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