Since Egypt's newly-elected parliament began convening, and perhaps because of reactions to its initial performance, debate has erupted in Egypt about a conflict of legitimacy. This is a natural process, since Egyptians revived political activism thanks to the glorious January revolution after authoritarian rule had killed off serious politics in Egypt.

It has been some 25 years now since I first began voting in national elections, and in all those years I have never experienced a greater quandary than the one I faced this week as a result of the complex voting system introduced into the country following the 25 January uprising.

How many Egyptians have appreciated the message behind Aliaa Magda Al Mahdy's naked photo? We only know that few have actually expressed admiration or support, and they did so by posting words of encouragement on her blog, her Facebook page and on Twitter, leaving the pages of printed media to reactions that ranged from the lack of sympathy to outrage. Her boyfriend Karim Amer who — though he has nothing to do with the photo — was not spared.

In the wake of consistent rigging over the past 60 years, its hardly surprising that everything about these elections, from the spectacularly inefficient organization by the High Elections Commission (HEC) to the behavior of the parties competing, has been so eccentric. At this point, however, those Egyptians (and international observers) who are susceptible to panicking — presumably secular liberals and ethnic and religious minorities — should take a deep breath and consider the significantly more practical question: “Now what?”

In his speech to the nation on 22 November, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, almost as an aside, announced that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) was prepared to hold a referendum on the issue of the military turning power over to civilians. This was intended as a threat to his civilian challengers. Reported to be a keen follower of public opinion polls, the Field Marshal and his advisers no doubt calculated that in any such referendum, the majority of voters would support military over civilian rule.

Strongly believing that the criminal acts which have plagued Egypt’s streets since the 25 January Revolution require extraordinary measures to combat them I have, contrary to many politicians and pundits, defended the decision by the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed forces to enact the emergency law. Hardly anyone can deny that the rampant incidents of thuggery and terrorising peaceful civilians have become so perilous as to warrant exceptional measures. I am confident that authorities have no appetite for oppressing and victimising the opposition as long as it does not incite lawlessness or undermine the community’s security.

Some of us were under the impression that Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi’s testimony would mark a watershed in the trial of ex-President Hosni Mubarak. But the fact that Mubarak was Tantawi’s long-time leader renders unlikely any radical change in Tantawi's view of the president.

It is no secret that Egypt is living through a critical transitional phase in the aftermath of the 25 January Revolution; a chapter replete with abnormal conditions and events that warrant temporary, exceptional policies. The magnitude of the risks now threatening the homeland renders extraordinary decisions fully understandable. I say this in response to the wave of angry protest which swept the Egyptian scene in the wake of the decree enacted by the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to enforce the emergency law in specific, given cases.

Book censorship in Egypt is alive and well and may signal trouble for the country’s fledgling democracy. It serves as a distressing reminder that the old regime is not a mere ghost from the past. For most Egyptians, censorship might not be seen as a critical issue today, given the other weighty challenges the country is facing. But the persistence of censorship is indicative of a pre-revolutionary mindset that refuses to go away.



Amid rampant acts of thuggery and the absence of a unified law for building places of worship—which Prime Minister Essam Sharaf seems to have forgotten all about—new forms of aggression have emerged. Extremist Islamic groups have put aside the law, undermined the authority of the State, and imposed their custody on public will in the most audacious, assertive, insolent manner. And why should not they when the official response to their threats and crimes is at best feeble and helpless. The authorities never go beyond holding traditional ‘reconciliation meetings’, a measure which victims see as an unequivocal insult and the utmost in humiliation since it places victim and offender on the same footing, and imposes on the former unjust settlements which flagrantly violate citizenship rights.

Where does Israel live in the Egyptian public imagination? Some unfortunate instances are usefully recalled: Jewish settlement in Palestine; a few wars, and the loss of Palestine; bloody incursions into Lebanon and Gaza; the destruction of Arab cities, including the Suez Canal towns. Then there is the saga of intelligence struggles against the Israeli espionage machine, folklore that captured many an Egyptian mind as it emerged from screens big and small.

