Looks like things could messy fast.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47817477/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.T9pjdcVwSp1
QuoteDismay in Egypt as court orders newly-elected parliament to be dissolved
"The military placed all powers in its hands. The entire process has been undermined beyond repair," - rights lawyer, Hossam Bahgat.
By HAMZA HENDAWI
updated 6/14/2012 2:51:54 PM ET
CAIRO — Judges appointed by Hosni Mubarak dissolved the Islamist-dominated parliament Thursday and ruled that Mubarak's former prime minister can stand in the presidential runoff this weekend — setting the stage for the military and remnants of the old regime to stay in power.
The rulings effectively erase the tenuous progress from the past year's troubled transition, leaving Egypt with no parliament and concentrating rule even more firmly in the hands of the military generals who took power after Mubarak's ouster.
The fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, which stands to lose the most from the rulings, called the moves a coup and vowed to rally the street against the ruling military and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, the presidential candidate seen by critics as a favorite of the generals and a symbol of Mubarak's autocratic rule.
As night fell, a crowd of protesters was rapidly growing in Cairo's Tahrir Square, birthplace of the uprising that toppled Mubarak last year.
Senior Brotherhood leader and lawmaker Mohammed el-Beltagy said the rulings amounted to a "full-fledged coup."
"This is the Egypt that Shafiq and the military council want and which I will not accept no matter how dear the price is," he wrote on his Facebook page.
The decisions were a heavy blow to the Brotherhood. In the parliamentary elections late last year — Egypt's first democratic ones in generations — the Brotherhood vaulted to become the biggest party in the legislature, with half the seats, alongside more conservative Islamists who took another 20 percent. It is hoping to win the presidency as well with its candidate, Mohammed Morsi, in this weekend's presidential run-off against Shafiq. The rulings now take away their power base in parliament and boost Shafiq.
But the court rulings also derail the broader transition to democracy, said rights lawyer Hossam Bahgat.
"The military placed all powers in its hands. The entire process has been undermined beyond repair," Bahgat said. "They now have the legislative and the executive powers in their hands and there is a big likelihood that the military-backed candidate (Shafiq) is going to win. It is a soft military coup that unfortunately many people will support out of fear of an Islamist takeover of the state."
A day earlier, the military-appointed government gave the military police and intelligence the right to arrest civilians for a range of vague crimes such as disrupting traffic and the economy that would give it a mandate to crack down on protests. Many saw the move as evidence the generals are aiming to hold on to power beyond the July 1 deadline they announced for handing it over to a civilian president.
Throughout the day Thursday, military armored vehicles circulated through the streets of Cairo, playing patriotic songs, as soldiers passed out leaflets urging passers-by to vote in the presidential run-off Saturday and Sunday. The rulings also mean that the next president of Egypt will be sworn before the generals who took over from Mubarak 16 months ago rather than parliament.
After the Supreme Constitutional Court's decision was announced, a visibly energized Shafiq spoke at a rally that had the trappings of a victory celebration. Supporters chanted "We love you, Mr. President," and the 70-year-old Shafiq blew kisses to them. In his address, he lavished praise on the military and said he hoped for a dramatic shakeup in the makeup of the next parliament.
"We want a parliament that realistically represents all segments of the Egyptian people and a civil state whose borders and legitimacy are protected by our valiant armed forces," said Shafiq, a longtime friend of Mubarak and a self-confessed admirer of the ousted leader.
The race for the presidency has already deeply polarized the country. The anti-Shafiq camp views him as an extension of Mubarak's authoritarian regime. The anti-Morsi camp fears he and the Brotherhood will turn Egypt into an Islamic state and curtail freedoms if he wins. Leftist, liberal and secular Egyptians who first launched the pro-democracy uprising against Mubarak bemoaned the choice and some talked of a boycott.
Now they and the Brotherhood were all accusing the military of using the constitutional court as a proxy to change the rules of the game.
