone who was killed by security forces. They cried tears of
relieve and disbelief when Mubarak stepped down, thinking they were finally
ready to take a step forward, this was their time to reclaim their country.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">This is the story of many regular Egyptians.
Not professional “activists” or anything like that, just young people dreaming
of a better future, hoping they wouldn’t have to immigrate to find better
chances outside of their country. Middle aged men and women who hoped this
would mean their children could grow up in a country where they can develop
their talents, where they can live safely and peacefully. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: justify;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNOBBctA-LibRCCnWenjFIPYmnLizpdvcxu3XrrBrZuIdmHot5GpuwCutvBjbXYzSepSMhoGId6SjCzlo97Px7lOg2PEgnGrs6RYv4SzHPmtbcSkfBsYogstN2LS3IQQa9LqhorGOINHAF/s1600/75265_10150973865035944_64339550_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNOBBctA-LibRCCnWenjFIPYmnLizpdvcxu3XrrBrZuIdmHot5GpuwCutvBjbXYzSepSMhoGId6SjCzlo97Px7lOg2PEgnGrs6RYv4SzHPmtbcSkfBsYogstN2LS3IQQa9LqhorGOINHAF/s320/75265_10150973865035944_64339550_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A scene from the movie "Birds of darkness" which was often used to symbolize the dilemma of the ordinary citizen having to choose between a regime representative and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The group I’m speaking about were people who
hoped for progress, true change in the government apparatus, rule of law and
societal tolerance. They wanted a stop to the age of stagnation they felt Egypt
was stuck in, they wanted technological advancements, better research
facilities and education. They dreamt of decent healthcare and economic
progress.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">But instead, they found that many of the
loudest voices speaking in the name of the revolution didn’t stand for these
things at all. They found people hoping to limit freedoms even more, people
whose only goal was to seek out confrontation with security forces even if it
didn’t help their cause and people whose economic ideas would usher in
disasters for a country with an already fragile economy. They found newly
emerged political figures fighting for a few minutes on-air, spewing nonsense
and outlandish conspiracy theories to justify themselves. They found “leaders”
going the wrong way, cooperating with the wrong people and trusting promises
they shouldn’t put their confidence in.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">They were alienated and ridiculed when they
started to doubt “the revolutionaries” and their methods. They were called “felool”
when they didn’t support a protest or sit-in they felt would end up in violence
and loss of lives and wouldn’t have any positive results whatsoever. They were
called “elitist” when they didn’t agree with the mainstream opinions and explanations
for recurring violence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">They were disappointed when they found a
majority of so-called “human rights activists” blindly supporting a law that
would ban a citizen from exercising his political rights. They were outraged
that those who were once calling for rule of law were ready to ignore correct court
decisions because they didn’t meet their “revolutionary” expectations and even
started contemplating cancelling that court altogether. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">And then, when it was time to choose a new
president, they were shocked at how some “revolutionaries” naively supported a
man who came from an organization which they felt represented everything they
were against. Where they wanted freedom, he wanted less freedom in the name of
protecting ‘public morals’. Where they wanted citizenship, his organization had
sectarian tendencies. Where they wanted rule of law, he was ready to plainly
ignore or go against court decisions. Where they wanted an end to corruption
and hypocrisy, his organization had a record of lies and fabrications. It’s not
that some people voted for Morsi because they believed him to be the best
choice, the problem, for them, was that some people voted for him solely to
thwart Shafik and his supporters, not because they believed he was the better
candidate. The problem, for them, was that a man like Morsi, with the
background and history of his organization, could be referred to as “the revolution’s
candidate”!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Some of them decided not to vote at all or to
void their ballots, deciding that a vote for either candidate would constitute
an immoral act. Others decided to vote for Shafik because they believed he was
the hero who would save the country and put it back on the right track. Others
voted for Shafik because they felt Morsi was the worst choice and Shafik was the
lesser of two evils and they had a responsibility to make a choice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">They are there, they have been alienated, but it
seems that they are growing in numbers. Initially pro the revolution and
against the Mubarak regime and all it stood for, they now feel the current
