By Philip Whitfield
CAIRO: The only certainty is change — the tenet of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus resonates through Egypt’s transformation. The next phalanx of voters might consider Heraclitus’ concept: You can’t step into the same river twice because the river is different water and your perception has changed.
Egypt’s state of flux pits ideas against reason, the tension in Heraclitus’ time when part of what’s now Turkey rebelled against Persian military rule in the 5th Century BC.
As in Egypt today, the populous divided between those who considered the military one element of a raging, babbling river. The philosophers dwelt on the cosmos, the greater whole. The rationalists debated ways to achieve their freedom.
Last week we saw a classic pragmatic military response to defeat. Having lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the people, who voted overwhelmingly for civilian rule, the military council responded with their version of reason: the election wasn’t a true reflection of the people’s will.
What’s more, they’d ignore the result and insert a lapdog advisory council along with a government of Yes Men. Controlling both they guide the rewriting of a few bits of the constitution. Most of the old constitution will remain intact, SCAF said.
SCAF is trying to stop the raging torrent of dissent by channeling discussion into a languid lagoon inhabited by minnows.
This trait of dictators to condescendingly claim more wisdom than the populous prefaces their fall. The idealistic Youth Movement says they’ll have nothing to do with SCAF’s advisory council.
Islamists are caught between a rock and a hard place. Joining the advisory council makes them quislings, betraying the revolution’s aims. Abstaining labels them naïve ninnyhammers, copouts avoiding political compromise.
The advisory council comprises groups that lost the election and some odd-bods who didn’t put up. The so-called advisors should be ashamed of themselves for being exploited. When has the military listened to the people?
Becoming part of a mealy-mouthed regime, unwilling to give the nation straight talk, debunks the advisors’ credibility and exposes their intent to seek a sliver of power.
The next election round has more information than the first. SCAF is changing the election’s environment. The parliament being assembled is nothing more than a talking shop. The military council says they’ll make all the big decisions, including how the constitution will be written. They’re retaining Emergency powers, which give them carte blanche to lock up dissenters.
So much for freedom and democracy. Justice hasn’t even made the agenda.
Let’s consider how business resolves conflict. Relationships work when trust, respect and reliability are in equal tension. Stakeholders are quiescent when they trust each other, respect each other’s wishes and deliver reliably.
In Egypt trust and respect are not flowing between the governors and the governed. Oil and gas companies are tearing their hair out because invoices they rely on amounting to $5 billion, a quarter of the country’s foreign reserves, are not being satisfied on agreed schedules.
Tourists are queasy. They’re concerned about reliable security.
A second business model defines how to achieve a new goal. Enlightened managers gather their teams together to consider three steps. Do we have the means to achieve our goals? That includes expertise and mechanics. Do we have enough information? That’s often a stumbling block. When they benchmark themselves against competitive systems, they often realize their modi operandi are out of date.
Then something that Egyptians will recognize. What’s in it for me, the WIFM? If the goal doesn’t lead to more money, more prestige and more freedom, it’s doomed.
Going into the polling booths, the next wave of voters has a better idea of SCAF’s goals. They have more information than before and they know SCAF is offering neither freedom, democracy nor justice. There’s no WIFM.
On the other hand, they have better knowledge than before as to the intents of the parliamentary contenders. They can make a more enlightened judgment.
The Islamists are prepared to stand up to SCAF if non-elected institutions circumvent their ideas. Some of the losing parties are prepared to sidestep democracy in favor of a cabal ruling the country.
In the meantime, there’s one idea that’s worth considering. When business teams become dysfunctional, or for that matter when families fracture, counselors do this. They ask three questions: What do you think should stop, what should start and what should continue?
The answers, usually submitted anonymously, are often devastating — revealing the deep-seated discontent of people forced to work or live together.
Egyptian society and its economy are not functioning properly. Intolerance has exposed rifts. It’s time to decide what to stop, start and continue.
The worst scenario is an imposition of will by SCAF or any monolithic institution.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party demands the right of parliament to elect the 100-person panel that will draw up the constitution. Analysts say they want to fortify Islamic Law’s place.
Also the FJP want parliament to choose members of the government.
The irony of the voting pattern so far is that SCAF’s willingness to open up the process to Islamists long banned from openly campaigning has exposed the flawed assumptions made by SCAF.
What’s even more alarming in the immediate future is SCAF’s cack-handed approach to the economy. They can hardly demand all power and ignore its responsibilities.
What has SCAF in mind to bolster foreign reserves, which have fallen by 40 percent this year? The annual inflation rate is rising — 9 percent overall, nearly 12 percent for food. Bank deposit rates have risen to 9.2 percent to stem the flight from the Egyptian pound.
Worrisome is the meltdown in Europe. Can Egypt expect cash from the cash-strapped? Will the International Monetary Fund be prepared to top up Egypt’s loans when the effective government has shunned democracy?
What can we glean from Heraclitus pithy wisdom? He liked to point out that all things are relative. Donkeys don’t value gold, he said. They value garbage. Seawater is poisonous to humans, yet life-giving to fish.
We could say that freedom, democracy and justice are the lifeblood of the revolution and the death knell of authoritarianism.
Heraclitus’ belief that everything is in a state flux was balanced with the view that at some point flux goes beyond creating identity and destroys identity. One of his followers suggested you don’t just destroy identities in a state of flux; you create a situation where even flux can’t be created.
The opportunity for a peaceful transition to democracy remains. It’s up to SCAF to dip its toe in the water.
Philip Whitfield is a Cairo commentator.