In its decisions Thursday, the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that a third of the legislature was elected illegally. As a result, it says in its explanation of the ruling, "the makeup of the entire chamber is illegal and, consequently, it does not legally stand."
The explanation was carried by Egypt's official news agency and confirmed to The Associated Press by one of the court's judges, Maher Sami Youssef.
Advertise | AdChoices
The law governing the parliamentary elections was ruled unconstitutional by a lower court because it breached the principle of equality when it allowed party members to contest a third of seats set aside for independents. The remaining two thirds were contested by party slates.
In a separate ruling, the court said Shafiq could stay in the presidential race, rejecting a law passed by parliament last month that barred prominent figures from the old regime from running for office.
Defenders of the law argued that after a revolution aimed at removing Mubarak's rule, parliament had a right to prevent regime members from returning to power. Opponents of the law called it political revenge targeting Shafiq. The court said the law was not based on "objective grounds" and was discriminatory, violating "the principle of equality."
"This historic ruling sends the message that the era of score-settling and tailor-made law is over," Shafiq said at his rally.
Now, elections will have to be organized to choose a new parliament — and the Brotherhood is in a weaker position than it was during its powerful showing in the first election, held over three months starting last November.
After its election victory, the Brotherhood tried to translate those gains into governing power but was repeatedly stymied by the military's grip.
At the same time, there has been widespread public dissatisfaction with the Islamist-led parliament, which many criticized as ineffective. The Brotherhood's popularity has also declined because of moves that critics saw as attempts to monopolize the political scene and advance its own power. It angered liberals, leftists and secular Egyptians when it and other Islamists tried to dominate a parliament-created panel tasked with writing the next constitution. The panel was dissolved by court order, and a new one had yet to be appointed.
The dissolution of parliament now raises the possibility the military council could appoint the panel, a step that would fuel accusations that it is hijacking the process.
The legal adviser of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Brotherhood's political arm, said the court rulings were "political," lamenting the outgoing legislature as the country's "only legitimate and elected body."
"They are hoping to hand it over to Ahmed Shafiq and make him the only legal authority in the absence of parliament. The people will not accept this and we will isolate the toppled regime," Mukhtar el-Ashry said in a posting on the party's website.
A moderate Islamist and a former presidential candidate, Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, said the rulings amounted to a "coup" and warned that the youth, pro-democracy groups that engineered the uprising that toppled Mubarak last year would protest the court's rulings.
"Those who believe that the millions of young people will let this pass are fooling themselves," he wrote on his Twitter account.
So if the parliament was elected under unconstitutional rules then it makes sense, doesn't it? I guess they'll have to have new elections.
This is probably the end-game of the worst transition imaginable. It could be the end of the Mamluk-esque deep state.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 05:33:48 PM
This is probably the end-game of the worst transition imaginable. It could be the end of the Mamluk-esque deep state.
The antics of castrated georgian slaves would probably up the entertainment factor.
:nelson: Maybe next time "democratic" protesters will not view junta as protector of their interests.
I said it at the time that this was going back to a dictatorship. The protesters did not have an aim or an agenda. The common denominator boiled down to them wanting a less incompetent and less corrupt dictator.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 05:33:48 PM
This is probably the end-game of the worst transition imaginable. It could be the end of the Mamluk-esque deep state.
I don't understand...isn't this more like a major step toward the establishment of a Mamluk-esque deep state?
Hopefully Mubarak will hop off his gurney and start feasting on their warm blood.
And bring back the archeology douche.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:06:24 PMI don't understand...isn't this more like a major step toward the establishment of a Mamluk-esque deep state?
That's certainly the other potential direction it could go in. It's either the end-game for the SCAF or a brilliant power play. We'll see.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 14, 2012, 06:06:38 PM
And bring back the archeology douche.
:hug: Islamiana Jones amuses me. Islamiana Jones for Pharaoh-Presidente! :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:06:24 PMI don't understand...isn't this more like a major step toward the establishment of a Mamluk-esque deep state?
That's certainly the other potential direction it could go in. It's either the end-game for the SCAF or a brilliant power play. We'll see.
