Coptic and political activists, as well as members of the clergy, have expressed their dissatisfaction with the recent appointment by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) of five Copts among the 10 appointed members in the new parliament.
Coptic and political activists, as well as members of the clergy, have expressed their dissatisfaction with the recent appointment by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) of five Copts among the 10 appointed members in the new parliament.
They said that of the five, only the political activist Hanna Greiss, who was a cornerstone of the revolution, is known to the public, the other four being unknown to the Egyptian public and without any political contribution to their credit that would make them eligible for the appointment.
Intellectual Hani Labib denounced the manner used to select the five Copts, describing it as “the same method used during the times of Mubarak”. He said that no clear measures for selection could be determined. Labib was surprised by the exclusion of the members of the revolutionary and Maspero youth movements.
The Coptic activist Kamal Zakher, however, thinks that the Copts’ status in parliament could be witnessing some improvement when compared with the Mubarak days, especially in that seven Copts have reached parliament through elections—which was never the case under the old regime when only one or two Copts used to make it to parliament. In previous parliaments, Mr Zakher pointed out, only two Copts would be appointed. To have five now was a very positive step, he told Watani, especially considering the sectarian nature of the recent elections.
Zakher pointed out that the Church had no say in the selection of the five appointed Copts, which puts paid to the old Islamist chestnut—they always made it their business to accuse the Church of interfering in this process.
The SCAF’s aim in regard to the appointments is probably to build bridges of communication and reconciliation with emigrant Copts and contain the rift with them that was sown during the old regime, said Zakher. However, selecting an ‘unknown’ immigrant Copt poses not a few questions, Labib argues. The SCAF has overlooked emigrant Coptic personalities who have a past history of activism, such Michael Meunier, William Wissa and Magdi Khalil.
“The change is positive and almost tangible, even though the number of Copts in parliament still does not ensure a fair representation of Copts,” Mr Zakher said.
Rami Kamel of the Maspero Youth Union (MYU) believes that the status of Copts has not changed since the revolution. During the Mubarak era, he pointed out, Coptic participation in the elections did not exceed 5 per cent, and they were represented by 1 per cent of parliamentary seats. After the revolution, Coptic participation leaped to 70 per cent, but still with a 1 per cent parliamentary representation. Mr Kamel believes that the appointment process was carried out exactly as it was before the revolution, complying with the Church’s dictates. He said the SCAF was trying to confine Copts to the Church institution, completely disregarding the revolution and the Maspero youth. The Church does not accept anybody playing its political role, Mr Kamel says, particularly the Maspero youth, so that it can keep its political hegemony. Which is why an emigrant Copt was appointed to Parliament—in order to contain emigrant Copts and break the interior base of Coptic activists.
Bishoy Fawzi of the MYU agrees with this theory. He says that, in the end, parliament is only serving the SCAF through a hidden deal that was set up between the SCAF and the streams that do not contradict it.
Rev. André Zaki, deputy head of the Evangelical Church in Egypt, told Watani that he was quite sure the Coptic Church had no say in the appointment of the five Copts. He too is surprised that activists such as George Ishac and the revolutionary youth have not been given a place in the new parliament. “I am surprised that those who shared in the revolution are absent from the revolution’s parliament,” Rev. Zaki said.