Morsi supporters celebrate his election in Tahrir Square. (Photo: Reuters)
It has been hard for me to understand what’s happening in Egypt now. That’s partly because of the uncertainty that’s latent in any transition period, but it’s also because decisions are being made or negotiated away from public view. There are lots of Egyptian voices (on Twitter) that provide great analysis and qualified speculation so I’ll just describe what I’ve been seeing.
Yesterday I went to Nasr City – one of Cairo’s many urban districts comprised mainly of wide, chaotic avenues and condos. That’s where the Ahmed Shafiq camp organized its street demonstrations; the counterpoint to Tahrir. There were only two or three hundred people present when I got there and I only stayed for a few minutes.
Truthfully, I feel uncomfortable around the Shafiq people. They remind me of the baltagiya who were charged with knifing people during the revolution. I should add that I’m speaking only about a small subset of Shafiq supporters – the tragic men in the dusty Nasr City streets.
I listened to a local news show on the drive out which gave me more of a sense of where non-Tahrir, non-Nasr city Egyptians stood. Some people made statements about the necessity of asserting foreign policy independence (for whatever reason, no one seemed prepared to say “America” on the radio). But many also called for national reconciliation. This election has been viewed as divisive by almost everyone I’ve spoken to and what I heard basically reinforced that.
The woman leading the discussion evoked the American example. She spoke about the acrimonious nomination race that candidates Clinton and Obama engaged in, and then highlighted the fact that Clinton later came to serve in the Obama administration.
Her interlocutor went further. When the Supreme Court determined that Gore lost the election to Bush in 2000, Gore conceded “for the good of the country.”
Another interesting note: one of the experts underlined the fact that Morsi and Shafiq are fundamentally indistinguishable in their market-oriented economic outlook.
I made it back to the downtown area in no time at all. The drive can take anywhere from half an hour to an hour depending on traffic but it only took fifteen minutes yesterday. The roads were eerily devoid of people and businesses were mostly closed. I got out of the cab about a kilometer away from the center on Tal’at Harb street and began to walk. The election committee’s chairman’s voice issued from open windows and echoed in the urban canyon with no one around.
The scene changed as I approached Tahrir on foot. Groups of men crowded around parked cars – also listening to the news. They were tense and Tahrir was tense when I got there. Thousands of men packed into the square in the sun.
Then the news broke and all was noise and jubilation. Older men wept openly and praised god in groups. “Allahu Akbar” went up with “Down with military rule” and “Morsi, remember the martyrs.” Thousands more swept into Tahrir over the next few hours.
Unsurprisingly, Morsi has been calling for national unity and has promised to craft an inclusive cabinet (many liberals lent their support in the runoff). But he has also positioned himself for a confrontation with the military. His decision to refuse to recognize the dissolution of Parliament suggests that the President is ready to challenge those who would neuter the office.
I’m eager to see how the military will react. As Egypt’s largest economic actor and the beneficiary of considerable American largesse, SCAF’s interests are confused. Another sovereign debt downgrade (the result of political instability) will increase the cost of borrowing and doing business in general which is bad for the economy. But controlling the economy means asserting control over the presidency which means political instability. It also means potential alienation from the Americans which is another bad outcome for the military. Obama’s call to Morsi could be interpreted as a measure of support -but who knows.
I get the sense that SCAF is developing policy on an extemporaneous and not totally rational basis, so there’s no use in speculating what comes next. Which is another way of saying I have no idea what’s happening here.
I think whatever happens it will be bad for the Copts.
Ahmed: Thanks for your enlightening report. Do you believe Shafiq actually got 48 percent of the vote? Who voted for him and why? (I understand that Copts are frightened by the Muslim Brotherhood, but they are at most 10 percent of the population.)
Part of voters have a priority in law and order and prosperity and though that the Mubarak regime was OK.
Part of the voters were afraid of “Sharia law” takeover.
Fewer than 50% voted. The basic problem was that so-called “better candidates” had very anodyne positions with only hints of what they want to do, and they gave small reasons to voters to prefer one over another. Keep in mind that together Shafiq and Mursi got just below 50% of the vote.
The outcome seems best possible. Namely that the Brotherhood is weakened and forced to cut deals with other parties, some type of United Front that can resist military power grab. That assumes that MB will not try to welch on their promises. The military and servile courts can still eliminate Mursi and MB, but it will not be easy if Mursi gets a wider support.
So MB and Mursi have to work to get a wider support rather than “consolidating Islamic revolution”.
This is about my take. Aside from the consideration you mention, it’s my observation that sudden, sweeping change rarely produces happy results.
The change to a Muslim Brotherhood presidency is a positive development, in my view. That it’s not a cataclysmic one is all to the good.
This assumes that one would actually prefer improvements for the average Egyptian over immediate gratification of whatever one’s personal ideological preferences might be. I neither want to see the place subjected once again to suffocating authoritarianism nor see it cast into chaos and famine.
