|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 
|
relations In the court of
outlaw Yeh Woh interview Amid
dreams of a new Egypt
relations “Too much Panetta
has spoiled the air,” remarked a senior American diplomat recently. This
has left us little room for setting things back, he said, visibly anguished
for having been caught between Pakistani demands for apology over the
November 26 Salala incident and the reticence of the sole superpower. The
diplomat agreed that “geo-politics” of the United States puts limitations
to what individuals can do to improve relations. Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta’s repeated insinuating statements in New Delhi and Kabul (we have
run out of patience with Pakistan) constituted the context for American
diplomat’s frustration with the deadlock in bilateral relations. It was
also reflected in the mood within the American Congress, where various angry
Congressmen introduced several bills in the last six months or so to “set
Pakistan right” i.e. the bills touting the right to self-determination for
the people of Balochistan, US citizenship for the CIA spy Dr Shakil Afridi,
and moves to block all military and civilian assistance to Pakistan with ever
more strings attached to them. The American diplomat in
Islamabad was not the lone American voice of discomfort. Almost around the
same time, former presidential candidate, Senator John McCain also spoke out
and accused the Obama administration of needlessly damaging the US
relationship with Pakistan and “antagonising the Pakistanis” with an
“in your face attitude.To further antagonise Pakistan unnecessarily is not
something I would particularly think is appropriate,” McCain said in an
interview with an American TV channel (reported by Online news agency, June
15, 2012). McCain, a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, said that the administration’s
encouragement of India taking a more active role in Afghanistan while
simultaneously criticising Pakistan could be a recipe for disaster. “I would have nurtured
this relationship with India sort of the way we have been for years, rather
than sort of antagonising the Pakistanis even more with this kind of in your
face attitude,” he said. McCain made these comments
in response to what Leon Panetta said in Kabul a few days ago; “we are
reaching the limits of our patience with Pakistan, which provides “safe
haven” for the Haqqani network and other groups that launch attacks on US
forces.” Only a day earlier, Panetta
had made disparaging remarks on Islamabad to the extreme displeasure of most
Pakistanis. Criticism of the Obama
administration’s way to handle Pakistan also resonated in a recent New York
Times/International Herald Tribune op-ed that Steve Cohen of the Brookings
Institute and Moeed Yusuf, South Asia adviser at the US Institute of Peace,
penned jointly. “Unfortunately, the
proposed remedy (to deal with Pakistan) is as misplaced as was past support
for Pakistan’s military dictators, which came at the cost of the
country’s democratic evolution. Those who would force changes by playing a
divide-and-rule game grossly exaggerate America’s capacity to influence
Pakistani politics,” the authors stated. In the carefully crafted
and insightful analysis, both Cohen and Yusuf advise against exploiting the
existing civil-military divides because its unintended consequence could be
the strengthening of the right-wing rhetoric in Pakistan and greater space
for security-centric policies. “….any US
conceptualisation of Pakistan as two Pakistans — that is, a neat division
between civilian and military elites — is false and will not resonate among
Pakistanis. It is wrong to assume that a majority of Pakistanis would support
a US policy so obviously driven to undercut the military, although there is
widespread hope — even within the army — that the Pakistani political
system will produce more competent politicians…” Warning that the Pakistani
military’s reaction to “a two-Pakistans approach would, more than likely,
cost the United States the all-important intelligence cooperation needed to
tackle global terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan,” Cohen and Yusuf
underline that “We must patiently try to turn Pakistan from an ally that is
no friend into a state that seeks normal relations with America and its
neighbours. Short cuts are unlikely to work.” This advice, regardless of
whether taken in by those who matter within the Obama administration, comes
at an extremely crucial juncture. Most of the Congress and the American
public opinion look down on Pakistan primarily because of the perceptions
built around its policies by the American administration and the media. US geo-political
considerations apart, Pakistan has its failings and follies to blame too;
President Zardari’s participation in the Chicago summit (May 21-22) without
any deal on the resumption of ground lines of communications (GLOCs) served
only to invite scorn by all and sundry because the rationale behind the
last-minute invitation to him was the presumption that the deal is done. This
was both embarrassing as well as humiliating for Zardari and entailed even
greater condemnation of the country. This was shot in the foot
and the entire top leadership is responsible for discrediting the country,
particularly within the US-Nato nations. Almost every one of them billed
Pakistan short of being cheats, indecisive and complicit in the violence in
Afghanistan. So, the president’s presence in Chicago (without a deal on
supplies and the settlement of the apology issue) was a slap in the face of
all those who thought participation in such an international forum is good
any way. What good, we fail to
understand because the results were on the contrary. That’s why the relations
remain hostage to the ego and arrogance of a super power driven by its global
geo-political agenda on the one hand, and a discordant indecisive Pakistan,
which seems unable to break out of the cold-war mindset, and apparently lacks
the vision required to reset its strategic paradigm which has entailed
unimaginable economic attrition than tangible benefits. Both the countries
need to find a middle-ground without confrontation and coercion. But greater
onus rests on Pakistan, a country gradually wilting under the consequences of
the skewed policies it has pursued so far. The writer is executive
director, Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad and has
authored ‘Pakistan — Before and After Osama bin Laden’, Rolli Books,
New Delhi
In
the court of outlaw The centuries-old
jirga (or panchayat) system is operational in the country uninterrupted,
despite several media exposures of brutalities inflicted on women and
children in illegal trials and rulings by apex courts against this parallel
judicial system. Only Frontier Crime
Regulations (FCR) jirga working in Fata is legal, but that one is also not
without a scary fact that its verdict cannot be challenged in any court of
Pakistan. In jirgas and panchayats,
women and children are traded as commodities to resolve feuds — they are
physically abused, mentally tortured and even exchanged as sawara or vaani.
