The Collapse Of Egypt: A Terrifying Idea - Why Egypt Remained Under The Tyranny Of One Party For 30 Years
27 January 2013
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
Nobody would have put forward this idea, namely the
collapse of the Egyptian state, if the most senior
Egyptian military official, Defense Minister Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi, had not sounded the alarm bell,
warning that the continuation of conflict between the
country's various political factions could lead to
?the collapse of the state.? Neither the Egyptians,
nor the Arabs, nor indeed the world at large could
bear such a terrifying idea. Regardless of their
different positions, the Egyptian people must never
allow total chaos to take hold and for the state of
Egypt-which the people laud as being one of the oldest
in the world, with roots dating back seven thousand
years-to collapse. The Defense Minister's statement
contains numerous connotations.
In addition to alerting Egypt's blinded politicians
regarding the reality of the situation, this also
represents a warning that the army will not stand idly
by while the country burns, and will therefore
intervene, not just to impose a curfew-as requested by
President Mohamed Mursi—but possibly go further than
this and declare martial rule, establishing military
rule that could last for years in a repetition of the
Algerian experience.
Prime responsibility for preventing the collapse of
the state, and subsequent military rule, falls on the
shoulders of President Mohamed Mursi If he is not able
to bring opposing factions together and convince them
to work under his leadership-by reaching common ground
on controversial issues-then we may truly be
witnessing the collapse of the second republic of
Egypt.
As for why Mursi should be personally held accountable
for the collapse of state, this is because he is the
only one capable of redressing the mistakes his
government and party have made over the past few
months. It is clear that Mursi is not the sole
president, for he is sharing this post with Muslim
Brotherhood leadership figures, particularly de facto
Supreme Guide Khairat al-Shater. This can be clearly
seen in the contradictions between the president's
speeches and rhetoric and his actual decisions. With
the exception of Mursi's recent speech imposing a
curfew on the Egyptian cities hit by unrest, the
president's rhetoric is usually reconciliatory. As for
the presidency's actual decisions on the ground, these
have all been hostile.
The battle over the constitution exposed this
contradiction, ending with the imposition of a draft
constitution that broke all the promises and pledges
that had previously been made by the president. This
draft constitution was then put to a public referendum
against the people's will, while also undermining the
independence of the Constitutional Court and the
judiciary in general. These are all factors that
eventually led to the current crisis which might
trigger the collapse of civilian rule.
Mursi is now facing two choices: reconciliation or
confrontation. Through reconciliation, he can build a
state for everyone and return the rights stripped from
the Egyptians in this constitution that was
predominately drafted by his supporters in violation
of the principles of democracy. He should also approve
an election law in which issues such as candidacy,
vote count, and legal disputes are not under his
authority, but rather fully supervised and
administered by genuinely independent judicial
institutions. The opposition rose against the Muslim
Brotherhood's attempts to control the Constitutional
Court and the prosecutor general because if these two
institutions are under the president's authority,
Egypt will be nothing more than a replica of Iran. The
ruling party would have the final say as to who runs
and who wins, which is exactly why Egypt remained
under the tyranny of one party for a period of 30
years.
While if Mursi rejects reconciliation, we might wake
up one day, perhaps within the next few months, to
military rule. Should this happen, Egypt and the
entire Arab world will have wasted the most important
change to have taken place over the past 100 years.
Al
Rashed is the general manager of Al -Arabiya
television. He is also the former editor-in-chief of
Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly
magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in
the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is
a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He
has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs.
He is currently based in Dubai.From Consul To Terrorist: The Only Faction Active oOn The Scene Because Everybody Else Has Left The Arena :: EsinIslam The Muslim World Portal For Islamic News And Opinions
From Consul To Terrorist: The Only Faction Active oOn The Scene Because Everybody Else Has Left The Arena
14 January 2013
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
As soon as I heard the name Iyad Ag Ghaly in relation
to the events in Mali I began to wonder if this could
be the same man from the same country? Could it really
be him? Iyad Ag Ghaly heads up the military operations
of armed terrorist groups in northern Mali; whilst
there was a man with the same name who served as
Mali's consul in Jeddah. I called some friends and
confirmed that Iyad Ag Ghaly is indeed the same man
that I met at Jeddah's Hilton hotel less than three
years ago.
We are facing a truly strange world where those who
are legitimate today could be fugitives tomorrow.
At the time, I knew-from those who had dealt with
Ghaly as a Tuareg tribal chief and diplomatic
consul-that he was the best source to find
intermediaries to negotiate the release of hostages
taken in the Azawad region. Now, he is said to be
commander of the Ansar Dine movement fighting the
Malian army, as well as international French and
African forces.
When I read a profile about him in yesterday's Asharq
al-Awsat newspaper, I was even more confused, for this
stated that he was close to Libyan dictator Muammar
Qadhafi who reportedly sent him to fight in Lebanon.
Yet, Ghaly only recently displayed extremist
tendencies.
This kind of confusion and uncertainty has become
quite common as shown by the emergence of extremists
like Tarek al-Zomor and Mohamed al-Zawahiri on Egypt's
political scene. So how did a man like Iyad Ag Ghaly
turn from being a moderate Sunni Muslim to an
extremist armed fighter? Is it rational to suppose
that a man in his fifties, like Ghaly, should suddenly
become radicalized? This is truly hard to believe. I
sense that this may be some kind of political maneuver
where politicians have pretended to adopt extremist
ideologies in order to recruit impulsive youths. These
politicians provide these youth with funding under the
pretext of ?religious duty?, convincing them to
sacrifice their lives for a false cause in return for
a place in heaven! Since there is a general
international lack of will to fight anywhere in the
world, the French-alongside a few African states-will
fight this war on their own before realizing that
desert wars never end and withdraw. What makes matters
more complicated is that conflicts that involve
religious slogans and tribal powers can last for
decades without any side being defeated.
Our problem with those who are keen on fighting these
extremists, like the French today and the Americans
yesterday in Afghanistan and perhaps tomorrow in
Syria, is their inability to understand the
fundamental nature of the problem. These extremist
groups represent the smallest part of the equation;
rather the greatest and most important challenge is to
confront extremist ideologies. Had the West, as well
as the Arab countries involved and other relevant
parties invested their money and effort in fighting
extremist ideologies, this crisis might have come to
an end. Instead they spent billions of dollars on tens
of thousands of soldiers, advanced weaponry, and
combat drones managing to eliminate a number of Al
Qaeda's leaders; however Al Qaeda's ideology remains
the same and in fact continues to spread like a
disease. Most people find it easier to jump to easy
conclusions by laying the blame on one group or
another like Sunnis, Shi'ites, clerics, or even
religion as a whole; however all these groups were
present prior to this and were never a source of
trouble.
We are living in a different world in which political
powers are establishing and nourishing extremist
ideologies and generations. These politicians have the
project, the expertise, and the will to propagate such
extremist ideology and they are practically immune to
punishment because the wrong parties are always held
accountable. Who could have imagined that Mali would
become an international battlefield after Afghanistan?
The West is repeating the same mistake in Syria by
allowing it to fall prey to extremists who are
emotionally manipulate the general public under the
pretext that they are their only source of salvation
from the tyranny of the Assad regime. In reality, they
are the only faction active on the scene because
everybody else has left the arena.
Al
Rashed is the general manager of Al -Arabiya
television. He is also the former editor-in-chief of
Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly
magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in
the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is
a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He
has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs.
He is currently based in Dubai.