regime might be/is even worse than the Mubarak regime. They no longer see
themselves in that “revolution” which was said to be represented by Morsi. They
no longer support a fight they feel is not for the good of the country anymore,
but for the good of one organization. From “revolutionary” to “felool”, this is
the story of those who lost faith in <i>this </i>revolution...</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
</div>Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-33188943526723453192012-06-21T13:55:00.002+02:002012-06-21T23:54:16.845+02:00A different perspective on the dissolution of parliament<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white;">No one can deny the Egyptian transitional period has been a legal mess from the very beginning. Let's take the constitutional referendum for instance, in which citizens were asked to either approve or reject amendments made to the Constitution of 1971. Was there enough time between the publication of the final version of the amended articles and the referendum so a decent public debate could take place? Could we say that a reasonable person would have had sufficient information and time so as to make an informed decision? Questioning that was often made equal to questioning the intelligence of the Egyptian people which would result in one's branding as 'nokhba' (elite), and thus started the first chapter of <a href="http://tabulasara.blogspot.be/2012/05/thewar-of-words-in-egypt-itis-well.html" target="_blank">The War of Words</a> I wrote about before. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After the referendum had taken place and a majority of the population had approved the revised articles, a Constitutional Declaration was issued, one which included articles the public had never seen or discussed. Yet that declaration would become the main legal document for the transitional period. At the time some people questioned this, how due to a lack of time and information (mainly also about the consequences of a no-vote) the results may have been manipulated, but many were silenced and branded as "undemocratic" because the ballot boxes had 'spoken'. And so the entire theory of democracy, the whole process was reduced to what the 'ballots' said.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This piece is not meant to focus on the Constitutional Declaration and its many flaws, however I think what is written above clarifies the skewed understanding of democracy some people have. If millions went to vote, many would say this overrules any terrible procedural flaws which may even be enough to strip the whole process of any legitimacy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This leads us to the recent dissolution of parliament. After the announcement of the decision taken by the Supreme Constitutional Court, media immediately jumped to the conclusion that a "coup d'état" had taken place as the only "democratically" elected body was dissolved. Going back to <a href="http://www.hccourt.gov.eg/Rules/getRule.asp?ruleId=3752" target="_blank">the facts of the case</a> (AR), it was a lawyer who had asked an administrative court to halt the declaration <span style="background-color: white;">of the results in a certain district </span><span style="background-color: white;">by the Supreme Electoral Commission. In that district two party members had battled over a seat belonging to the one-third of seats to be filled by individuals (as opposed to the two-thirds reserved for electoral lists). The plaintiff argued that several articles in the electoral law were unconstitutional for disregarding the principle of equality stipulated in article 7 of the Constitutional Declaration. The administrative court refused to grant the plaintiff what he wanted on January 9th 2012 so he appealed the decision before the Supreme Administrative Court. In February, the case was halted and referred to the Supreme Constitutional Court so as to judge the constitutionality of the articles in question. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6qKCG3Jtf-hUKdrAIYwIKcIClK7I-6i5u0D24UrYhzD357hVV2MbzW8O2N_DqEWQtruvUwYS9vOwTYFJBi-3I8ivrD6Va1rkqml4DNqfLmTLLQj2MYVKo9kPn-Pfagy_ROj94qojTRNi/s1600/court_building.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6qKCG3Jtf-hUKdrAIYwIKcIClK7I-6i5u0D24UrYhzD357hVV2MbzW8O2N_DqEWQtruvUwYS9vOwTYFJBi-3I8ivrD6Va1rkqml4DNqfLmTLLQj2MYVKo9kPn-Pfagy_ROj94qojTRNi/s400/court_building.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In its decision, the Supreme Constitutional Court mentioned article 38 of the Constitutional Declaration, which stipulates the electoral system would be mixed including one third through individual voting and two thirds through the electoral list system (this article had been amended by the Constitutional Declaration of 25 September 2011 in order to constitutionally solidify the mixed electoral system). The Supreme Constitutional Court, arguing on the basis of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, found that this should mean that while two thirds of parliamentary seats were reserved for electoral party lists, the other third should be reserved for independents not belonging to any political party. