Friday
Nov252011
Chart: Who stands where in Egypt, v2
Issandr El Amrani;)
Click to enlargeI've updated my chart from a few days ago to reflect the narrowing of possible positions (from 5 to 3) and the leftward drift of most parties and personalities. At this point, of the major parties only the Muslim Brothers and al-Wafd are not officially backing the protests as far as I can tell. As always, comments, corrections and feedback appreciated. This chart does not show positions on elections — again, for now no party has called for their cancellation (although some revolutionary groups and Mohamed ElBaradei are suggesting an alternative transition plan) and the idea of postponment has only been floated.
Reader Comments (16)
Looks like the liberal secucularists and revol socialists have coalesced around the idea of an appointed non-democratically elected government to oversee the elections , and ensure adoption of some anti-Islamic , pro european "human rights", "sustainable development" provisions , prior to a vote. US embassy is suppoorting immediate transition to NUG as well.
Coup d'Etat 2.0
I would challenge anyone to find an honourable way out of the mess at present! Undemocratic liberals, dogmatically democratic islamists and of course an invisible hand hovering above everything!
Bialal, what on Earth are you talking about? Look at the chart: Abdel-Moniem Aboul-Fotouh, the Islamist Alliance, and MB youth all support immediate transition to a unity government. Do you think that respecting human rights is a conspiracy of the Europeans and Americans? Thankfully the liberal Islamist parties don't agree with you, and know that the SCAF's abuse of its power must be stopped.
FAISAL: sorry if in haste I misspoke. The issue is not the transfer of power from Mubrak to SCAF (coup detat 1.0), or to transfer power to a liberal secular US backed NUG (coup detat 2.0), but to have an independent egyptian democratically formed government. An interim constitution writeen by scaf of the us embassey is an obstacle to self determination, even if we dont like the outcome of some democratically supported results.
I am not aware that MB wants an inte4rim NUG writing a constitution banning Islamic participation in its supra constituional principles. even if that policy is couched in euro human rights language.
I agree with Bilal. Behind more extreme secularist faction is a desire to hamstring an elected government by forcing a non-elected group into a position now to dictate undemocratically 'what Egyptians want'.
Also Issandr, sorry to say but the chart already needs re-drawing. The NUG is in place (maybe not the one some would have liked but to harp on about it more will certainly erode public sympathy). The choice is becoming to support elections (and subsequently the results) or to keep up pressure to de-rail the process by demanding an un-democratic constitution be written first by a non-elected minority. Hmmm dilemmas dilemmas.
I like this chart. It would also be interesting to me if you put the positions of foreign entities on this chart as well, for those who have expressed an opinion. For example, The statement made today by the US government would place them firmly in the far right camp along with the Muslim Brotherhood. Strange bedfellows indeed.
RUSS: the newspapers put the us government firmly on the chart left agaisnt the brotherhood, exactly the opposite of your description, unless there is some ambiguity and I misunderstand it:
"The White House released a statement Friday that calls for a speedy transfer to ‘just and inclusive’ civilian rule in Egypt. The
statement came as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square"
"Just and inclusived" means include the left secular foreign backed groups who have no democratic support as substaqntial players in an immediate NUG before the elction.
and this is not strange bedfellows, the foreign backed liberals have the same ideology as the west, very predictable.
Apologies if I am missing another statement where they r calling for the MB to take power in parliament andf select the next PM.
LATIFA: also the Scaf has met with elite fwinancial interests it is reported , behind the scenes. These imo r the true arbiters of what happens next. I think the elite want their corrupt billions protected from a western takeover, and SCAF wants to avoid prosecution for war crimes in the Hague. RUSS may have a point then, is their a convergence of itnerests between SCAF, elite, and the MB? and what does that mean for policy if they let MB be the front party for their interests?
Bilal and Latifa: I think we're largely in agreement. The elections should go on as scheduled. But the question is to whom the new parliament will answer. If the SCAF, then I am not so sure an elected parliament will have a free hand in its constitutional deliberations. And the longer the SCAF rules without civilian oversight, the more less inclined they will be to hand over rule--would they have attempted their supra-constitutional principles in February? I would rather see an interim presidential council giving orders to the military until a duly elected president takes office.