They are forced to pay off for sins of male members of their families. According to a petition
filed by the National Commission on Status of Women (NCSW) in the Supreme
Court, 87 illegal jirgas were held in 2011 in Sindh alone in which 26 girls
and women were exchanged as vaani. This curse is prevalent in
all provinces and the number of illegal jirgas and their victims, reported
and unreported, would roughly be in hundreds in one year. There is also a
misperception that this cruel parallel judicial system is operational in far
flung areas only. Just two cases are sufficient to assert that this curse is
prevalent in settled urban areas: a woman was raped in Sheikhupura on a local
jirga’s orders in 2011 (The CJP took suo motu notice of this crime) and in
December 2011 a boy shot dead his mother in Gujranwala for refusing to
exchange her 12-year-old daughter as vaani to resolve a dispute. According to
2010 official estimates, Gujranwala is Pakistan’s seventh and Sheikhpura
16th largest city. The Mukhtar Mai case came
to the limelight in 2002 and led to international condemnation of jirga
system. Since then hundreds of cases have been reported, but the state
machinery always remains inactive and helpless to stem this curse. The prime
reason is: powerful feudal and tribal lords, who are patrons of jirgas and
panchayats. Women rights activist Dr
Farzana Bari says jirgas and panchayats are run by men of elite class, who
drive their strength from the feudal system and flaunt their influence over
subjugated masses by holding illegal trials in criminal cases and making them
victims of inhuman punishments. She says no political party has adopted a
strong stance to eliminate jirga system, adding during the recent Kohistan
episode, powerful Awami National Party objected that this is a conspiracy
against the jirga system. “Our political parties want status quo regarding
the jirga system.” She says the Sindh High
Court declared the jirga system illegal in 2004 with the efforts of the civil
society. “A landmark verdict from the Supreme Court is expected in the
NCSW’s petition against the jirga system, and after that we will launch a
more organised move against the jirga system.” Legal expert S.M. Zafar
says jirga and panchayat system is an old and traditional judicial system
that has neither constitutional cover nor legally prohibited. He says if a
jirga or panchayat pronounces an illegal sentence, then courts could declare
it null and void, and initiate legal action against jirga or panchayat
members. Asked whether jirga or
panchayat system should be reformed or banned, he says the parallel judicial
system has strong roots in our culture and could not be banned through
legislation or court verdict. Zafar says the jirgas could play effective
role, if they are used for the resolution of civil matters to reduce burden
on courts, adding criminal matters could not be given to jirgas or panchayats
at any cost. Geo TV telecasts a talk
show Jirga, and it gives an impression that perhaps there is also a soft
corner for this parallel judicial system in our media. However, Saleem Safi,
who hosts the show, gives a very informative account of various forms of
jirgas. He says his inspiration to name his talk show Jirga is Afghan
parliament or Loya jirga as both of them are based on true democratic spirit.
