By Jamal Kanj
This weekend, Egyptians will line up to select
their next president in the first democratic election in the country’s
modern history.
It was moving a fortnight ago to witness voters,
old and young, standing in the simmering heat or being wheeled in to
cast their ballots in the first round – for many, for the first time in
their lives.
But unlike prior robotic participation in a process
with a predetermined outcome, the voters were filled with excitement and
anticipation.
As in
genuine democracies, the results of the preliminary elections were
disappointing for some and a surprise for most. Disappointing because
the race was limited to a Mubarak-era candidate and a nominee from the
Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), also known as the Muslim Brotherhood.
The
surprise was the success of the old guard’s candidate, who copied
George W Bush’s second-term election strategy by perpetuating a sense of
insecurity – leading 24 per cent to choose stability over the promise
of change.
More than 50pc of Egyptians did not vote for the two
final candidates. The disenchanted voters are left today with a choice
of regurgitating the same or voting for change, while hoping this
election is the start of a long-sustained democratic process.
Last
weekend, I watched with amusement as Shafiq – the prime minister
deposed by Tahrir Square – addressed disgruntled voters, promising to
maintain the square as a beacon of democracy. He warned them not to
allow the FJP candidate to hijack their revolution.
There is a saying in Arabic: “The worst of calamity is laughable.”
Indeed,
Shafiq’s sad assertions were hilarious. For one, it was under his reign
that the regime hired camels and horses to terrorize protesters at
Tahrir Square.
But lamentably, he was partially correct since the
FJP was a “Johnny-come-lately” to the protests. It has been well
established that the Muslim Brotherhood initially hesitated to take part
in the January 25 demonstrations.
It joined only after protesters gained unchallenged, popular legitimacy assuring the likelihood of their success.
Still, between the two, Shafiq was an integral part of Mubarak’s rule.
In
an article in The Weekly Standard on May 25, Washington Zion-con Elliot
Abrams wrote: “Mubarak and the army could have agreed on Shafiq as
their candidate: he was close to Mubarak and like him an Air Force
general, and, as we now see, he is indeed the man the military have
agreed should run and represent their interests.”
Based on polls and recent waves of protests, the electorate is heading towards rejecting the Mubarak-era by supporting change.
The vote for Mohammed Morsi, however, should not be misconstrued as a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood’s patriarchal platform.
Unfortunately
for the gallant Egyptian youth, this is the quintessential sad ending
of popular revolutions – where the selfless are sidelined and
opportunists reap the fruits of their labour. At least in consolation to
their noble spirit, the next president will never receive Mubarak’s
patented 99pc of the vote.
- Jamal Kanj writes frequently on
Arab issues and is the author of Children of Catastrophe, Journey from a
Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. He contributed this article to
PalestineChronicle.com. Contact him at: jkanj@yahoo.com. (This article was first published in the Gulf Daily News newspaper)
No comments:
Post a Comment