I've been working with a few Egyptians, who have been lukewarm on the concept of Egyptian democracy. I doubt educated Egyptians working for American corporations are representative, but if they are I doubt there would be so much resistance.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:19:37 PM
I've been working with a few Egyptians, who have been lukewarm on the concept of Egyptian democracy. I doubt educated Egyptians working for American corporations are representative, but if they are I doubt there would be so much resistance.
The revolutionary youth have still been able to get a few hundred thousand into Tahrir for big events like protesting the acquittals at Mubarak's trial. In addition, looking at the last election, the revolutionary candidates (especially Sabahi) did far better than expected.
The impression I get from what I've read is that the SCAF have lost a lot of respect and trust. I think the transition so far has been underpinned by a cooperation, albeit sometimes grudgingly, between them and the Brotherhood. With this move that's gone. The revolutionary movement that I think will be out on the streets in force over this, will probably be very significantly strengthened by the Brotherhood's organisational muscle. They were slow to join in against Mubarak because they potentially had a lot to lose, right now they've got a country they can win.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:19:37 PM
I've been working with a few Egyptians, who have been lukewarm on the concept of Egyptian democracy. I doubt educated Egyptians working for American corporations are representative, but if they are I doubt there would be so much resistance.
The revolutionary youth have still been able to get a few hundred thousand into Tahrir for big events like protesting the acquittals at Mubarak's trial. In addition, looking at the last election, the revolutionary candidates (especially Sabahi) did far better than expected.
The impression I get from what I've read is that the SCAF have lost a lot of respect and trust. I think the transition so far has been underpinned by a cooperation, albeit sometimes grudgingly, between them and the Brotherhood. With this move that's gone. The revolutionary movement that I think will be out on the streets in force over this, will probably be very significantly strengthened by the Brotherhood's organisational muscle. They were slow to join in against Mubarak because they potentially had a lot to lose, right now they've got a country they can win.
Good analysis. :cheers:
From the twitter feeds I'm following there seems to be a degree of confusion amongst the 'protesting class' as to what's happening or were these events are going to take them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 06:27:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:19:37 PM
I've been working with a few Egyptians, who have been lukewarm on the concept of Egyptian democracy. I doubt educated Egyptians working for American corporations are representative, but if they are I doubt there would be so much resistance.
The revolutionary youth have still been able to get a few hundred thousand into Tahrir for big events like protesting the acquittals at Mubarak's trial. In addition, looking at the last election, the revolutionary candidates (especially Sabahi) did far better than expected.
The impression I get from what I've read is that the SCAF have lost a lot of respect and trust. I think the transition so far has been underpinned by a cooperation, albeit sometimes grudgingly, between them and the Brotherhood. With this move that's gone. The revolutionary movement that I think will be out on the streets in force over this, will probably be very significantly strengthened by the Brotherhood's organisational muscle. They were slow to join in against Mubarak because they potentially had a lot to lose, right now they've got a country they can win.
I'm naturally skeptical of what being able to put large numbers in the street really signifies. The army has the guns, and I don't think through the arab spring anyone has yet successfully challenged an arab military and prevailed without western intervention.
And what is the origin of democracy in the Mediterranean?
Slaves rowing boats around the Mediterranean.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
I'm naturally skeptical of what being able to put large numbers in the street really signifies. The army has the guns, and I don't think through the arab spring anyone has yet successfully challenged an arab military and prevailed without western intervention.
The army has the guns, but do they have the soldiers?
I mean Egypt is very different from Libya or Syria. What's emerged since Mubarak fell is that Egypt wasn't that Pharoahnic after all, as I say, if anything it was Mamluk state with a governing class and elite that was about protecting their own interests. If that meant they had to remove the leader, so be it. If they had to let him prosecuted, so be it. If they had to let him be convicted, so be it. But in that process Mubarak was convicted, as was the interior minister but the underlings weren't and no-one so far's been convicted of corruption which has the potential to undermine them all. So far they've been accommodating with the Brotherhood, now they're in conflict with the best organising force in Egypt.