Creative Chaos, the well-known and most famous slogan, raised and set by New Conservatives Team of the former U.S administration, was aiming to reformulate the political map and scene in the Middle East, especially around Israel, and, at the same time, to end the old formula that was working for the last sixty years

The wrath which raged, and is still raging, against Israel in the Egyptian street is both legitimate and justified. It is a show of public fury at the killing of five Egyptian security personnel last month during an Israeli operation against cross-border terrorist raiders who had assassinated eight Israelis and injured 30 before escaping inside Egyptian territory near Eilat. Angry demonstrations and sit-ins were held in front of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, protesting Israeli transgression against Egyptian sovereignty. The public hostility and anti-Israeli sentiments express bitterness which has been for decades building up against Israeli aggression, and is fully understandable. The burning of the Israeli flag was a condemnation of Israeli practices and came as an expression of protest used worldwide.

Where is Egypt headed? I’ve heard this question being asked by everyone, everywhere, as if there were no other questions worth asking. No doubt this clearly reflects a state of collective anxiety, uncertainty, and perhaps concern over what the future holds. Therefore, I believe the question deserves an answer, complete with explanations and analysis, in the hope of identifying the causes behind the country’s current impasse and overcoming it. In my opinion, there are three main reasons for this state of affairs:

No matter what successes Prime Minister Essam Sharaf achieves together with his cabinet, he will always be discredited for underestimating public memory—a memory by no means poor. With that memory alertly registering details big and small on the Egyptian arena, Dr Sharaf has miserably failed. The public well remembers that he promised last May to form a committee to draft a unified law for building places of worship, within a maximum one-month period. They remember he declared the same committee would be charged with drafting a law to criminalise discrimination. And they remember he promised to form a committee to investigate the long list of closed churches in preparation for their reopening. When, that same month, Salafis rioted against the reopening of a church in Ain Shams, the church was again closed until an official committee checks its legal documents and issues a decision on it within one month. To date, no decision.

Revolutionary justice in Egypt requires not only that we activate procedures that already exist in Egyptian law, but also that we set up new legal authorities that can fulfill special tasks during the transitional period. Towards that end, I propose the establishment of three new bodies:

The groups which have chosen to break with the “national community” are untiringly shrieking in defence of “the people, and only the people, must draft the constitution”. In doing so, they deliberately deceive and distort public awareness by alleging that they singlehandedly care for the people’s interest, while they in fact seek to monopolise the process of drafting the constitution.

What do we mean by a “civil state”? Is it the civil state of supra-constitutional principles advocated by the army and liberals that raises the hackles of Islamists who view it as an undemocratic attempt to install secularism? This is not the kind of civil state I support.

On 19 May, a significant meeting was held under the auspices of the Egyptian National Council (ENC) and attended by constitutional and legal experts, political party chairmen, political movements leaders, presidential candidates in-waiting, representatives of independent unions and social groups, and a number of public figures. The gathering, which may truly be dubbed the “national community”, reviewed the documents published concerning the principles which ought to be taken into account in drafting the new Egyptian constitution. These documents included those drafted by the ENC, al-Azhar, ElBaradie, the National Accord Committee, the Democratic Alliance, Judge Hisham al-Bastawisi, the Human Rights groups, and the Future of Egypt.

"President Mubarak, Egyptian judges appreciate you deeply. It was you who restored the Egyptian Supreme Judicial Council at the outset of your rule. And, you deserve credit for deciding conclusively that the Public Prosecution is an authentic branch of the judiciary.”

It goes to the credit of the Islamists, including the Salafis, that Tahrir Square’s 29 July “Friday of popular will and unity” was effectively, and deliberately, transformed into a “Friday of hijacking popular will and dividing ranks”. Despite prior agreement among 38 factions from across the political spectrum to join forces and unify ranks, Islamists took everyone aback when they reneged on their promise and exclusively controlled the square with clamorous voices and divisive slogans. I say “deliberately” because it is hard for any rational individual to believe the Salafi leaders attempt to explain it all off by claiming they found it impossible to control the crowds they had brought into the square. Such naive allegations contradict all obvious evidence as well as the course of events. Everything was organised to the utmost precision: the religious slogans chanted, the racial flags raised and the statement distributed. There can be no doubt it was all predetermined.