CAIRO: Eighty-four percent said they lacked trust in the military’s intention for reform at the second Doha Debates held in Egypt, with 16 percent disagreeing.
The motion read, “This house believes the military is not interested in genuine reforms.”
Moderator Tim Sebastian began the debate by reflecting on the pressures the organizers faced at finding a proper venue in time, after cancellations by the Egyptian government forced them to relocate twice at the last minute.
“Someone apparently didn’t want this debate to happen,” said Sebastian.
The final venue was a modest studio at the Academy of Arts in Giza, a far cry from the organizers’ original choice of a historic location in Old Cairo.
Speaking for the motion was Mohamed Fahmy Menza, founding member of the recently-formed Egypt Freedom Party, who began by asking what was meant by genuine reform, and what the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had accomplished so far.
Menza went on to explain that SCAF barely allowed any active political participation nor set a timeline for change, noting that they “have legislative and also executive powers … it’s the people that battle for change and work on these things.”
Speaking against the motion was former General Sameh Seif El-Yazal, chairman of Al-Gomhouria Center for Political and Security Studies, who began by reminding the audience of SCAF’s first address to on Feb. 1, promising not to open fire against the people, continuing that SCAF members were risking being executed had events gone differently.
“Before the revolution, lots of strict measures were placed on forming parties; now, all it takes is a piece of paper. Now we have 49 parties, all established in no time. Easy to go democracy,” he said.
Seif El-Yazal was then challenged by Sebastian, who asked him how SCAF authorized continued military tribunals and virginity checks if they were sincere.
He said videos were not to be trusted, because they can be edited, further noting “they didn’t say it didn’t happen, but they said they wouldn’t do it,” referring to the alleged virginity tests.
The second speaker arguing for the motion, Heba Morayef, researcher in the Middle East and Africa Division of Human Rights Watch, then challenged Seif El-Yazal about official documentation for such cases, which according to him “did not exist.”
She declared the military wasn’t interested in reform because “it doesn’t know what reform means,” and that complaints had been filed but without results because not a single military official was investigated.
She further explained that the people were asking for breaking the rule of power, and establishing the rule of law, while the military wanted to protect the status quo, without any institutional reform.
When challenged by Sebastian that the military in effect did what the people wanted and removed Mubarak, she replied it was partially a soft coup in their interests.
The second speaker against the motion was Gamal Abdel-Gawad Sultan, professor of political science at the American University in Cairo and former director of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
Sultan highlighted three trends; political reform, the rise of Islamists, and restoration of the military to politics.
He explained that the first trend was optimistic while other two trends were not very “conductive for democratization,” saying the military was safely playing the necessary balancing role not to allow one actor to overpower others.
Sebastian asked him if the military was excluding others, to which Sultan replied that initially the military were asked to stay longer to allow young parties to mature, and that a replica of the 1952 scenario was not possible because Egypt is too complex to be controlled by any one entity.
The debate then shifted to a Q and A session with the audience, with Saad-Eddin Ibrahim, prominent Egyptian sociologist and author, asking “Why are they making the situation more likely to be either taken by the Islamists or the NDP remnants?”
Sultan responded that the military was an actor among others competing to develop some sort of compromise, which Menza challenged by saying that “they are still the only ones with authority to use force. So don’t you think if they want to stay in power, they can stay in power?”
The debate then wrapped up for final remarks, with both speakers concluding that the military is not interested in genuine reform because of SCAF’s own involvement in abuses and failure to respond to them, according to Morayef, and that the revolution needs to be going further and further, according to Menza.
Speakers on the opposing side said that the issue wasn’t about violations, but about the role of the military and “taking one mistake and trying to snowball” away from the bigger picture, according to Seif El-Yazal.
This was the second Doha Debates to be held in Egypt, after the first in March which asked whether “for the sake of democracy Egypt should postpone elections,” but frequently touched on the issue of the role of the military in politics as well.
Coincidentally, the results for that motion were surprisingly also identical with 84 percent for and 16 percent against.