That governing class has nowhere near the personal charisma of a President or Supreme Brother or whatever Gadaffi was. They also don't have the ethnic, religious or tribal ties to the troops that helped sustain the Syrian and Libyan governments while they repressed the protests. I don't know that the troops will be willing to gun down protesters, if it comes to that, because I don't think they've got so many reasons to do so as they have in Libya, Syria or even Iran. It also wouldn't amaze me if in barracks across Egypt right now there are discontented junior officers looking for a figurehead.
I think what's more likely is that they realise they've over-reached, rapidly get to some fallback position, reach a deal with the Brotherhood that will see the SCAF overtly move out of government while retaining their economic and behind-the-scenes power. In short the typical result after a bold move by the Egyptian military :P
But of course you could be right. As I say I think it's either over for the SCAF and this transition, or it's over for the revolution and at best you end up with a sort of managed democracy.
Arguably the uprising in Yemen beat an Arab military. But Yemen's far too complex for that binary a reading I think :lol:
Having said all of that there is some yearning for the old regime - I think that's clear in Shafiq and Moussa's support (around 30%) - and the Brotherhood's to an extent the party of the middle class so they want order not this ongoing revolutionary chaos. But I think this is significant enough an over-reach.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
I'm naturally skeptical of what being able to put large numbers in the street really signifies. The army has the guns, and I don't think through the arab spring anyone has yet successfully challenged an arab military and prevailed without western intervention.
This is a conscript army. It is notoriously hard to get conscript armies to turn their guns on their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and sons and daughters. Ask the Shah of Iran... via medium.
The junta is finished in Egypt. I wish there was a better alternative than the Islamists, but I think that this is another case where we just have to see if the people will turn out the Islamists as incompetent, rather than corrupt.
Edit: Beaten by Sheilbh
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 07:13:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 14, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
I'm naturally skeptical of what being able to put large numbers in the street really signifies. The army has the guns, and I don't think through the arab spring anyone has yet successfully challenged an arab military and prevailed without western intervention.
The army has the guns, but do they have the soldiers?
I mean Egypt is very different from Libya or Syria. What's emerged since Mubarak fell is that Egypt wasn't that Pharoahnic after all, as I say, if anything it was Mamluk state with a governing class and elite that was about protecting their own interests. If that meant they had to remove the leader, so be it. If they had to let him prosecuted, so be it. If they had to let him be convicted, so be it. But in that process Mubarak was convicted, as was the interior minister but the underlings weren't and no-one so far's been convicted of corruption which has the potential to undermine them all. So far they've been accommodating with the Brotherhood, now they're in conflict with the best organising force in Egypt.
That governing class has nowhere near the personal charisma of a President or Supreme Brother or whatever Gadaffi was. They also don't have the ethnic, religious or tribal ties to the troops that helped sustain the Syrian and Libyan governments while they repressed the protests. I don't know that the troops will be willing to gun down protesters, if it comes to that, because I don't think they've got so many reasons to do so as they have in Libya, Syria or even Iran. It also wouldn't amaze me if in barracks across Egypt right now there are discontented junior officers looking for a figurehead.
I think what's more likely is that they realise they've over-reached, rapidly get to some fallback position, reach a deal with the Brotherhood that will see the SCAF overtly move out of government while retaining their economic and behind-the-scenes power. In short the typical result after a bold move by the Egyptian military :P
But of course you could be right. As I say I think it's either over for the SCAF and this transition, or it's over for the revolution and at best you end up with a sort of managed democracy.
Arguably the uprising in Yemen beat an Arab military. But Yemen's far too complex for that binary a reading I think :lol:
Having said all of that there is some yearning for the old regime - I think that's clear in Shafiq and Moussa's support (around 30%) - and the Brotherhood's to an extent the party of the middle class so they want order not this ongoing revolutionary chaos. But I think this is significant enough an over-reach.
