Editorial comment: Even though this article dates from before the beginning of the elections in Egypt, it seems to be well worth picking up since it gives the very background to the situation that is in the process of being voted on. The one almost sure thing seems to me to be that the Empire will almost certainly come out the winner, one way or another. - SON
_______________
After five days of mass resistance in
Cairo's Tahrir Square and cities around Egypt, the country's military
rulers are hoping parliamentary elections on November 28-29 will help
them regain the upper hand--by co-opting Islamist and liberal parties
and isolating militants.
In reality, the weeklong mobilization--which included two days of
protests involving around 1 million people despite the killing of at
least 40 demonstrators since November 19--marked a new phase of the
revolutionary movement in Egypt. Large numbers of people who greeted the
ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) as heroes for ousting
Mubarak in February now see SCAF as a counterrevolutionary force.
The protests won a series of concessions, including the resignation
of an unpopular civilian cabinet that provided a fig leaf for military
rule. But as a replacement, the army appointed as prime minister a
former Mubarak henchman, Kamel el-Ganzoury.
The military is determined to hold onto power by proposing a new
constitution that would put the armed forces above civilian authorities.
Despite an estimated 1 million people flooding Tahrir on November 25,
the SCAF announced it would hold parliamentary elections November 28 as
planned, but extend the voting by another day. Most Islamist,
nationalist and liberal political parties agreed to participate,
angering many of their members, who felt the elections should be
boycotted to protest the military's repression.
Mostafa Ali, a member of Egypt's Revolutionary Socialists and journalist for Ahram Online, spoke with Lee Sustar about the mass protests, the elections and the renewal of Egypt's revolutionary movement.
WHAT WAS the size and political character of the Friday protest on November 25?
THE DEMONSTRATION on Friday was quite large. There were about 1
million people in Tahrir. A number of demonstrations came from different
working-class neighborhoods--one of them was as big as 10,000 people.
This is a new thing in Tahrir. We have feeder marches that come from
different working-class neighborhoods.
The turnout was massive, as expected. The square was really roaring
with chants against SCAF and against its head, Field Marshal Mohamed
Hussein Tantawi, and there was a general sentiment that the military
council must return to the barracks. The consensus in the square was
that a presidential council or a salvation cabinet must take power--and
that it should be made up of independent people who have absolutely
nothing to do with Mubarak and the National Democratic Party that ruled
under Mubarak's regime.
The most important thing here is that whatever form such a government
would take, it would be accountable to the people, not to the SCAF.
THE MUSLIM Brotherhood, however, remained opposed to the demonstrations.
THE BROTHERHOOD opposed the demonstration on Friday and boycotted it.
Most of the Salafists--a more conservative Islamist current--boycotted
it, too, with very few exceptions. But all the liberal and left parties
and revolutionary youth groups--about 70--supported the demonstrations.
This demonstration put pressure on a few liberal figures to put
themselves forward as being ready to form a national unity government or
national salvation cabinet. Mohamed ElBaradei, a key liberal figure,
agreed to cancel his presidential bid if he is asked to form a national
unity government that would include liberals, Nasserists and moderate
Islamists.
That's generally what happened out of the big demonstration in
Tahrir. But there were other demonstrations in other parts of the
country on the same day. The new development is that there are also
demonstrations in Upper Egypt [the more rural, southern part of the
country], which is more backward, less industrialized. It wasn't fully a
part of the January uprising. So this is a new development. It is
slowly catching up with the revolution.
ARE WORKING-class and economic demands coming to the
fore in these demonstrations, or are they focused more on getting the
military out of politics?
THE POLITICAL and the economic are completely intertwined. There is a
general unifying demand among the million people in Tahrir that the
SCAF must go. But the underlying reason is that the economic situation
has deteriorated in the last 10 months.
Many people tell reporters that life is getting harder, that
unemployment is unbearable, and that the previous government failed to
improve their lives. The SCAF has failed miserably on this. So the anger
over economic hardship and the yearning for political freedom are
connected.
The independent unions had a contingent in the rallies, but it wasn't
that big--a few hundred people. They are still in a process of building
and have just gone through a number of setbacks. There isn't a working
class movement that could have an influence on the mass demonstration on
Friday.
HOW WERE the marches from working-class neighborhoods organized?
THESE DEMONSTRATIONS are organized by groups formed to oppose the
military trials of civilians, by popular committees to defend the
revolution, by the Revolutionary Socialists and hundreds of independent
activists mobilizing in their neighborhoods. They march to Tahrir,
distributing thousands of leaflets along the way to explain what's going
on. It's an attempt to build a local, ongoing presence in the
neighborhoods.
IS THE political sentiment in Tahrir ahead of the rest of the country? How will that affect the elections?
YES, THE political sentiment in Tahrir is ahead of the country. You
can think of it as the revolutionary vanguard in society among students
and workers and youth--but it is much larger than in January. Political
consciousness has developed tremendously.
These are people who understand that the SCAF is the continuation of
the Mubarak regime. They are beginning to understand the connection
between political and economic issues. They are beginning to grapple
with the role of police in society. And they are the ones who understand
that the ruling class played a trick on them by using Mubarak as a
scapegoat in order to save the rest of the political system.
So you have a minority in society--symbolized by Tahrir--which has
advanced politically and in terms of its consciousness. And it's ahead
of the rest of the country in that sense. Back in January, a majority of
people in the country wanted Mubarak to go, so they supported Tahrir.
At this moment, that isn't the case regarding the SCAF.
