A democrat sides with a member of the military to topple an elected president. A liberal lines up with the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood who wants to ikhwanizethe society. Well, what is the problem? In normal circumstances nobody is supposed to object or even show surprise because freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to say whatever they believe. However is it normal for the majority not to tolerate the minority? Or for the democrats and the liberals to clash with the nationalists, while the Islamists oppose them all?
There is another problem in Egypt, but we first must choose to acknowledge it, rather than turn a blind eye. This is the issue of so-called democrats appearing to have no problem whatsoever with the military measures. However there is a wider trend to deny this contradiction between the democratic system and military attempts to forcibly remove those who came to power via the ballot box. Furthermore, such democrats are rushing to defend the military, claiming that it did not stage a coup but rather answered the call of the people to save the revolution.
On the other hand, neither Egypt’s liberals nor nationalists seem to be better off. Even though such groups have expressed surprise, or even rejection, towards what happened, they deny support the politicization of religion or being sympathetic with the ideas of a group that publicly announced that it wants to implement Islamic Sharia law. These liberals and nationalists instead shelter under the umbrella of pan-Arabism and judge others in line with the attitudes they take on this subject.
All of this is well and good. It is not wrong to outline contradictions. What is wrong is to refuse to listen to the other side in a careful and respectful manner.
What is wrong is when the majority rejects the opinion of the minority, using uncivil discourse.
However this has been the case in the Arab world for thousands of years. Let us not go too far back in time, and instead focus on what happened in the Arab region following the eruption of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Until now, Arab thinkers and intellectuals continue to exchange accusations regarding this revolution. When the war between Iran and Iraq broke out, differences of opinion emerged amongst the Arabs. Some said: How can national secularist support the Khomeinist camp against our Iraqi brothers? While others asked: How can devout Muslims support a regime that endorses the separation of religion from state?
Hence, ties between Arab countries continued to weaken decade by decade. From the Camp David accord and the Lebanese civil war to wars in Palestine, Libya, Syria and Iraq; nothing has changed, this is all a repetition of events. Even with some pretending the opposite, the majority of decision-makers in the Arab world refuse to give the opposition the right to be right. Arab decision-makers have fallen short of putting personal issues aside in good faith, even if they pretend to do so.
As a result, Egypt is gradually entering into a tunnel of chaos, or shall we say, the quagmire of civil war. While others are hotly debating whether what happened is a military coup or an attempt to rescue the revolution, I again repeat that the problem is not in debating what happened, but looking at its consequences and repercussions. Will this widen the gap between Egyptians, not only between politicians and intellectuals? Or will it bridge the gap between them for the sake of Egypt’s present and future and the interests of the Egyptian people?
These are the questions that must be answered.
An elected president loses his legitimacy when he violates the oath he had taken and conspires to implement rules that are detriment to the welfare of the society as a whole, in total contradiction to the sublime values of the faith and the nation. The so called elected President even tried to sideline the venerable Institution of Al Azhar and tarnish its image and reputation through conspiracies and sabotage. For a pretty long time liberals had a central role in Egyptian society while democrats were on the sidelines. On the other hand the fanatics were deep inside the burrows they had tunneled to seek refuge from the iron hands of autocratic rule and to hide their undeclared motives, which were certainly not democratic. However with the onset of anarchy which dawned with the disturbances of 25 January 2011, everyone had a chance to raise its voice and create confusion among the people. Consequently even those who had served the country with distinction, honesty and integrity had to suffer and seek shelter in anonymity while coercion, threats and intimidation worked in favour of the fanatics, who could not prolong their misrule for long due to massive discontent which so boldly demonstrated itself on 30th June. This resulted in the formation of Interim Government to save the nation from impending disaster after constructive consultations with venerable personages and institutions that had upheld the dignity and honour of Egypt for centuries. Now all those who want o serve the nation with honesty and integrity have a chance of their lifetime to make their dreams come true and usher in a new democratic and liberal Egypt which does not exclude the sublime values of religion.