All I know is what the Egyptians I know tell me, and as I stated they aren't representative. But the general point of view is that Mubarak was bad, but there is a pessimism that democracy in Egypt with the current level of education would lead to improvement.
There has been a lot of unpleasant chaos in the country after the revolution. My impression is that a strong force for order would be appreciated, and at least some parts of the country aren't all that keen to go to the mat for democracy anyway.
They sound like Shafiq voters :P
And to be honest if they're in a position where they're travelling to the US with work, then chances are they did okay under the old regime. But yeah, what they say, is representative of some sectors of Egyptian society that I've read about. I think around 30% of the electorate voted for candidates who were very associated with the old regime and I'd say the order/revolution split was probably around 40/60.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 08:18:35 PM
They sound like Shafiq voters :P
And to be honest if they're in a position where they're travelling to the US with work, then chances are they did okay under the old regime. But yeah, what they say, is representative of some sectors of Egyptian society that I've read about. I think around 30% of the electorate voted for candidates who were very associated with the old regime and I'd say the order/revolution split was probably around 40/60.
If it is a 40/60 split and the army is in the 40, who wins if push comes to shove? I'd bet on the 40.
More aware Egyptians have to look around and see Syria and Libya and wonder if it is worth pushing.
Yeah but I don't think it's clear the army is the 40. The leadership are, but as G points out, many of the conscripts may have rather more in common with the revolution - whether the young Nasserist protestors or the Islamists who are very strong in working class areas of Egypt.
But even then I don't know that the army leadership would necessarily be willing to use force to end a revolution. The US would strongly discourage it and I think G's comparison with the Shah is pretty right. For all his reputation he was actually quite weak-willed and didn't use much force, arguably that was a large part of why he eventually fell (another was his own fear of the army which meant he deliberately made its leadership weak and divided - which is less of a problem in Egypt).
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 08:47:15 PM
But even then I don't know that the army leadership would necessarily be willing to use force to end a revolution. The US would strongly discourage it and I think G's comparison with the Shah is pretty right. For all his reputation he was actually quite weak-willed and didn't use much force, arguably that was a large part of why he eventually fell (another was his own fear of the army which meant he deliberately made its leadership weak and divided - which is less of a problem in Egypt).
I wouldn't call that an accurate representation of what happened. :yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2012, 11:07:45 PMI wouldn't call that an accurate representation of what happened. :yeahright:
Why?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2012, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2012, 11:07:45 PMI wouldn't call that an accurate representation of what happened. :yeahright:
Why?
Because I totally misread that sentence. I was multitasking and thought G = Ghadaffi. :Embarrass:
I like the people who compared the Arab Spring to 1989. I hate Eastern Europeans as much as the next guy but they're not fucking Arabs.
According to some Egyptian news sources Egypt's Administrative Court on tuesday is going to look into whether to dissolve the Muslim Brotherhood :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2012, 01:37:47 AM
According to some Egyptian news sources Egypt's Administrative Court on tuesday is going to look into whether to dissolve the Muslim Brotherhood :mellow:
:lol: Good luck with that.
Do they want the whole country to burn?
Let me pose this question:
Did the Court get the decision right?
I don't know but it seems plausible. The election law said that 1/3 of the seats had to be from people with no party affiliation, and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that the Brotherhood evaded that requirement.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2012, 05:26:30 PM
Let me pose this question:
Did the Court get the decision right?
I don't know but it seems plausible. The election law said that 1/3 of the seats had to be from people with no party affiliation, and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that the Brotherhood evaded that requirement.
That's what I thought in my initial reply here. This seems to be one of the few correct decisions made by the New Egypt(R). At least on the surface.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2012, 05:26:30 PM
Let me pose this question:
Did the Court get the decision right?
I don't know but it seems plausible. The election law said that 1/3 of the seats had to be from people with no party affiliation, and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that the Brotherhood evaded that requirement.
It seems like an impossible provision. People who want to serve in parliament are by nature political, and will form and join factions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2012, 05:26:30 PM
Let me pose this question:
Did the Court get the decision right?
