Currently, political controversies in Egypt are nonsensical to the extent of possessing a complete lack of political maturity. When Morsy took his latest decisions, controversies touched all perspectives, except the most important ones. Controversy returned to an ancient arena when politicians advocated for or pounced on the Constitutional Declaration Supplement’s corpse, despite the fact that burial should respect the dead.
Meanwhile, in the midst of this commotion, many went on reaffirming the president’s legitimacy because of the fact that he was elected, and hence his decisions are not only legitimate, but also correct.
The controversy has become foolish prattle. Many attacked the decisions for being illegitimate, calling them a staged coup. However, others considered them legitimate because they are a staged coup against a coup. Assessing whether decisions were correct or incorrect, or halal (religiously valid) or haram (religiously prohibited) is even more pathetic. I must reaffirm that the standards against which correctness, incorrectness, validity or prohibition are measured are mere vague standards buried deep within each individual’s or group’s subconscious. This is attributed to the lack of consensual national agreed-upon standards, against which what is right or wrong, and what is halal or haram can be measured.
Another controversy was a result of a hypothesis that decisions were taken in agreement between Morsy and the army. From my perspective, a number of politicians sounded off at the army and at the Brotherhood; therefore, they repeatedly confirmed that they are the same thing. Seeing the army and the Brotherhood as two separate conflicting parties is the same thing as agreeing that your conflict with one of them may be larger than that between you and the other party. Therefore, you find yourself embroiled in being biased with one of them against the other. Being biased in and of itself has been eliminated in the past, not because of sound political reasons, but rather for submission to blackmailing of the “revolutionary” forces which fought tens of lost battles and frustrated thousands of youth.
On the other hand, another group of people think there are consistent primary contradictions and other secondary ones. This particular group sees its contradiction with the Brotherhood or Mubarak as the main one. Then its contradiction with the army or the Brotherhood became the main one. Hence a portion of the group allied with the army, where the contradiction is secondary and against the Brotherhood, where the contradiction is primary. These forces are constantly justifying the reasons why they stay behind conflicting forces instead of paving a separate path. Hence, these groups end up queuing up behind whomever, whether Tawfeq Okasha or the Monotheist Group.
Judging correctness or incorrectness of decisions when there is a lack of standards is absolute nonsense. Furthermore, speaking about halal and haram is refused in terms of principle, and speaking about legitimacy and coups is useless to begin with. Decisions are being seamlessly executed; why then bring up about legitimacy?
After having reviewed these different viewpoints, let me briefly present mine on the Brotherhood and the army. The army is an extension of and a representation for the old regime. Both the army and the old regime have the same tendency for tyranny; they both adopt a right wing economic platform. However, they have different viewpoints pertaining to state identity. This difference can lead to conflict, while their agreement will drive occasional coalition. In both cases, democratic forces are not obliged under any pretence to stay behind or to ally with them, simply because they are two faces of the same coin in light of the given analysis.
Lately, Egypt has witnessed some contractions and conflict between the army and the Brotherhood, leading to a division of authority. However, we can say that the most important results of Morsy’s decisions are: putting the division of authority to an end, depriving the army of most of its enjoyed authority and placing it in the Brotherhood’s hands. Accordingly, various consequences and repercussions will follow. Transferring the leadership of the national newspapers to the Brotherhood and their companions represents an example of these consequences. The newspapers’ leadership decisions were taken at the same time as the army’s decisions.