The Russian revolution isn’t going to help them. The sort of evolution Britain underwent from 1900 to 1960 or that Turkey appears to be undergoing now might.
@Colin, in fact the population of Copts in Egypt today is some 20% of the total population.
This article at link to meforum.org points out why the situation for the Copts in Egypt is indeed bleak.
If it’s 20%, that only halves the percentage that are emigrating. Either way, the great Coptic flight you imply is taking place has yet to begin.
@North tells us that the Copts are at most 10% of the population. Well over 100,000 have left Egypt since the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ ; the prognosis is very very bleak.
10% of eighty million Egyptians is eight million.
What do you mean by ‘since the start of the Arab Spring?’ If we go by the fall of whoever it was in Tunisia, it’s been well over a year.
‘Well over 100,000 Copts have left in that time.’ So ‘well over 100,000′ in ‘well over a year’ sounds like about a hundred thousand per year. That is to say, roughly 1.25 % of the Coptic population leaves per year.
Egypt still has a fairly high birth rate. Wouldn’t natural increase about offset the decline in the Coptic population from emigration?
Naturally, all this might change one way or the other — but you are suggesting mass flight is already under way. Obviously, it’s not.
Watched the pre Morsi announcement and the live scene from Tahrir Square on Up with Chris Hedges. Great coverage. They had Mona Eltawany on who was in Egypt and another fella from Tahrir square. Great coverage, conversations. Mona explained the breakdown of votes, the hypocrisy coming out of Secretary of Clintons lecture for Egypt’s revolutionaries. Clinton had been lecturing these folks about how they should have joined one of the sides. Mona reminded Clinton and the listening audience about how 5 U.S. administrations had supported these regimes in Egypt who oppressed the Egyptian people.
Unable to link. But the coverage over at Up and especially what Mona had to say was very interesting
Whither the Tahrir Square protesters?
Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:14 PM EDT.Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy joins Up host Chris Hayes from Cairo to examine how Egypt’s historic revolution faltered, and why.
Of course when the live coverage was coming out of Tahrir Square all I could keep asking was WHERE WERE THE WOMEN? A bit frightening
“When you see a large crowd comprised only of men shouting something
you should know that nothing good will come out of it.”
Irit Linur
Paul Revere’s engraving of the Boston Massacre shows only men on both sides.
I think the two figures in the large crowd in Nathaniel Currier’s lithograph of the Boston Tea Party who might possibly be women in fact are boys.
And a great deal of discussion about how Morsi’s ability to govern has been basically undermined by the Egyptian military. Would really like to see how the U.S. aid is broken down, contracts held by those in the military etc. I know Egypt spends a great deal of that money buying U.S. made weapons. Would still like to see a breakdown of who and how individuals in the Egyptian military profit..
Egypt’s new Islamist leader Mohammed Morsi to ‘reconsider’ Israel peace deal, strengthen Iran ties:
Egypt denies Morsi gave interview to Iran’s Fars agency: The Egyptian presidency denies that President-elect Mohamed Morsi gave an interview to an Iranian news agency in which he announced his willingness to build ties with the Islamist republic:
“Egypt’s Islamist president-elect, Mohammed Morsi, wants to “reconsider” the peace deal with Israel and build ties with Iran to “create a strategic balance”
If Masr is no longer beholden to Zionist diktats, even with the loss of the Alawite thugs in Damascus, this would be a major strengthening (and a net gain) of the Iranian position and probably the start of the end for the disgusting House of Saud and their malignant Wahabi ideology.
what’s that line from the great Talking Heads song?
same as it ever was
you watch
Egypt administrative court hears appeals against parliament dissolution Tuesday: Former MP Mohamed El-Omda says the controversial 14 June ruling by the country’s higher constitutional court will be challenged by three appeals.
…and we’re off! Choo choo…
“DUBAI (Reuters) — Egypt’s Islamist President-elect Muhammad Mursi said in an interview with Iran’s Fars news agency published on Monday that he wanted to expand ties with Tehran to create a strategic “balance” in the region.
Diplomatic relations between the two countries have been severed for more than 30 years, but both sides have signaled a shift in policy since former president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown last year in a popular uprising…”
Interesting to see how we react to that. So…any interest in retaining ties with a fifth of the world?
The irony is that I strongly suspect sentiment for Iran isn’t what’s driving Mursi. My guess is that what he really wants to do is to force the army to acquiesce as he establishes his authority. ‘I am in charge here, right?’
Not that he’s being a hypocrite — but if I were him, my main concern right now would be consolidating my position within Egypt. To him, the effect this will have on the US, Iran, and our boycott of Iran is entirely secondary.
Anyway, nice to see that at least Mursi can not only make conciliatory speeches but also (unlike certain other presidents I could name) has actually got a pair. How big, remains to be seen, but they’re there.