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This, indeed, had been the system which was in place before the political parties, most prominently the Freedom & Justice Party and the Nour Party who together garnered the majority of the seats in parliament, had threatened to boycott the elections <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/04/170094.html" target="_blank">unless SCAF amended the electoral law</a>. Article 5 of said law which stipulated that only independents were allowed to run for the seats reserved for individual voting, was cancelled. This meant that parties were allowed to field candidates both on the party lists and through the individual voting system thus limiting the chances of independents. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the time, the political parties were ready to disregard considerations of fairness and equality under the pretext that article 5 would allow for the NDP to return to parliament. However, former NDP members could still join parties and run on their lists and didn't need to run for the individual seats, thus rendering that argument (at least partly) invalid. Unless specific NDP members were tried and convicted of certain crimes, one shouldn't simply derogate their rights (and that's assuming all independents are NDP members), at least not in a democracy in which the equal exercise of political rights is essential.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the people should be the ones to decide who they want in parliament. However, the slogans which were used during the constitutional referendum in March, which argued that any criticism of the process was an insult to the intelligence of the people and which glorified the ballots to the extreme, were no where to be heard. Apparently, the same people who were able to vote yes on the constitutional referendum, were unable to vote against the NDP in parliamentary elections..</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So the Supreme Constitutional Court found this system to be in disregard of the equal political rights of independents, not belonging to any political party, as they were only allowed to run for one third of the seats while candidates belonging to parties were allowed to run for all seats in parliament including the one third which should have been solely reserved for independents. Based on this, the Court found the articles in question to be unconstitutional and consequently also the entire voting system, since if article 5 had still been in place, the entire outcome of elections would have been different: not only the third reserved for independents, but also the other two thirds, since parties would have probably organized their lists differently had they known they couldn't run candidates in the individual system as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, I would like to point out that the same parties and political leaders who insisted on a voting system they knew could be found constitutionally flawed and yet went ahead with elections despite that, would later on enact the political disenfranchisement law. That law was declared unconstitutional as well by the Supreme Constitutional Court for being in blatant disregard of the respect for political rights among other things.<br />
<br />
The law meant that parliament could simply vote away fundamental individual rights if the required majority is met (and not through a court decision after due process). Additionally, the law signified that it would be acceptable for parliament to limit the choices of the very same people who voted that parliament in by excluding certain candidates from the race.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is this way of thinking, in which the outcome of the ballots is the only thing that matters even if the process itself was terribly flawed that is the most dangerous thing for a nascent democracy. I will conclude with this saying by Sallust: "Every bad precedent originated as a justifiable measure": if we are willing to trample the most basic individual rights, to disregard the principles of rule of law in order to reach our goals, then we must be careful for we will become like the very monsters we're claiming to fight. </div>
</div>Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-241854518705112690.post-41026349856203514812012-06-17T23:45:00.001+02:002012-06-28T21:43:36.176+02:00The new Constitutional Declaration of 17 June 2012<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As the results of Egypt's first 'democratic' presidential elections trickle in, a new constitutional declaration, issued by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), is made public. Here's a quick summary of the changes/additions made:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The new President is to take the oath before the Supreme Constitutional Court instead of parliament which has been dissolved. </li>
<li>SCAF remains fully in charge of everything military-related. Field Marshal Tantawi maintains the duties legally assigned to him as president of SCAF and Minister of Defence.</li>
<li>The President has the right to declare war, but only after the approval of SCAF.</li>
