This is bad
Egypt’s President Morsi has given an all too clear response to the State Department’s plea that he reach out to his opposition: the country’s top prosecutor ordered a judicial investigation of the opposition National Salvation Front’s three most prominent leaders, all one-time competitors of Morsi in the first round of the presidential election. They stand accused of trying to overthrow Egypt’s new regime.
The State Department had a different idea. President Morsi, it said,
has a special responsibility to move forward in a way that recognizes the urgent need to bridge divisions, build trust, and broaden support for the political process. We have called for genuine consultation and compromise across Egypt’s political divides.
This was very much the right thing to suggest. The question now is what to do about Morsi’s failure to follow the advice.
Readers will of course note the parallel between the polarization in Egypt and the situation in the U.S. Congress, where there is also an urgent need to bridge divisions, build trust and broaden support for the budget process. Driving into a political cul-de-sac is a bad idea in Washington, as it is in Cairo.
Even paranoids have enemies. It is true that the National Salvation Front opposes the new Egyptian constitution, both on procedural and substantive grounds. They would like to see it scrapped and a new one written. They are entitled to that view. What Morsi is afraid of is that they will organize street demonstrations and try to overthrow him, as they did Mubarak. That is precisely what some of them would like to do, but there is no sign they can mobilize a serious mass movement at this point. Mounting a judicial investigation is far more likely to precipitate the demonstrations he fears than quell them. If he wants a dialogue with the opposition, it would be better for him to hold back from provoking them and sound a note of welcome.
If he is not going to do that, Washington needs to begin to tighten the screws. Any sign that arrest and prosecution of the opposition leaders would be acceptable needs to be avoided. Egypt is in desperate financial condition. Implementation of its $4.8 billion stand-by arrangement needs to wait until Morsi gives a clear signal that he is willing to talk with his opposition without the threat to prosecute them hanging over their heads.
At the same time, American diplomats need to have a sit down with members of the opposition. They need to begin playing by the new rules of the game, even if they don’t like them. Some of them would like to sit out the upcoming parliamentary elections (presumably to be held in February, 60 days after the coming into force of the constitution, though I won’t be surprised if that slips). Few secularists I am told feel like taking on the expense and trouble of running, as they believe the Muslim Brotherhood will cheat, as it is claimed they did in the constitutional referendum. If the new parliament lacks a serious secular opposition, it will give Morsi five years to install an Islamist system in Egypt.
An Egyptian friend of the secularist variety sent me this video by Sheikh Imran Hosein, a Trinidadian who suggests that what Morsi did with the constitution and the referendum is distinctly un-Islamic. Unfortunately the sheikh damages his credibility at the end by suggesting that the “Zionists” approve of what Morsi is doing because they are looking for an excuse to go to war with Egypt. This is nonsense. With their hands full of issues with Syria, Lebanon (Hizbollah in particular), Palestine and Iran, the Israelis want the peace with Egypt to hold. In Islamic discourse it is important to proving your point that somehow your opponent is helping “the Zionists.” But the first part about Mohammed in Medina and its relevance to the constitution in Egypt is well done for my American ears:
PS: I’m assured the Sheikh is unknown in Egypt.
RSS - Posts