“My second inspiration is traditional jirga operational on the Pakhtun belt
that resolves disputes. This jirga works on the moral spirit and enjoys the
trust of parties which contact it for the resolution of their disputes.” These two forms, elaborated
by Saleem Safi, are very much similar to town meetings in US and regional
council in the UK as they deal with legislative and civil issues and find
solutions through debate among stakeholders. “However, other two forms of
jirgas, which are condemnable, are the jirgas working in the tribal belt
under FCR and the jirgas under sardari system that is operational in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa,
Sindh and Balochistan,” he adds. Saleem Safi says the
decisions of FCR jirga cannot be challenged in any court of Pakistan (that is
sheer violation of fundamental human rights), and the state machinery is used
to implement its verdicts. “And Sardari jirga is as cruel as the sardari
system.” Asked whether last two
brutal forms of jirgas could be reformed, he says, “Both types of jirgas
are based on sardari system and there is no chance of reforming them without
demolishing the sardari system.”
Yeh
Woh In a recent talk
show, the host opened discussion with the question: What is the biggest
challenge facing the new prime minister? And the prompt reply was: to lose
the epithet of Raja Rental and get some respect from the nation. Being unambiguously and
shamelessly corrupt in every possible way has been an essential job
requirement for anyone to aspire for a public office in the present episode
of ‘democracy’, written and directed by Asif Ali Zardari who was a small
time crook himself before he took up the highest office in the land. The
Zardari-led PPP has filled this government with thugs and racketeers, many of
whom are convicts or wanted in criminal cases; and the presidency with those
who are made to fight the president’s fights in the Supreme Court.
President Zardari may not have saved a single innocent Pakistani from being
hanged on trumped up charges, but he has eagerly advanced presidential pardon
to every influential criminal who was ever punished by a court of law, and
promoted them in rank and responsibility. It is, therefore, little
surprise that his first choice for the disgraced Yusuf Raza Gilani’s
replacement as prime minister is embroiled in a drug racket and his second
and eventual choice, Raja Pervez Ashraf, has a solid reputation for public
lies and graft in commissioning rental power plants and has been recommended
by the court for stern punishment. Only, the PPP in its zeal to do the
opposite of what the highest court decreed, punished the country instead, by
installing the Raja as yet another reason for us to be ashamed of being
Pakistanis. But let’s face it: the
man who failed in his job as power minister, and is believed to have made
loads of money from his failure, is now in charge of everything the
government of Pakistan is supposed to be doing. Let it be as it may. There
are more serious things to worry about then the circus played out by a tired
old joker of a GoP, 24X365. Monsoon is upon us. The
melting of ice on the mountains has been delayed because of the unusually
long spring. Coupled with early and heavy rains it’s the recipe for a
disaster on the scale of 2010. At the least, mild to severe flooding in
southern Punjab and Sindh is being considered a certainty. The Met Department issued a
warning for higher than usual rainfall this year, following which the
National Disaster Management Authority ‘asked the provincial governments to
be vigilant and focus on preparedness and early response’, following which
the district administrations announced that they were ready for any
eventuality. Reassuring? Ask the affected millions of 2010 and 2011 floods,
who are still dying of waterborne diseases and waiting for resettlement. They
have heard all this before. The country’s state of
preparedness can be gauged from the fact that infrastructural damage caused
by the flooding of last two years has not been repaired, neither have the
recommendations of various commissions and think tanks been implemented, or
an investment made in advanced early detection systems. If nature decides to
be rough again this summer, we’ll be caught in the same state of ignorant
inaction that we displayed in 2005, then in 2010 and again last year. As for rescue and early
recovery, the standard procedure for the GoP as soon as a disaster hits has
been and remains limited to: the president and prime minister to fly away on
begging tours, and the rest of the government to wait for international aid
and development agencies to release funds so they can start saving lives and
setting up camps for survivors. They have neither the capacity, nor the will
or intent to do more. What will save Pakistanis
this year is what saved us during every past disaster: us. It’s the
neighbours who feed and shelter the stricken; it’s the common folk who give
most generously of their time and money; it’s the professionals who offer
their services to affected communities free of cost; it’s the business
people and industrialists who rebuild houses and work places. The best fund raisers are
our friends and colleagues; the most user friendly and reliable weather
information is provided by an individual blogger (pakistanweatherportal) and
the most effective means of mass communication between the affected
communities and aid agencies is provided by the local media, particularly FM
radio, using unpaid or paltry-paid young local men and women. We are our own safety net
and it’s time to spread ourselves again. The time for pointing fingers and
apportioning blame will come later. masudalam@yahoo.com
interview Delhi-based Neelabh
Mishra, Editor, Outlook Hindi, was in Pakistan recently, along with his
friend Kavita Srivastava, a human rights activist, on the special invitation
of the family of Dr Khalil Chishti, the 80-year-old Pakistani virologist who
had been released from a jail in Ajmer, India, having served a life sentence.