<li>In case of trouble within the country, the President (again, only with the approval of SCAF) can ask the military to intervene to uphold order and security. The military maintains the competences bestowed upon it by law (and SCAF happens to be the legislator until a parliament is elected, cf. infra)</li>
<li>SCAF makes the laws until a new parliament is elected and is practicing its competences.</li>
<li>If there is an obstacle in the way of the working of the Constitutional Assembly (which there is), SCAF can appoint one within a week. The only 'specification' mentioned (if it can be called that) is that it has to represent all groups in society. This Assembly will have three months to write a draft constitution after which it is to be presented to the people in a referendum. Within the month following the approval of the draft constitution in a referendum, the process for new parliamentary elections has to take off.</li>
<li>The President of SCAF, the President, the Prime Minister, the President of the High Council of the Judiciary or 20% of the members of the Constitutional Assembly can object to the draft constitution prepared by the Assembly if the draft is not in accordance with "the goals of the revolution, the principles safeguarding the higher interests of the country or the principles which governed the former constitutions of Egypt". By exercising this veto right, they can demand that the Constitutional Assembly review the articles in question, if there is no agreement, either of the parties can present the dispute to the Supreme Constitutional Court, the decision of which will be binding. No absolute deadline is included.</li>
<li>The law defines the conditions for eligibility of the candidates for parliamentary elections according to the system the law chooses. (The former article 38 of the Constitutional Declaration of 30 March 2011 which is altered here had the extra sentence "and these [conditions] may include minimum quota for women in both chambers". This sentence is now omitted.)</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Addition: when it comes to the powers of the president, the following articles of the March 2011 Constitutional Declaration remain unaltered:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Art. 25</div>
<div>
<div>
The President of the State is the president of the republic. He shall assert </div>
<div>
the sovereignty of the people, respect for the constitution and sovereignty </div>
<div>
of the law, and defense of national unity and social justice, according to </div>
<div>
means stipulated in this Announcement and the law. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He shall undertake upon assuming his position responsibilities referred to </div>
<div>
in article 56 of this announcement, except for what is stipulated in </div>
<div>
provisions 1 and 2 of the article. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Art. 31</div>
<div>
<div>
The president of the republic will appoint within a maximum of 30 days </div>
<div>
after assuming his duties at least one vice president and determine his </div>
<div>
responsibilities, so that in the case of his stepping down from the position </div>
<div>
of the president, another will be appointed on his place. The conditions </div>
<div>
that must be met by the president will apply, as will rules governing the </div>
<div>
accountability for vice presidents of the republic. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Art. 56 </div>
<div>
<div>
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces deals with the administration of </div>
<div>
the affairs of the country. To achieve this, it has directly the following; </div>
<div>
1- Legislation </div>
<div>
2- Issuing public policy for the state and the public budget and </div>
<div>
ensuring its implementation </div>
<div>
3- Appointing the appointed members of the People's Assembly </div>
<div>
Council </div>
<div>
4- Calling the People's Assembly and Shoura Councils to enter into </div>
<div>
normal session, adjourn, or hold an extraordinary session, and </div>
<div>
adjourn said session </div>
<div>
5- The right to promulgate laws or object to them </div>
<div>
6- Represent the state domestically and abroad, sign international </div>
<div>
treaties and agreements, and be considered a part of the legal </div>
<div>
system of the state </div>
<div>
7- Appoint the prime minister and his deputies, ministers and their </div>
<div>
deputies, as well as relieve them from their duties </div>
<div>
8- Appoint civilian and military employees and political </div>
<div>
representatives, as well as dismiss them according to the law; </div>
<div>
accredit foreign political representative </div>
<div>
9- Pardon or reduce punishment, through blanket amnesty is granted </div>
<div>
only by law </div>
<div>
10-Other authorities and responsibilities as determined by the </div>
<div>
president of the republic pursuit to laws and regulations. The Council </div>
<div>
shall have the power to delegate its head or one of its members to </div>
<div>
take on its responsibilities </div>
</div>
</div>Sara Labibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08665571409552202224noreply@blogger.com8