By Rania Al Malky
CAIRO: Unfortunately Egypt’s three wise ones turned out not to be as wise as they seemed.
While in Asian culture the proverb “see no evil, hear no evil, talk no evil” is associated with the notion of being of good mind, speech and action, in Egypt, the Western interpretation of the phrase is more pertinent, pointing to those “who deal with impropriety by looking the other way, refusing to acknowledge it, or feigning ignorance.”
That is precisely what our venerable Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has been doing over the past two weeks.
It all started with the leaked testimony of Egypt’s de facto ruler Field Marshal Tantawy in the trial of Mubarak and ex-interior minister Habib El-Adly and six of his aides for inciting the killing of protesters.
His testimony was widely seen as having supported the defendants’ case, leading lawyers representing the martyrs’ families to file a motion to withdraw confidence from the Judges’ panel, a move that threatens to take the case back to square one.
Days later, Tantawy appears in a civilian suit in an amateur video, walking around Downtown Cairo apparently with no bodyguards. The scene unleashed a hail of speculation about a potential presidential bid by the 75-year-old 20-year defense minister of ousted strongman Mubarak and naturally triggering a firestorm of indignation, shock, anger and disbelief.
Even if the reactions to Tantawy’s walkabout are dismissed as exaggeration, the symbolic impact of the scene at this particular timing cannot be underestimated.
A beleaguered, but belligerent, ruling army council increasingly under attack by political forces refusing to relinquish their stake in the future of Egypt to what they see as a continuation of a hated regime and a legacy of failed military dictatorship, is trying to make amends with the “street” by putting Tantawy on display to connect with “the people.”
And it could have worked, had SCAF not persisted on the path of unilateral decision-making, practically sticking its tongue out to players spanning the political spectrum as well as intellectuals and opinion leaders from across the board, fuelling feverish calls for Friday’s mass protests “to reclaim the revolution.”
Ignoring political powers’ demands to employ an open party lists electoral system in the upcoming legislative polls, SCAF instead stipulated that two-thirds of the 498 PA seats will be contested through closed party lists, while a third will be elected using an individual candidates system; with a further stipulation that all said candidates must be independent of any political party and can be expelled from parliament if they join a political party after winning a seat as an independent.
The context within which this decision was taken is equally provocative, coming on the heels of what legal experts described as SCAF’s illegal extension of the state of emergency till July 2012 in contravention of a cut-off date of Sept. 30. As laid out by the March 30 constitutional declaration, emergency law can only be extended beyond six months if the people say so in a public referendum. And what about promises to end emergency law before the elections?
It was only a matter of time before threats to boycott elections by political heavyweights like parties belonging to the Democratic Alliance, such as the Freedom and Justice and Al-Wafd parties, started emerging with unwavering determination. The threats also came in light of the recent official recognition of seven new parties created by members of the disbanded National Democratic Party, despite widespread calls to issue a decree excluding former NDP members from political participation for 10 years.
In one fell swoop, SCAF confirmed all our suspicions: it has proven a total lack of interest in giving up power, both officially and behind the scenes; that it is not particularly concerned about democratic transition; that it is willing to hold Egypt hostage to a carefully orchestrated security vacuum to achieve its goals; that given the choice, it would rather deal with the old structures, albeit in a new guise, as long as this maintains its existence outside the scrutiny of a superior legal entity.
The good news is, despite the intimidations, the media gags and the threat of military trials, criticism of SCAF has gained renewed vigor with some political party leaders and presidential hopefuls attacking the council head-on. SCAF managed somehow to bridge the Islamist-secular polarization, creating a more clear-cut divide between those for and against the revolution.
There seems to be enough consensus on the political street to upend what promise to be sham elections, using a system and timeline that will intentionally produce a failed parliament, or in the best case scenario, one that will fail to achieve its primary goal of choosing a constituent assembly to draft the new constitution.
Egyptians are rightfully seeking to reclaim their revolution from the clutches of a duplicitous military power, ironically at a time when the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize for the youth who spearheaded this valiant, non-violent struggle looms on the horizon.
Will Field Marshal Tantawy do the right thing and carve a niche for himself in Egypt’s history books, or will he follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, on a stretcher, in a court dock in the middle of the desert?
Rania Al Malky is the Chief Editor of Daily News Egypt.