The revolutionary vanguard is much, much larger. Its willingness to
fight is unbelievable--it fought five days against the police. But the
majority of the workers and poor people have not yet concluded that the
SCAF must immediately return to its barracks. Or they don't think we
have the power yet to push the SCAF to return the barracks.
On a different level, you can think of it this way: It was much
easier for the ruling class to get rid of Mubarak. Getting rid of the
SCAF, or pushing it back to the barracks, is a much harder task. Many
people outside of Tahrir also want the SCAF to go back to its barracks,
but they don't think there is the organization on the ground to win
something like that.
HOW WILL all this play out in the parliamentary elections?
THE TURNOUT in elections will likely be quite high. A majority of
people believe that elections will be the way to establish a civilian
government and to get the army out of political life. There is a
majority consensus on this, other than a crazy right-wing minority that
wants the SCAF to stay in power.
The majority of the country wants a democratic system. They want a
civilian government. They want to be able to vote and to exercise
political control over their lives. And they believe this is the way to
get the army out of their lives for the first time in 60 years.
So even among people who are fighting in Tahrir and those who support
them, some of them will vote, because they don't want to leave the
political scene to the SCAF, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists.
Yet the majority of the people in Tahrir are more advanced than the rest
of the country, and want to actually boycott the election.
So you have a bizarre situation. The fact that people will vote in
the elections doesn't mean they want the SCAF to stay. They actually
want the SCAF out. They just think that voting will be the quickest way
to do it. But the majority of those who support the revolution are not
necessarily against Tahrir. There is just not enough organization or
confidence to push the SCAF out now.
The SCAF wants this election to gain legitimacy on the ground. The
military is very weak right now, and it is determined that the election
will take place no matter what. They want to use this to bolster their
credentials as people who said they would bring about democracy--they
want something to show they've kept their word in order to use that to
attack the growing revolutionary vanguard.
That's what the people in Tahrir are saying--that this election will
not advance democracy, and it will allow the SCAF to gather the forces
of counterrevolution on the ground.
However, it's complicated. The SCAF has just come up with a new prime
minister--Kamel el-Ganzoury--a founder of the National Democratic Party
and an architect of privatization. Though he was ultimately pushed out
by Mubarak, this is someone who is on a no-fly list for leaving the
country, because he is implicated in a number of corruption cases in
privatization schemes.
Even on that level, people are divided. A majority will go vote, but
half the people think that because this man was pushed out by Mubarak,
we might want to give him a chance, and the other half are beginning to
learn that Tantawi and the SCAF are bringing back the old guard of the
NDP, not just the second generation. Ganzoury, who is 77, is an
architect of everything Mubarak did over the last 30 years.
By appointing Ganzoury, the SCAF is sending a message that it will
not relinquish power. It has said that the new constitution won't change
the role of the SCAF by an inch. The SCAF will always have veto power
over anything that has to do with the army.
So on the one hand, the military is using the election to bolster its
democratic credentials. On the other hand, it is digging in. The
members of the SCAF are saying: "We are not going to relinquish power.
No constitution, no parliament and no mass movement is going to force us
out of power."
Some 25 percent of Egypt's gross domestic product is directly under
the control of the SCAF. There was a handmade sign at the protest on
Friday listing the crimes of the SCAF. One of them was that its members
supported Mubarak for 30 years. Another was that it turned the army into
a big business to exploit poor people. Companies owned by the army make
macaroni, washing machines, refrigerators and furniture--they build
luxury resorts and a lot more. They own a big chunk of agriculture, too,
including hundreds of cattle ranches, and they grow all kinds of
vegetables and fruit.
That's why pushing the military back into the barracks and having a
constitution and parliament to make them accountable is much harder to
achieve than making them sacrifice a Mubarak. They have so much more at
stake economically and politically.
Then there is the international dimension. The West abandoned
Mubarak, but the West will never abandon the SCAF until the very last
minute. The U.S. will not abandon the army.
DESPITE THE protests against the SCAF, the Muslim
Brotherhood has supported it, despite some tensions over the status of
Islam in the proposed constitution. Will that alliance continue?
THE GENERAL feeling in Tahrir is that the SCAF has cut a deal not
only with the Brotherhood and the Salafists, but also with the liberals
and a section of the left, a coalition called the Revolution Continues.
They are going to divide the seats in the new parliament among
themselves.
So the Brotherhood opposed the demonstrations in Tahrir, and on
Friday, it actually sent many of its members to the square to try to
talk people into participating in the elections. They were chased out in
many cases. But the Brotherhood is still campaigning.
In the new constitution, the Brotherhood says it will not implement
Sharia law. But its version of Sharia is different from the Salafists,
who have a very reactionary view--against women and Coptic Christians,
and for carrying out the most brutal punishment for poor who break the
law. The Muslim Brotherhood's views are a lot closer to their Turkish
counterparts. They are for censorship of art and culture, and changes in
some educational programs. The Salafists are right wing and
anticommunist.
So there are divisions between Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood. A
very popular Salafist presidential candidate, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail,
has a following of millions, and he is all out against the SCAF. So a
group of Salafists are attempting to outflank the Muslim Brotherhood,
and these people were supporting the demonstration on Friday.
The Salafists believe the Muslim Brotherhood is cutting a deal that
would make it harder for them to implement Sharia. So they want the SCAF
out faster. That creates confusion on the ground, because while they
want the SCAF out, their ultimate goal is to destroy the whole
revolution.
Source: Socialistworker