Disclaimer: I am TOTALLY against the arbitrary and virtually unchecked power that the army is exhibiting on the streets of Egypt. Moreover, locking up activists while there are FAR more pressing security concerns goes beyond negligence – it’s borderline criminal. If the protests scheduled for Friday, May 27 were called SOLELY to address this dereliction of duty, I’d be there and be fully invested. Sadly, that’s not the case…
Switch and bait
As I wrote about in the previous post, one of the primary reasons that the protests were originally demanded was to insist on the creation of a presidential council. This civilian body would either supplant or supplement the role of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF), depending on one scheme or the other. Since I already wrote on the folly of this position, let me address the claim that such calls are either on the periphery of or altogether absent from the protesters’ agenda.
First, there were the early reputable reports that a presidential council was a central tenet of the #May27 movement:
In response to reports that the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces is considering pardoning Mubarak and his family in exchange for the transfer of all their property and fortune to the state, Facebook pages have been launched calling for a second Egyptian revolution, on May 27, to replace the Council with a civil presidential council.
Second, there was the following analysis by @Sandmonkey from earlier this week that indicates that a call for a civilian council was firmly on the minds of central figures from the revolution:
Third, in today’s Ahram Online (which, incidentally, is an entirely independent entity from the State mouthpiece, Al-Ahram newspaper), the point is once again underscored: “The initial invitation circulating on Facebook for a new day of mass protest, scheduled for Friday, had as one of its first demands the formation of a presidential council.” It’s worth noting, too, that the picture accompanying this story is of the ballot from March’s referendum, an allusion to the undemocratic prerequisites that are necessary for the formation of a new civilian executive body.
Last, yesterday evening I attended a meetup for Tweets from Tahrir and took the opportunity to ask some of the key figures from #Jan25 what they hoped to accomplish on #May27. A new civilian council, in some iteration, remains a central concern. However, how this potential usurpation would manifest – let alone what role #May27 plays in this scheme – was sadly elusive.
Playing (dirty) politics with the Revolution
Even setting aside the implied (though still obvious) political motivations that are part and parcel of any call for a civilian council, there’s no denying the explicit interests promoted through a widely circulated and recognized list of demands.
The primary flier, distributed in hard copy and digital form (you can find the original Arabic document and a rough English translation here), listed three sets of demands under the headings “economic,” “political,” and “freedom.” The later two categories contain more or less widely agreed upon points (though I can probably pick a knit here or there). The economic demands, however, most assuredly do NOT represent majority will.
Among the flier’s ludicrous appeals is a call for not just a minimum wage, but a MAXIMUM wage. Already squarely left of center, the list goes on to tip the needle all the way to the edge of the spectrum, demanding price controls and – wait for it – A REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Why not just hang a “Closed for Investment” sign on Egypt?
With this obviously skewed manifesto, the groups behind #May27 clearly tip their hand. What they seek is not the “rescue” of Egypt’s glorious revolution, but an end around the democratic system they disingenuously claim they’re fighting to preserve. You can’t insist on sweeping economic policies prior to the election of a representative government while at the same time decrying a perceived curtailment of your civil liberties. That’s hypocrisy par excellence.
If tomorrow’s protest is indeed meant to “save” the Revolution and not advance parochial interests, then let me ask a simple question: If it was the Islamists that were disadvantaged in the upcoming elections, if it was their activists that were being periodically harassed and arrested, would these self-appointed guardians of the Revolution still see fit to call on Egyptians to descend on Tahrir?
The answer, to anyone paying attention, is clear.
A lost opportunity
In concentrating far too narrowly on interests far too niche, the organizers of this protest missed a golden opportunity to truly unite Egyptians once more. Had they simply promoted this event as a means to lend your voice to the issues universally agreed upon – the need for greater security, the need for regime members to be held accountable for their deeds, and the need to give our economy a shot in the arm – the support would have been tremendous. As it was, petty earmarks were heaped upon these most common denominators, rendering the entire endeavor both incohesive and incoherent.
I hope that somehow, some way tomorrow’s protest moves Egypt in the right direction. For the aforementioned reasons, however, I can not in good faith support what I perceive to be a thinly veiled power play masquerading as an unadulterated bid for freedom and civil liberties. Here’s hoping, too, that we can move forward and learn from our mistakes.
