Problems on hold

With Mohamed Mursi as Egypt’s new president, the race for the presidency is over. This is the time to do as we preached: we accept the outcome of the ballot box even if it contradicts our partiality towards a civil State in Egypt as opposed to one that emerges out of the mantle of a religious reference point. Lieutenant General Ahmed Shafik, who was supported by those who called for a civil State, lost to Mohamed Mursi who is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the proponents of political Islam, and the supporters of an Islamist State. Today we congratulate Dr Mursi and take him for his word, pledged so strongly during the week prior to the elections, that he would act as president of all Egyptians; and work indiscriminately to serve their interests within a context of democracy and citizenship rights.

The Mursi win may have, in a way, carried some divine kindness for Egypt; the menacing attitude adopted by the Islamist political forces prior to the announcement of the election results, their grim threats with “dire consequences” for the country should Mursi lose, were no joke. His supporters had already set up camp in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, vociferously demonstrating and lying in wait to pounce should the election results not be to their liking.

Today that the election results have brought in Mursi as president, his supporters have adopted a benign attitude, thanking the “honourable” judiciary. Can this make us forget, however, that the judiciary were targets of Islamist threats should they dare announce Shafik as winner? The situation in its entirety gives rise to huge concern, since it roots the false notion that the rowdy crowds in Tahrir did the right thing and that, owing to the intimidation they wielded, Mursi won. I cannot gloss over this issue or bypass it, because it has the potential to impact many critical situations we are bound to face in the future.

There thrives in Egypt today a culture of rebellion against the legitimacy of the State and judicial institutions. This rebellion is asserted with flourish in Tahrir Square, as in recent cases of rebellion against the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) ruling which dissolved the People’s Assembly, the supplementary constitutional declaration, and the decision that the new president should take the oath before the SCC. These and other forms of rebellion may extend, grow, and aggravate owing to the erroneous notion that the pressure and intimidation wielded in Tahrir achieve results.

The violations committed in the second round of the elections were the outcome of the gross mutiny and non-discipline which have come to rule over the Egyptian street, and which contradicted the democratic celebration in the first round. The violations started with the confiscation and falsification of voter will; the matter reached scandalous proportions when it was claimed—an investigation is currently ongoing—that voting tickets had been rigged in favour of Mursi by the official printing house even before they were handed over to the balloting stations.

Once the balloting was through on the evening of Sunday 17 June, Egyptians kept vigil in hopes of hearing any official news of preliminary vote counts. During the early hours of Monday, at 4:00am dawn, the election campaign of Mohamed Mursi held a press conference and announced, unilaterally and definitively, that Mursi had won the presidency. This despite no declaration whatsoever on the part of the Supreme Presidential Elections Committee (SPEC).

The scene spoke of glaring intent to hijack the election results by mobilising mass support for a prematurely proclaimed victory. Never mind that this was a flagrant violation of democratic norms, a challenge to law and order, and a bypass of the SPEC. Following the Mursi campaign press conference, his supporters on both the political and popular levels took to the streets to celebrate his victory. They provoked the masses to rebel against the SCC ruling to dissolve the [Islamist-majority] People’s Assembly, and the supplementary constitutional declaration issued by the Military Council in the wake of the stalemate reached by the various political forces on the writing of a new constitution. But all this was nothing to compare with the direct threats to the stability of the nation, the “dire consequences” to be anticipated should the SPEC announce Shafik as winner.

The miserable scene of Monday 18 June was ripe with a foreboding of political mutiny that rallies people against legitimate and judicial authority, in the name of the Revolution. I imagined that the situation should have been swiftly brought under control before the wrathful outpouring gains uncontrollable proportions, and that the ruling Military Council should have summoned both presidential candidates and demanded that they persuade their supporters to exercise self discipline and commitment to the democratic process. They should have been reminded that the announcement of the election results was the prerogative of the SPEC alone. But the Military Council did no such thing.

Matters were left to snowball all through Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday; Tahrir became the hub from which the Islamist Mursi supporters, the MB and its political arm the Freedom and Justice Party, spearheaded their mutiny against all and every State authority. It was glaring political terrorism against the SPEC, and a horrifying foreboding of future violent, bloody confrontations on the political arena.

Thursday came with the same, if not more grave, mutinous behaviour. A new peak, however, was reached when the Tahrir demonstrators demanded that Mursi—who had not yet been officially declared the new president—should take the presidential oath in Tahrir. The authority of the State and its institutions was obviously being usurped; Egyptians felt threatened, and were gripped with anxiety for the peaceful hand-over of power, should that power need to be handed over to other than Mursi.

Finally, on Friday 22 June, the Miltary Council issued a statement urging respect of the procedure of rounding up the result of the presidential race, and warning of the risks of throwing legitimacy to the wind, dishonouring the judiciary, or disrespecting the sovereignty of the State. Any violations, the statement said, would be sternly confronted with the utmost firmness.

The Military Council’s statement brought on a sigh of relief, but it was beyond me why it took so much time for it to be issued. What could have been handled with relative ease when it started as a handful of snow was left to snowball into an ominous mass that had the potential to crush anyone and anything in its path.

The presidential race is over, but the snowball remains. Will the new president, Mohamed Mursi, through respect for legitimacy, the judiciary, and the law, be able to stop it in its track?