I don't know but it seems plausible. The election law said that 1/3 of the seats had to be from people with no party affiliation, and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that the Brotherhood evaded that requirement.
It's possible they did. It does show the absurdity of the Egyptian style of transition. The Tunisians established a government - with the army backing them - whose job was mainly to prepare for the election of a constitutional convention which now has a year or so to write a constitution. By contrast the Egyptians have gone ahead under the old constitution and even under the old Emergency Law.
But I think there's been a few suspicious results from the Administrative Court. I believe that when they ruled that around 10 of the Presidential candidates were ineligible they barred Suleiman because of his role on the regime. A recent challenge on Shafiq's candidacy (as former Mubarak-era PM) was dismissed as unconstitutional.
Well, that's what they get for trusting the military. Now they'll get another dictatorship or civil war for sure, maybe both.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/18/egypts-generals-act-presidential-poll
QuoteEgypt's generals act to negate outcome of presidential poll
Constitutional declaration cements power of military as Brotherhood claims win in bitterly fought election
Jack Shenker in Cairo
guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 June 2012
Egypt's generals awarded themselves sweeping political powers in an 11th-hour constitutional declaration that tied the hands of the country's incoming president and cemented military authority over the post-Mubarak era.
The announcement on Sunday night came as early presidential election results put the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi ahead of his rival Ahmed Shafik, Mubarak's final prime minister and an unabashed champion of the old regime. But with thousands of polling stations yet to declare following the two-day runoff vote, the overall winner was too close to call.
Pro-change activists and human rights campaigners said the junta's constitutional declaration – which came just days after judges extended the army's ability to arrest civilians and following the dissolution of the Brotherhood-dominated parliament by the country's top court – rendered the scheduled handover of power to a democratically elected executive meaningless.
The Brotherhood was quick to label the declaration "null and unconstitutional", raising the prospect of a dramatic showdown within the highest institutions of the state.
In a final runoff election marked by relentless fear-mongering and negative campaigning on both sides, many polling stations remained near-empty for much of the two-day ballot – with potential voters seemingly put off by temperatures that reached 40C in the capital, and the increasingly oppressive political climate of military-led manipulation and national division that has gripped the country a year-and-a-half after the start of its ongoing revolution.
As ballot counting began inside more than 13,000 schools, the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party insisted that Morsi, 60-year-old engineer, was on course for a clear victory unless state-sponsored electoral fraud dictated otherwise. But local media reports and anecdotal evidence suggested a closer race, with millions backing Shafik, in a last-ditch effort to prevent political Islamists from taking power.
"We have concerns about many violations but up until now we haven't been able to determine whether they will affect the electoral picture as a whole," Nermine Mohamed, a media coordinator for the Morsi campaign, said. "From our surveys on the ground and the main trends witnessed by our campaigners in the street, we are very optimistic that the Egyptian people are voting to protect the revolution and that Dr Morsi is going to win."
Many of those who put an X next to Morsi's name were motivated more by fear of the alternative rather than any endorsement of the Brotherhood's electoral programme. Daila Rabie, co-founder of the Egypt Monocle media outlet, said: "I believe that if Shafik has made it this far then he's likely to make it all the way, and I have to do whatever I can, whatever is in my power, to make this stop - and what's in my power is to vote for the other candidate.
"It's the much, much lesser of two evils," added the 29-year-old. "If Morsi wins there's leeway for opposition, but if Shafik wins the revolution will be completely crushed."
With estimates of the first day turnout as low as 15%, daily newspaper al-Shorouk in its front-page headline on Sunday declared "boycott" the only victor. Many young revolutionaries refused to endorse either of the two well-oiled political machines – the Brotherhood on the one hand and the army-backed remnants of Mubarak's theoretically dissolved NDP party on the other – on the ballot paper, with some instead scrawling in the names of comic-book heroes, belly-dancers or protesters killed by security forces in last year's anti-Mubarak uprising.