BILAL: There definitely is ambiguity and I'm sure the US government wants it that way, but it is my understanding that the US is backing the elections. That is at least what I have read in the Guardian and the New York Times. I suspect they're using the same language as the protesters In an attempt to confuse or straddle the middle ground. In the end, they have always backed the military government and it makes sense that they would continue to do so. An open and democratic egypt would likely be hostile to Israel.
Latifa - the Ganzouri appointment is a NUG under the same rules as Essam Sharaf's govt, not a NUG without SCAF has demanded. Also, the people who want to get rid of SCAF have for the most part not said they would delay elections.
Issandr. Likewise the MB would wish to get rid of SCAF so in a sense there is no disagreement. Untill you ask about modality..how can this be achieved.
SCAF have no authority so there is still a valid goal to reach a point where they are replaced by democratically elected parliment and pres,. With the current timetable we should be free of them in June, perhaps we should push for that to come forward to April (ie presidential elections by then).
What is the alternative. bear in mind some want SCAF (a minority), some will put up with them untill presidential elections (the majority) and some want them out now (a minority). Of course all this could change if SCAF do something stupid and we may all still need to unite behind a revolution. However the obvious majority supported position and most sensible, pragmatic and protective towards civilians is to go ahead with elections. I come back to my initial observation that it is the dawning realisation that the new Egypt will eventually be lead an Islamist alliance which is pissing off miltant secularists and they (not all in Tahrir) are rabidly pursuing their goal of installing an un-democratic cabal who will be able to dictate events in some way in the hope they can force their views on others. They are scared of democracy becuase they know their views are in a minority. Minority views have their place and need protecting but not to be in the driving seat. They need to earn that with a popular mandate.
LATIFA : R U ON TWITTER i'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UR COMMENTS ON ARTICLES SOMEWHERE.
aLSO, I dont understand secularist evangelical-sim. Why must they force a secular liberal regime on everyone? No matter what happens there will be bars, clubs, casinos, etc, probaby attneded often by MB adherents. What is so so offensive to them in the Nikab-Hijab , beard, plural marrage; after all no one is stopping them from attending bikini beachs, belly dance cafes, or preventing them from having girlfriends mistresses of any number.
I dont get their need to make the public space respect their values.
I believe this chart is quite useful. I also incite you all to analyse what is beyond public statements as well as what various parties and groups state. Do not forget that we apparently are in the day before the elections, so electoral campaign and political statements get very close to rethoric and strategic positioning.
And to go beyond parties and their statements, because politics is not just the "official" one. There are also many other political actors, aren't there?
Especially in this moment, who could deny that street politics is quite alive in Egypt?
About the PM proposed by the military, it seems clear to me that he is not one of "national unity". How can it be when all these political forces oppose them? And how can you name a PM some days before the elections? If so, why do you held the elections?
About the US, as far as I know, they call for a civilian government, they support the choice of the new PM proposed by the military, they want elections to be held as scheduled, and they run international cooperation programmes with the official governments and are certainly in contact with the government and people acctually driving Egypt. (The same applies to the EU). Doesn't it seem to you a rethoric effort to publish a statement in which they seem to agree with everyone and all the political actors in Egypt? What does this statements really tell us of the real preferences of the US?
Dear JAS . Its not news that Amreica is willing to work with the military, or Baradei or Moussa. The fact they are willing to work with Islamists is the newest feature. All it tells me is you can't really trust any politicians (with exception of my personal favourites Castro and Ghannouchi).
The fact that the US supports the elections tells us that they believe the MB will not be a threat to the status quo. That further tells us a lot about the MB's intentions. They would rather be figureheads of a military controlled Egypt than a political party in a democratic one.
I take it back, I'm still quite confused. Apparently the US still backs the elections but it also wants the military to cede total control immediately to the next civilian government. If I'm not mistaken, SCAF intended to maintain some form of control for the next 18 months. So does this mean that the US doesn't support SCAF? This seems to position the US at both the far left and the far right of the scale.