Egypt’s search for another civilisation

Revolutions take strange paths. To many Egyptians, the results of the first round of the presidential election — their first in 5,000 years of history — are a cruel joke.

The two candidates who have emerged to face off in the second round on June 17, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmed Shafik, the deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak’s last Prime Minister, represent a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.
None of the losing candidates, including Amr Moussa, one time Mr Mubarak’s foreign minister, or the favoured dissident Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Abdel Moniem Abdul Fatouh, has decided to endorse either finalist. Inevitably, the people who successfully toppled Mr Mubarak are in a deep psychological crisis because the election has dealt them an impossible hand.
The Muslim Brotherhood already has roughly half of parliamentary seats and if the party also has the presidency, it would tantamount to negating the revolution. On the other hand, if President Mubarak’s last desperate choice of Prime Minister should win the presidency, what was the point of the revolution? Indeed, the outcome raises the important question: What induced the majority of voters to turn to the Muslim Brotherhood or a Mubarak hand down to express their feelings in an election that has won the guarded approval of President Jimmy Carter, the universal ombudsman?
For one thing, it is taken for granted that most Egyptians are conservative and think highly of the work of the Muslim Brotherhood in adverse conditions during the long Mubarak regime, particularly in providing food and healthcare for the poor. Mr Shafik’s appeal mainly stems from the hankering for normality and law and order after more than a year of transition punctuated with bouts of lawlessness. Besides, it is universally recognised that the Muslim Brotherhood is the best organised party directly in touch with the grassroots.
Two other aspects of the political scenario are worrying Egyptians. A new Constitution, stalled for political reasons, has still to be framed defining presidential powers; the Muslim Brotherhood went back on its promise not to contest the presidency influenced by the probability that if the institution of presidency is strengthened, the party’s showing in Parliament would be less effective. Second, the armed forces, the main source of power at least since the fall of King Farouk, have no intention of entirely giving up power even after the deadline of end June they have set for handing over responsibilities to a civilian dispensation. They have also to guard their vast military economic empire. The reality of the armed forces as a power factor was recognised by the competing candidates who were duly deferential to Army Headquarters in their campaigns.
Partly, the first round’s result was also due to the division of liberal votes. Mr Moussa, of course, represented a soften face than Mr Shafik of a law and order candidate. But the liberals, including a Nasserite and a socialist, could not gather the mass support to win, despite their appealing platform in some respects. Ironically, the two main candidates appearing in an American style television debate were Mr Moussa and Mr Fatouh. The debate itself set a new benchmark in the Arab world.
It is a Hobson’s choice for those who manned the barricades on Tahrir Square. After they get over their shock over the first round’s results, do they vote for a Mubarak regime remnant to be able to fight him another day, or do they strengthen the hands of the Brotherhood, a regressive force in their view, in order to confront it politically on the streets again? Some activists expressed their frustration by setting fire to Mr Shafik’s headquarters and set off for that symbol of revolution, Tahrir Square.
In contrast, the enthusiasm with which Egyptians voted in their first free election was heart-warming. Whatever the twists and turns the Egyptian outcome will take, the very fact of a largely free and fair election in Egypt’s long history will have a profound effect on the Arab world. The Arab Spring had demolished the long-held theory that unlike the rest of the world, Arabs were wedded to autocratic rule, the difference being in the kind of dictatorship they chose. And now, despite the curious result, Egypt has proved that it could not only depose a dictator but also hold a free and fair election.

Tunisia, the precursor of the Arab Spring, is sitting pretty, partly because it is a relatively small state with manageable problems. Egypt, on the other hand, is the heart of the Arab world although its internal problems had hamstrung it in recent times. Libyans will be encouraged to take a leaf out of Cairo’s book to work towards a more inclusive and democratic dispensation to mould rival militias and seek to end the traditional east-west division.
Yemen is still in the throes of tribal and ethnic warfare and the end of the long-ruling Abdullah Saleh’s presidency has not entirely finished the old power structure. Nor does the country’s intensified warfare with an Al Qaeda affiliate with increasing American assistance and drone attacks promise an early end to the conflict.
Syria is suspended in mid-air, as it were, because the world has run out of options. The latest massacre in the country in the Sunni village of Houla, strongly condemned by the United Nations Security Council, makes mockery of the Kofi Annan peace plan which stipulated that the Syrian armed forces should not use heavy weapons in populated areas. The former UN Secretary-General, Mr Annan, went to Syria post-haste to tell President Bashar al-Assad a few home truths. Clearly, the plan is not working as envisaged. Even the number and scale of armed incidents following the initial induction of unarmed UN inspectors show signs of escalation.
Although the UN Security Council’s condemnation of the Houla massacre was unanimous, Russia has elaborated its policy by suggesting that both sides, including the armed Syrian opposition, are to blame.
For Egypt, its new — or perhaps restored — role as the Arab world’s lodestar is beckoning.

The writer can be contacted at snihalsingh@gmail.com