"These elections are being conducted under Scaf [the Supreme Council of Armed Forces], which took power when Mubarak was toppled in February 2011], said Omar Kamel a musician and activist who has been one of the leading voices in favour of a boycott campaign. "The bedrock of Scaf's existence is completely illegitimate, and that makes all the fictional legal mechanisms put in place to justify the generals' authority illegitimate as well. This electoral contest will be decided by which of the two big patronage networks can mobilise its footsoldiers more effectively, and the winner will in no way represent the will of the Egyptian people."
Kamel claimed the anticipated meagre turnout would strike a hammer blow at the new president's credibility and make it harder to justify draconian crackdowns by the state against pro-change demonstrators. "Given a choice between eating shit or eating shit, most Egyptians have decided they're not hungry," he concluded.
Those that did choose to participate found themselves drawn into a web of discord that has pitted friend, colleagues and family members against each other amid a toxic atmosphere of distrust. On Sunday one national news outlet exhorted its readers to keep out the Brotherhood in order to prevent Egypt from becoming "the next Afghanistan", and SMS text messages circulated among Egyptians holidaying on the Mediterranean coast warning recipients that if they didn't vote for Shafik they might find themselves unable to take similar vacations ever again. Meanwhile, Egypt's most prominent football star and Brotherhood supporter, Mohamed Abou-Treika, caused a stir by refusing to have his photo taken with a Shafik delegate in a local polling station, opting instead to face the cameras alone wearing T-shirt emblazoned with the words: "The day I give up your rights, I'll surely be dead."
Many Egyptians took to social media to detail family rifts over the presidency, with the hashtag CandidateDomesticFights picking up steam on Twitter. According to local media reports, one Shafik voter in the Upper Egyptian province of Minya attempted to summarily divorce his wife in the polling station after she revealed she would be voting for Morsi.
Although an official announcement of the winner isn't due until later this week, results should become apparent on Monday. But whoever assumes high office will find themselves tangled in a bureaucratic mess, after the latest legal twists awarded legislative authority to the generals and put the constitution-writing process effectively in the hands of the junta, who now claim the authority to contest any proposed clause. In a symbolic reminder to citizens of where political power really resides, army helicopters circled above Cairo and other key urban centres throughout Saturday and Sunday. Some analysts believe that the lack of uproar by traditional political forces at Scaf's "judicial coup", in favour of devoting energy to the presidential race, will prove a major mistake in the long-term.
"The decision to dissolve parliament sounds the death knell to the credibility of the political process in Egypt [and] I think it's hardly worth giving credence to an entire political system that has no credibility," wrote Issandr el-Amrani at the Arabist website . "The only thing I see in Egypt's future is military rule, civil disobedience, and violence. The Scaf is mostly responsible for this, but those who accept this verdict and Scaf taking over legislative powers have their role too. History will remember them."
I'd expect our military to uphold the constitution too. Just saying.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 17, 2012, 09:15:20 PM
I'd expect our military to uphold the constitution too. Just saying.
Well I think the worth of upholding the old Nasserist document is questionable. The real issue today was that they issued a whole range of new constitutional declarations granting far more powers to the military, permanently. Here's the military's constitutional amendment:
Quote• Power to appoint a constituent assembly to write the new constitution.
• The right to contest any clauses in a proposed new constitution, and have the final say in any disputed clauses.
• New president to be sworn in front of the supreme constitutional court (the body that dissolved parliament last week) rather than parliament.
• The power to assume legislative responsibilities from parliament.
• The president's power to declare war will be subject to a veto by the generals.
• The military is granted the power to arrest civilians.
The Brotherhood have declared them null and unconstitutional and liberals have been very critical too. It's a real counter-revolution.
Edit: Morsi's victory press conference included a line where he promised to lead a 'civil, democratic and constitutional government'. I think that last line was a dig at the SCAF. Also the Ikhwan in the room and, from what I can tell some journos, started chanting 'down with military rule' before he arrived :mellow:
it is time for a
DAY OF ANGER!
I loved it when English protest groups tried to imitate the day of rage :lol: