Last Update 23:40
Morsi supporters and the opposition: Two different Egypts
As opposition members snub President Morsi's offer for talks, an unbridgeable chasm seems to have formed between supporters and opponents of the president – each subscribing to a different reality
Yassin Gaber , Friday 7 Dec 2012
Share/Bookmark
Views: 4777
Alexandria
A protester cheers as the Freedom and Justice Party's Alexandria headquarters burns (Photo: Reuters)

With no apparent end to Egypt's constitution crisis, supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi's constitutional declaration and draft national charter are digging their heels in, further entrenching themselves in their respective camps.

Morsi's Thursday night speech, the first since the outbreak of violence days earlier, was met with firm opposition both on the street and by a political elite allied in opposition umbrella group the National Salvation Front, which announced Friday its refusal to accept the president’s offer for dialogue.

Behind these media statements and calls for dialogue, the ideological chasm is apparent in every line of each side's rhetoric. The two sides speak of two different Egypts, and consequently believe they are actively responding to popular sentiment. 

Mohamed Abu-Shaqra, a political and civil-society advocate and member of the Constitution Party in Alexandria, says: "The president didn't offer any incentives for dialogue. Rather he emphasised the use of haphazard power and referred to opposition protesters across the country as a minority, as well as pointing to a third party. If he wants to start a healthy dialogue at such a critical moment, you need to show an understanding of the opposition's demands."

Understanding is indeed a crucial part of the massive divide between those who support Morsi’s constitutional declaration and the draft constitution and those who believe it to be a power grab and a ploy to push through a highly unrepresentative national charter.

Tarik Fahim, spokesperson of the Salafist Nour Party in Alexandria firmly believes in a different reality: "We are all the people. These protests are an attempt by an opposition to kill the constitutional project. If they really want to resolve the crisis at hand, they would come and sit with us without preconditions."

He refers to the opposition as people with neither principles nor morals. He steers every question on the constitution and the revolution towards a defence of Islamic law, which he claims will bring peace and stability back to Egypt. 

"No Muslim would say no to Sharia (Islamic Law)," arguing that the average Egyptian is not ready for a full implementation of Sharia due to "widespread disease and ignorance. They don't know right from wrong; they don't know Sharia." 

The constitution is a step, he believes, that would allow future implementation of what he sees as God's law.

Brotherhood talk is considerably less fiery and religiously loaded, stressing instead recent electoral victories – both parliamentary and presidential – and participation in last year's 18-day uprising as proof of their popular and revolutionary legitimacy. 

Ali Abdel-Fatah, general director of the Alexandria branch of Egypt's Doctors' Syndicate and a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood and its Freedom and Justice Party, believes the opposition to be a minority whipped onwards by remnants of the former regime. 

In Alexandria, where following the 22 November Constitutional Declaration several of the ruling party's offices were burnt and raided, Revolutionary Socialist Mahienour El-Masry speaks of a turning point following parliamentary elections with regard to how Alexandrians see the Muslim Brotherhood.
 
"Having observed the Islamists and Salafists in parliament, we can note a vast change in popular sentiment that was apparent during presidential elections," El-Masry says, pointing to growing numbers on the street and the appearance of new protest venues “in middle- and upper-class neighbourhoods such as Victoria in uptown Alexandria and Kafr Abdu: people who may not have voted in the past or may be supporters of the former regime but who feel a threat to their personal freedoms."

She and Abu-Shaqra both agree that the participation of parties and politicians deemed "remnants" of the former regime within the opposition's ranks is not ideal but they point to the pressing and critical nature of the current political juncture. 

El-Masry identifies the burning of the FJP headquarters in Alexandria as proof that popular sentiment had turned against the Brotherhood: "People feel they've betrayed the revolution. The general feeling on the street is that nothing has changed. Having fooled voters with words on Sharia and religion, they realise that the Brotherhood, by grabbing dictatorial authorities, is acting like the NDP [the defunct ruling party of ousted president Hosni Mubarak]."

Abdel-Fatah, who denies the existence of Brotherhood militias, argues that violence in areas adjacent to Tahrir Square following the Constitutional Declaration and the burning of FJP offices in Alexandria is proof of an opposition attempting to sow discord and chaos. 

"Political differences are essential, but should be expressed peacefully not violently," he said. "Those in opposition should let the people decide through the referendum.”

With regard to Wednesday's violence, Abdel-Fatah's response is less lucid: "Calling for the storming of the palace and the imposition of a presidential council is undemocratic. Why throw rocks at the presidential car? This is an assault on the choice of the people." 

