Mohammed Morsi spent his 100th day as president of Egypt
in the United States of America at the United Nations General Assembly.
Mohammed Morsi was sworn in as president of Egypt on Saturday 30th June 2012 with much pomp and fanfare.
His electoral victory was a unique moment in the recent history of
Egypt. Mohammed Morsi was elected by the people, something none of his
predecessors can claim. He is also the first civilian leader in the
country’s recent history. His party the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)
currently under the guise of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) has
been working for change for over eight decades and Mohammed Morsi took
the premier seat in arguably one of the most influential and powerful
countries in the region if not the Muslim world.
Both Mohammed Morsi and the MB have now come face-to-face with the
real-world challenges faced by any head of state. Millions took to the
streets to oust Mubarak and many lost their lives in the process. After
100 days of ruling we are in a position to asses Morsi’s rule and judge
if the people’s demands are being addressed.
Constitution
As Morsi and the MB took the reins of power, they inherited a
situation where the powers of the president were not defined and the
nation’s problematic constitution had not been rewritten. After 100 days
in power much of the old system remains intact. Morsi and the MB have
not presented any grand vision for the country. It had used slogans such
as ‘Islam is the solution,’ which have now been dropped. However what
has been notably absent is where they plan to take the people and
exactly how they plan to achieve progress in a nation where 2 years of
unrest have brought society to its knees. All great powers and strong
leaders historically had grand visions which they used to unify the
people behind them and they made sure the nation bought in to and
contributed towards their vision of the future.
Since the election victory the MB has gone to great lengths to
demonstrate its moderation to the West. In its rush to placate so called
“international opinion”, they abandoned all pretence to Islamic
politics. In doing so, they may think they are being pragmatic, smart
and politically savvy. When it comes to applying an Islamic political
system they cite constitutional barriers and the need to keep minorities
onside. When it comes to applying Islamic economics, they cite the need
to avoid scaring international investors and tourists. When it comes to
applying the Islamic foreign policy, they cite the need to show a
moderate image.
Economy
The biggest challenge that Mosri faced was the economy. Today Egypt
has an economy worth $168 billion, almost entirely driven by
agriculture, media, petroleum exports and tourism. Its services industry
constitutes 49% of the economy.
The problem with the Egyptian economy is the fact that an elite few
control it. When elites control an economy, they use their power to
create monopolies and block the entry of new people and firms. This is
how Egypt worked for three decades under Hosni Mubarak. The government
and military own vast swaths of the economy — by some estimates, as much
as 40%. Even when they did “liberalise,” they privatised large parts of
the economy right into the hands of Mubarak’s friends and those of his
son Gamal. Big businessmen close to the regime, such as Ahmed Ezz (iron
and steel), the Sawiris family (multimedia, beverages, and
telecommunications), and Mohamed Nosseir (beverages and
telecommunications) received not only protection from the state but also
government contracts and large bank loans. Together, these big
businessmen consolidated their stranglehold on the economy creating
astronomical profits for regime insiders, but blocked opportunities for
the vast majority of Egyptians to succeed in business. Meanwhile, the
Mubarak family accumulated a vast fortune estimated as high as $70
billion.
Morsi’s strategy for solving this was to officially ask the IMF for a
$4.9 billion loan. Egypt’s Prime Minister, Hesham Qandil described the 5
year loan to be paid back with 1.1% rate as a good deal for the
country.
The Prime Minister appeared live on Egypt’s state television in a
desperate bid to justify the loan by explaining its benefits to the
people. However, he was unable to conceal the truth and in his
subsequent statement, he contradicted himself and exposed one of the
IMF’s stipulated conditions, which is to force Morsi’s government to cut
spending which is bound to impact on the poor in Egypt who are
currently heavily dependent on state support. He said, “It is an
Egyptian programme that will work on cutting and spending and adopting
certain other measures.”
Fearing backlash, Qandil intentionally chose not to elaborate on the
other externally imposed measures. It is well known that such measures
include: increases in taxes, price hikes on essential items, and further
loans from other institutions. All of which will make the people suffer
immensely and add to their misery. In fact the Financial Times
confirmed these measures. On August 22 2012, the paper stated: “The IMF
wants Egypt to outline plans to reduce its budget deficit by bolstering
revenues and trimming the costly public sector, including fuel and food
subsidies. Egypt must also secure financing from other lending
institutions as part of the loan terms.”