Mishra took time out to speak to The News on Sunday, during his brief stay in
Lahore, following a busy schedule at the Chishti’s in Karachi. He wished he
could go sightseeing, but the ‘reporting visa’ formalities “ate up our
time.” Still, Mishra said he had a
fair taste of the city: “Late one night [in Karachi], we went for a walk
and found that the people were awake and enjoying themselves. We had gol
gappas from a roadside stall, even as we heard an occasional sound of gunshot
in the distance. And, I thought to myself we get to see only one side of
Pakistan in the Indian media.” An MA in English Literature
from Delhi University, Mishra has been associated with journalism for the
past almost three decades now. He began with Bharat Times (of The Times of
India group) as a reporter and went on to become the editor of Outlook Hindi
four years back. The News on Sunday: Tell us
briefly about the trends in Indian media? Neelabh Mishra: The most
shameful trend is that of ‘paid news’. Today, you can actually buy column
space in order to get a news item printed, and the paper will print it as a
news item. This is so ridiculous. I
remember, during the last general election, a newspaper carried a lead,
“Congress wins hands down in such-and-such constituency,” with a
reporter’s byline. And, just below that item, there was a story by the same
reporter on the same constituency; it said, “BJP is winning…” This whole business of paid
news started with the corruption of a few reporters. The newspaper owners saw
big money in it and that’s how the trend picked up. Come to think of it,
nothing is done under the table. You have rate cards. The reporters are given
targets — as if they were company’s sales representatives. Newspaper owners also
sometimes prefer shares in real estate instead of hard cash, in exchange for
a ‘news item’. TNS: What about good old
journalism? NM: Well, our reporting is
mostly only state-centric, instead of being people-centric. For instance,
recently, when the foreign/home secretaries of India and Pakistan met and
they decided to liberalise the visa regime between the two countries with
effect from June 1, but it never happened, it led to a fierce blame game in
the media. Here, we could’ve done better by carrying stories of the common
people who go through the painstaking visa process. What are their issues?
How are they affected by the state policy? The media could’ve spoken, for
instance, about the World Social Forum [that didn’t allow visas to a lot of
Pakistani journalists wanting to attend the event]. These are the kind of
stories that the media should be looking at, instead of rattling off the
policy laws of the state. The electronic media, on
the other hand, functions in its own way — it’s often guilty of dumbing
down and looking at things in a very simplistic manner. At times, it also
takes a jingoistic position. If an incident like the Mumbai attack happens,
objectivity is the first casualty and the entire electronic media starts
toeing a similar line. It’s a game of TRPs. TNS: How is Pakistan
projected in the Indian media in general? NM: Pakistan does not
feature regularly in the Indian media. And, when there is ‘sensational’
news from across the border, such as Rinkle Kumari’s case, the Indian media
is not generally accepting of the fact that the news was covered in Pakistan
first. While in Karachi, we went
to the office of a Sindhi-language newspaper that had done some brilliant
reporting on Rinkle. They had covered the case from the human rights angle as
well as that of the minorities, without any communal bias. But the Indian
media had treated the story as if there was no support for Rinkle Kumari in
Pakistan. On Pak-India issues, the
approach of Hindi media is strictly right-wing. TNS: Are the Indian
newspapers in the vernacular more daring and open than the mainstream media? NM: Hindi newspapers have
the largest circulation in the entire world. Denik Jagran, for instance, tops
them all with a circulation of over a million. It is followed by Denik
Bhaskar. While it is of great
advantage that you have big newspapers catering to a large section of
population, this has also resulted in the fragmentation of news, because
these are multi-edition newspapers. For instance, in the state of Rajasthan
alone, Denik Bhaskar has around 17 editions. This means one part of Rajasthan
will not be informed about what’s happening in the other parts of the
state. In other words, news is not
treated as something which should be seen as a whole. We have newspapers
focusing on really small local/regional affairs. In the Hindi media, this
would mean losing out on perspective. There are exceptions. The
Bengali media is not as fragmented, perhaps because of the high literacy rate
in the region. The Malayalam media is also more concerned with the world
affairs. TNS: How do the market
forces impact your editorial content? NM: Today, the newspapers
in India don’t bank on circulation for revenue; they earn big through ads.