"We know the revolutionaries, and I can tell you that there are remnants of the former regime within the ranks of the opposition, and they are the reason for all this violence," says Abdel-Fatah, arguing that members of the ousted Mubarak regime were working to prevent passage of the draft constitution to avert political isolation. 

"If it weren't for President Morsi's Constitutional Declaration, the High Constitutional Court would have brought back military rule," he claims, stressing that members of the former regime were working through the courts and in other ways to stifle the president and his attempts to achieve outstanding demands of the revolution.

"When people took to the streets in commemoration of the Mohamed Mahmoud clashes and called for the rights of the martyrs, we removed the prosecutor-general who stood in the way of prosecuting the perpetrators. We were responding to essential revolutionary demands," Abdel-Fatah says.

Abu-Shaqra argues this statement is a half-truth: "If the president really wanted to change the prosecutor-general, which is in fact a revolutionary demand, he could have charged the Supreme Judicial Council to do so rather than take extra-legal measures thereby threatening the revolution and its principles, among which are the rule of law and an independent judiciary."

The Brotherhood, he believes, is acting in this manner because it is fundamentally reformist and not transformist or revolutionary. 

“The struggle over the referendum and the Constitutional Declaration is a primary test. If we don't pass this test, it is a worrying sign; I'm not saying hopeless, but definitely worrying. Revolutions are started by a minority, but the results must be understood by the majority. Thus far, there have been no dramatic changes in Egypt's political culture and institutions."

It is this reformist mindset, however, that Abdel-Fatah believes will ensure the ratification of the constitution (by at least 85 per cent) and the group’s success in the end. 

“The Egyptian people want stability and gradual changes – not revolutionary, coup-like ones," he states. "They want stable institutions, and they are happy that there is an elected president. Now we want to destroy things all over again? In the end, for the average Egyptian, the content of the constitution isn’t important. Rather, it's stability.”





Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 50 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
9



Ali Salari
10-12-2012 03:37pm
0-
0+
Egyptians deserve it to proceed with democracy
While many political divisions such as democrats vs. undemocrats, traditionalists vs. modernists, religious (Islamists) vs. secularists, socialists vs. liberalists, republicans vs. monarchists, nativist and nationalists vs. globalists and cosmopolitanists within a society are undeniable, firstly the extent of each dichotomy's power and influence varies between societies through different stages of their political development. For Egyptians this dichotomy should mainly be drawn between democrats and non-democrat individuals and groups through which democrat Muslim and non-Muslims can unite and resist non-democrat traditional (fundamentalist) religious and modern (absolutist) ideological groups.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
8



suzan ozkan
08-12-2012 11:21pm
1-
6+
moderating
Ahram, shame on you for moderating and blocking my comments on ahram online facebook! You say that you are mandating insults but really that is not the case because you let others insult anything accept your own vision! You were the ones who went on strike for freedom of expression! I have showed this to several newspapers here in Holland and they know now how some Egypts newspapers really work!
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
7



Sinhalese Man
08-12-2012 06:25pm
0-
2+
Not any better than us!
Egyptians should study the situation in Sri Lanka, unless you, too, would like to end up with a pariah regime.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
6



Abdul Hakim
08-12-2012 04:08pm
2-
6+
Are the Nasserists collaborating with Fulul, Israel's agents?
Why is it that the Nasserists are allying themselves with the Fulul and Copts who reject Islam as a matter of principle? Mr. Sabbahi, you are betraying the ideals of Gamal Abdul Nasser. Nasser is moving in his grave because of your shameful behavior.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
5



Muawiya
08-12-2012 12:34pm
21-
17+
either put up or shut up
Then go to the ballot boxes. Otherwise, shiut up.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
4



Ali Ayman
08-12-2012 10:59am
3-
3+
a hidden anti-ikwan article
this is a trial to mock Ikhwan. please stop. all media in Egypt is biased
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
3



Ayman
08-12-2012 10:26am
6-
2+
The bias against secular forces
Ahram continues to biased towards secular forces. Here a naive attempt to portray Islamist as non democratic. No serious analysis too.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
2



sakamaksaka
08-12-2012 03:41am
6-
7+
not two different egypt
it is one egypt behind the president, and the rest are thugs, that include the admin of Alahram, we support the president for better egypt, and all thugs will be prosecuted, including the admin, be ready, i am coming for you
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
1



Jisan
08-12-2012 01:34am
39-
17+
Centre Party
MB is at the centre of Egypt. It has salafists and other ultras on its right side while liberals, seculars and others on its left. Brotherhood is the Egypt's balance.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment

© 2010 Ahram Online. Advertising