Israel
Morsi made clear in his victory speech that he would honor all of
Egypt’s international treaties. No sooner had he assumed power but it
came to light that Morsi had sent a communiqué confirming Egypt’s
commitment to peaceful ties with Israel. In the letter sent to Shimon
Peres, President of Israel, Morsi said: “I am looking forward to
exerting our best efforts to get the Middle East Peace Process back to
its right track in order to achieve security and stability for all
peoples of the region, including the Israeli people.” Despite vociferous
denials by Morsi’s representatives, the letter has turned out to be
genuine. The UK’s Guardian reported
that Peres’s office said the president’s aides received the official
communiqué on July 31st 2012 from the Egyptian ambassador to the Jewish
state, both by registered mail and by fax from the Egyptian embassy in
Tel Aviv. Furthermore, the paper stated that the fax number which
appeared on the faxed letter was registered to the Egyptian embassy in
Tel Aviv.
On the back of this in August 2012 the Morsi government decided to
send the military to track and eliminate threats of militancy in Sinai.
This was after accusing militants of killing 16 border patrol troops on a
checkpoint in Sinai near the border with Israel. The killing of
Egyptian troops was used as a basis to depose the head of intelligence,
the head of military police and the governor of North Sinai. A week
later the heads of the SCAF, Tantawi and Sami Annan were also retired.
The removal of these senior generals was not an independent affair.
The US state department confirmed it knew about the changes within the
military establishment before they happened as was reported
by the Voice of America that a US spokeswoman said that: “Hilary
Clinton knew of ongoing discussions about a new defence team and was
told during talks with President Morsi in Cairo last month that the
change would be made at an appropriate moment.” Commenting on the new
appointed personnel for the defence ministry and army, the Wall Street
Journal said that, “Egypt’s new top military officer is a known commodity in Washington.”
The Morsi government’s extremely heavy handed tactics in Sinai raised
a number of questions. The tactics and heavy weaponry was completely
disproportionate to the incident. It was reported
by the Associated Press that “Egyptian troops, light tanks, armored
vehicles and attack helicopters are pouring into the Sinai desert.”
Based on the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel signed in 1979,
Sinai is a demilitarised zone and Egypt is not allowed to bring in
military forces and heavy weaponry.
Israel consented to the military build up this time. Previously,
Israel had always been resistant to any additions of military hardware
in Sinai. General Lieutenant Ahmed Ali of the Egyptian forces confirmed
in a briefing that “there is co-ordination over the presence of the
armed forces in the Sinai territories,” he continued: “I think that
there is the understanding that the military operation in Sinai is in
the interest of all.” An Israeli government official, speaking on
condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity, said there are ongoing communications between the two sides.
Conclusions
Morsi and the MB no longer speak of ‘Islam is the solution.’ Saad
al-Husseini, a member of Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party executive
bureau said in an interview with Al-Arabiya, that tourism is very
important for Egypt. He stressed that drinking and selling alcohol are
forbidden in Islam. However, he then added,
“Yet Islamic laws also prohibit spying on private places and this
applies to beaches as well…I wish 50 million tourists would travel to
Egypt even if they come nude.”
The idea that Islam has solutions for the problems in society have
become a secondary matter to the practicalities of governing a country
without clear policy objectives or any vision for the future. It seems
that the FJP and Morsi are coming to similar conclusions regarding
politics in Egypt as Mubarak had before them. Tourism, minorities and
foreign influences have become the driving force behind many of the
decisions. Where there appear to be clear contradictions with Islam,
these are conveniently explained away. This is pragmatic politics at its
worst and cannot bring success to any nation.
In the wider region Morsi presents no plans to change the status quo,
but rather is maintaining what his predecessors constructed. The
current reality is that the Islamic groups that languished in the
torture cells of the likes of Mubarak touting ‘Islam is the solution,’
are now the guardians for the institutions and corrupt politics they
previously derided.
Mohammad Morsi and the MB should remember when Mubarak protected
Western interests rather than his peoples, the Ummah eventually rose up
against him and when he didn’t relinquish his position the Ummah came
onto the streets and challenged him, eventually leading to his demise.
The MB have been promoting Islam as a solution for 90 years, but now in
power do not seem to have an Islamic vision that they are trying to move
towards. So far it’s the politics of “muddle through somehow.” This
weak pragmatism is likely to lead to disaster. If the MB fail to deliver
genuine leadership soon, they may end up with a similar fate to the
fallen dictators of recent decades. (by; Adnan khan)
No comments:
Post a Comment