And, because the economy is blooming, there are lots of advertisers. At
times, the advertiser’s interest dominates. Outlook is one media group
where the editorial policy is laid down by the editors and not the
publishers. In The Times of India, it’s not even the owners but
professional ‘brand managers’, as we call them, who set the editorial
policy. These managers decide what the readers want to read, what will sell,
etc. TNS: Is an average
journalist in India well looked after? NM: Look, financially,
India is a skewed market. There are newspapers whose editors’ annual income
is up to IR 30 millions. Journalists are hired on contract-basis, so you have
individual salary negotiations. On the other hand, in
electronic media, you have very high salaries but also grades. A few TV
channels dominate, but then because there is a media boom — it is one of
the fastest growing sectors in the Indian economy — every businessman wants
to open a TV channel. TNS: In Pakistan, a lot of
business tycoons have started their media groups, even though they don’t
have any background in journalism. Is it the same in India? NM: Well, it’s a
two-sided phenomenon. Firstly, while the business tycoons are entering the
media, the media tycoons are also becoming business magnates; they are
acquiring companies and opening new enterprises. Again, I’ll quote the
example of Denik Bhaskar whose owners recently launched into the power sector
and acquired mines. In south India, the
political leaders are entering into the media business. In Tamil Nadu, you
have every big political party or leader owning a TV channel and a newspaper
— Chief Minister Karunanidhi has Sun TV, Jayalalitha owns Jaya TV. Besides,
Kerali TV in Kerala is owned by a Congress politician. Communist parties also
have their own media group. TNS: Are these TV channels
run professionally? NM: The political figures
in the south are very smart; they’ve got professionals to run their media
outlets. But these are eventually propaganda channels. As a result, they end
up having a niche market only. They don’t enjoy the kind of prestige a
mainstream media group does. TNS: What is the situation
of trade unions in the newspaper industry? NM: Till about 15 years
back, the trade unions were a very strong entity; they would hold strikes
etc. Today, their back has been broken thanks to the corporatisation of the
media and the introduction of the contract system. Naturally, the journalists
have no option but to comply. Though their independence is compromised at
times, there’s no question of union activities. TNS: Does the Indian media
depend a lot on government advertisements? NM: No. In fact, for the
big media groups, government ads mean nothing at all; they are a waste of
time. We only depend on corporate ads. TNS: Is there a lot of
support in India for the issue of visa liberalisation between the two
neighbouring countries? NM: If you ask the man in
the street, he wouldn’t have an idea how the people in Pakistan live, what
they wear, what they do for a living etc. One reason why I am for
people-to-people contact is that this will remove a lot of misunderstandings
about each other’s culture. This will also spare the media any
misrepresentation. TNS: Don’t you think
allowing Pakistani TV channels into your territory will do the needful? NM: There was a time when
Pakistani TV shows were famously seen in India; this was in the pre-dish
antenna days, till the 1980s. Later, the policy makers, under pressure from
the right-wing, thought that the growing Islamic radicalisation in Pakistan
was not suited to the common TV audience of India. I personally don’t buy
this. I believe our audiences are mature enough to decide what is right and
what is wrong. Besides, if you have one such thing coming from Pakistan,
there will be a lot of other positive things also. TNS: What about allowing
just the entertainment channels? NM: Often the policy makers
have funny arguments. They think coded messages of terrorist attacks will
sneak in through the entertainment shows. TNS: How faithfully does
your media present the true picture of India? Or, is it just about
‘Incredible India’? NM: Media, as it continues
to grow, has already busted the myth that ‘dog cannot eat dog’ — i.e.
the media will not criticise the media. In Outlook, for instance, we recently
printed scripts of Nira Radia tapes that showed how corporate corruption had
gotten into the media. As a result, a lot of media personalities were
exposed. Where paid news has become
a common practice, a lot of editors and commentators are also writing against
it. Presently, the matter is with the Election Commission. So, if there is
glorification, the media is also showing the true picture — stories of
drought, hunger and poverty. But, you can say that these stories go in the
background and images of unreal India dominate. TNS: Do you think TV is
journalism at all? NM: It is journalism and at
the same time it isn’t. It isn’t journalism because of the way it is
being practised: it shows a staged reality. For instance, if you are doing a
TV show on a certain topic, you will put an anchorperson together with a
state representative and an activist, cut to random visuals, throw in
frivolous comments here and there that only lead to a sparring match and
preclude a serious discussion. It seems the producers have
decided beforehand what line they would take. The entire show then becomes an
exercise in “manufacturing consent”, to use a Chomskyan phrase.
