Mostly Harmless

Because therapy is expensive

Posts Tagged ‘Muslim Brotherhood

Dead end? A constantly recurring conversation with no conclusion in sight

with one comment

Optimist: Morsi is bad. The Muslim Brotherhood is bad. They are corrupt, ineffective, fascist, dishonest, and power hungry.

Pessimist: Agreed.

Optimist: They must go.

Pessimist: Yes. How?

Optimist: The same way Mubarak was ousted. Nationwide protests.

Pessimist: The police won’t let it happen

Optimist: Mubarak had the police, military and all the state’s resources.

Pessimist: Morsi has the police, military, all the state’s resources and a large contingent of supporters who would genuinely fight for him. Nationwide protests could very well become civil war.

Optimist: Civil war it is, then. It’s them or us.

Pessimist: Stupid. Civil wars don’t end in two weeks. The country would plunge into chaos for years or even decades, many would die, more would suffer.

Optimist: We protest and hope the military intervenes. They would end the Islamists in minutes.

Pessimist: The same military that shot at us in Tahrir, ran us over with tanks in Maspero and stripped women naked by the cabinet building? The military who’s leadership got us into this mess in the first place?

Optimist: Yes, that one. Right now our problem is the Brotherhood. We take any allies we can get.

Pessimist: Why revolt if you’re going to turn back and ally with those you revolted against?

Optimist: This idealism is what got us to this point in the first place. Lemon squeezing and all.

Pessimist: Let’s assume for a second we can forgive the military, why would they even help us? The Brotherhood gave them everything they wanted in the constitution. They have unlimited power, maintain their economic empire alongside their state within a state. What do they have to gain from stepping in; bearing in mind the last time they were in power it was a terrible experience for them. The knight in fatigues is not coming.

Optimist: Fine then. No military. We just protest and hope it leads to him stepping down.

Pessimist: He. Has. A. Cult. Behind. Him.

Optimist: We need to try.

Pessimist: Let’s assume we protest and he leaves, which isn’t going to happen. Then what? No president will ever remain in power. You elect say Sabahy after him and the Islamist will oust him via protesting in three months.

Optimist: What about democracy.

*laughs* Come again?

Optimist: Democracy. We beat them in elections.

Pessimist: Which ones? Presidential? I don’t know about you but three more months, let alone years, of Morsi is unbearable. We need something faster before he pisses away the rest of the foreign reserves and starves the half of the population that isn’t already starving.

Optimist: Parliament.

Pessimist: How do you propose we do that?

Optimist: Well first things first, NSF needs to reverse the boycott.

Pessimist: There is no guarantee these elections will be fair with their prosecutor general overseeing it and their government running it.

Optimist: We need to try.

Pessimist: Participating gives them legitimacy.

Optimist: Participating proves violations.

Pessimist: The opposition have no chance in hell of winning. They have the state, its media, more in financial resources than all opposition parties combined, and of course religion. How do you fight that? Then there’s the fact that the opposition is barely united.

Optimist: NSF needs to enforce stricter adherence to party line.

Pessimist: Their “unity” is one of the things crippling them actually. How are neoliberals and far leftists supposed to come up with a joint economic plan?

Optimist: If they don’t unite they can’t win.

Pessimist: Secularism is not a political platform.

Optimist: It is when against Islamists. If they don’t run together then they should at least coordinate.

Pessimist: Then what?

Optimist: Impeach him. Parliament can do that.

Pessimist: You need two-thirds. Quit dreaming.

Optimist: Well if they get a majority they can form government.

Pessimist: Not going to happen. Even if it did, the opposition would be sharing power with Morsi, associated with him whether they like it or not. Morsi would blame Prime Minister Sabahy/ElBaradei/Moussa for everything.

Optimist: Opposition would control things like the economy, stop the downwards spiral if nothing else.

Pessimist: Why are you assuming elections are happening soon?

Optimist: How can they not. We’re missing a lower house of parliament. The Brotherhood can’t wait to hold them; they’re not waiting for the Supreme Administrative Court and passed new election laws.

Pessimist: The Supreme Constitutional Court will reject them, because they were intentionally poorly drafted. They want to hold off elections without it looking like they’re the ones postponing.

Optimist: Why?

Pessimist: They’re not going to replicate their previous numbers. They have a clear majority in the Shura Council and pass whatever the hell they want, why risk it?

Optimist: They’d want to form their own government.

Pessimist: Qandil does whatever they want with the added perk of them being able to blame him for everything.

Optimist: So you’re saying neither politics nor protesting will work.

Pessimist: Yes.

Optimist: So they win then?

Pessimist: No.

Optimist: What’s the solution?

Pessimist: I don’t know. But there has to be one, no?


Written by Ahmed Aboulenein

April 20, 2013 at 2:24 am

Morsy’s meeting the Supreme Council of the Judiciary: nothing has changed

leave a comment »

President Mohamed Morsy said he respects and appreciates the judiciary, he’s assured the judges that their independence would never be compromised. Although the president expressed such sentiment, practically speaking he has not offered the judges any concessions.

He said there would be no amendments to the constitutional decree and that protection from legal review would be for “acts of sovereignty” only.

The president’s spokesperson did not define what an “act of sovereignty” is exactly or who decides whether a decision is indeed an “act of sovereignty” or a regular administrative decision.

The president can issue a decision, call it an “act of sovereignty” and it would have to be proven otherwise first before it can even be challenged in a court.

The traditional definition of “act of sovereignty” which includes things like declaring war and changing the country’s borders have always been protected from judicial oversight in Egypt, the president did not need to issue a constitutional decree saying that unless he intends to expand what “acts of sovereignty” encompass.

He also said that reopening investigations in cases of killing protestors during the revolution mentioned in the decree would only be in cases where new evidence appears.

This affirms what many in the opposition were saying, which is that the president included things in his decree to appear as if he’s meeting revolutionary demands in order to mask a power grab. It is highly unlikely that new evidence in crimes of killing protestors during the 18-day uprising of 2011 will appear simply because between Mubarak’s police and prosecutors, all evidence has been properly disposed of.

An important thing to note, however, is there was a high turnout at the judges’ general assembly meeting on Saturday where they released a statement condemning the decree and voted for a judicial strike. This means that the judges may not approve of the outcome of the meeting between the president and their leaders and may even opt for a vote of no confidence, although that would mostly be a symbolic move.

Finally, the Muslim Brotherhood has called off tomorrow’s protest, stating their wish to avoid clashes and bloodshed. They had initially changed the venue from Abdeen to in front of Cairo University in order to stay away from Tahrir Square where the opposition intends to stage a million man protest tomorrow but the Brotherhood have now postponed their protest altogether.

Written by Ahmed Aboulenein

November 26, 2012 at 11:55 pm