Amid
dreams of a new Egypt To the naked eye,
the Egyptian presidential polls presented a quandary for voters. The
international media tended to boil it down to a choice between the Muslim
Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi on the one hand, and one of Mubarak’s men,
Ahmed Shafik, on the other. To the Western liberal
commentator, the honeymoon period of the Revolution is over, and the
possibilities for alternatives beyond what these two men represent are far
fewer than before. Even worse, for some, such possibilities never existed.
There is a tendency to view the whole Arab revolutionary process as a sort of
delayed but sure verdict of history: with the repressed Islamist leanings of
the popular classes being finally translated into broad populist movements,
whose only possible outcome could be Islamists in power. The electoral
experiences of Tunisia and Egypt so far seem to strengthen such
interpretations of events. Even progressives speak with concern of a
“Tehran 1979” situation. Fortunately, for the
optimist, matters are not quite so simple. First, one must account for the
organisational and political weakness of the liberal and progressive sections
of the Egyptian body politic (and more broadly, the other Arab Spring
countries). It is important to remember
that decades of repression by authoritarian plutocracies could only help the
Islamists, even if the terror of the mukhaabrat-state targeted both Islamists
and secular dissidents. For the mukhaabrat (secret-service) state, it is a
relatively simple matter to silence secular progressives, by closing down
open public forums and oppositional mass media. As for Islamists, such
measures might hurt them, but other spaces remain open to them — spaces
which the state cannot easily clamp down on, in a Muslim country. Charities,
mosques, religious study-groups, professional associations of the
middle-classes: this is where Islamists can operate under the guise of
religion, donning an almost “de-politicised” garb. Their discourse in
such cases is, ultimately, political, but to the ruling regime it can pose
less of an immediate threat. If the masses have no bread, let them have
religious events, to put the matter crudely. In the long-run, this means that
they begin to take over most of the oppositional space from secular
progressives, and become a significant voice for the grievances of the
popular classes. Additionally, it would be a
mistake to view a force such as the Muslim Brotherhood as a pure monolith. It
has an impressive organisational cohesion, it has clearly-articulated social
and political aims, but it must still operate in a very fractured and diverse
society. There has been much evidence for friction within the ranks of the
Brotherhood: from the very beginning of the Revolution. There were
indications that the youth-wing of the organisation chafed at the reluctance
of the Brotherhood’s leaders to throw their whole weight behind the Tahrir
Square revolutionaries. And the Brotherhood itself has a certain constituency
among the popular classes. No amount of religious rhetoric can completely
modify the demand for socio-economic equity and youthful impulse for
political expression. Even more importantly, the
key is to view the electoral process as being merely one aspect of an ongoing
process of seismic changes in the Egyptian society and politics. While it is
true that the Muslim Brotherhood has been eager to placate Western fears of
“radical Islam” and seek some sort of arrangement for power-sharing with
the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), the elections could be seen
as contributing to a strengthening of democratic legitimacy (relative to the
Mubarak era, of course). One should be under no
illusions at all about the limits to democratic progress while the iron fist
of the SCAF hangs over Egypt, looking to co-opt the Brotherhood and set up
yet another regime of corruption, patronage politics and gross inequalities.
But the first cracks, perhaps, in a potential alliance between the
Brotherhood and the SCAF are already visible: the military rulers want to
appoint a cabinet of their own choosing and the Brotherhood claims this as
its own prerogative. There have also been severe tensions with the
traditional patrons of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudi monarchy. Electoral
legitimacy is flawed and incomplete, but it has certain logic of its own. Additionally, the first
round of voting in the presidential elections revealed a third and powerful
player: Hamdeen Sabahi of the Karama (Dignity) party, which espouses the
older Nasserist ideals in Egypt. Leaving aside the cynicism of electoral
power-politics and the shortcomings of Nasserism itself, it is very
interesting that his ideas of Arab unity, secular, and economic
redistribution still have enough proponents in Egypt to win them 21.5 per
cent of the votes: putting Sabahi in third place after Morsi and Shafik. And perhaps most
importantly, the forces which sparked off the Revolution — the activist
youth in Tahrir Square, the independent labour unions and various other
progressive elements — continue to courageously put forward their demands.
They challenge both the legitimacy of a moth-eaten electoral process and the
stifling hold of the military over state and society. The undying slogan made
famous by the Tahrir Square revolutionaries still reverberates its challenge
to all forces who seek to tame, contain or pervert the revolutionary process:
“Ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam” (The people want the downfall of the
regime). When the people refer to a “regime”, it is clear that they speak
not just of one strongman, Mubarak, or one party. Their dream of a new Egypt
goes far beyond the machinations of generals and the power politics of the
Americans, Saudis, Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists.
|
|
