Mursi’s loss is not opposition’s gain
Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi now stands at a dangerous tipping point, which many of his supporters recognize. His popularity is waning and many are losing hope in the revolution and the government. The downfall of the Brotherhood, a second revolution and military intervention are just many of the likely scenarios facing Egypt.
But despite his bad administration, the downfall of Mursi, and he still has three more years to go, will be a loss to the democratic system in Egypt and will create a new period of chaos.
Motives for “rebellion” are correct but the aim is wrong. The downfall of Mursi today will be terrible for the future of Egypt at a time when the country needs to go through a trial and error period and further experimentations so that Egyptians can get a system that will really satisfy them.
Up until today, Mursi has not stopped the abuse of power in pursuit of his opponents, whether it is the media or opposition, as was the case under former president Hosni Mubarak. But on the contrary, the pursuit is greater under Mursi!
Democracy must not be understood just in terms of having a ballot or majority voting but it has binding entitlements. The judiciary is independent of the presidency, Parliament is independent and the media is free.
Mursi “bullied” the judiciary, decided to write a new judicial system and formed a judicial council for which he chose and appointed a public attorney. Apart from an explicit violation, he also wants to abolish the liberal democratic system that brought him and the Muslim Brotherhood to rule. This after the Brotherhood failed to take power in the last 80 years.
Today the Brothers want to turn this system into an “Iranian-style democracy” where it is the Ayatollah that becomes the most suitable for presidency and then holds a referendum only for those who supported him.
The judiciary is the cornerstone. When Mursi picks the judicial authority, he can also dictate the elections. It is the judiciary that supervises voting and counting; they rule on appeals and electoral violations and validate the results.
When Mursi chooses the judiciary, the latter guarantees elections for him and his party. Because of this, the opposition is determined to bring him down by force. When he sacked the public attorney and appointed one of his own, he held the keys to the security apparatuses. This means allowing him to file lawsuits against political opponents and stop the suits that may be filed against him. The public attorney, as well, can go after the opposition.
This is what Mursi is doing now, accusing his opponents of tax evasion and insulting the president and even fabricating criminal cases, thus disallowing the opposition from entering the elections and eliminating them.
Does this also mean Mursi is obliged to remain silent on the judiciary which accuses him of following in the legacy of the ousted Mubarak? Definitely not. It is the right of the president to reform the judicial system, and to change whoever he wants, including the public attorney.
But he is allowed to do this in two respects: Either to leave judiciary reform to the judiciary, or propose a judiciary reform project and give equal rights to all political parties along with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the current practice of the Turkish Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan. When he decided to reform the Constitution he brought all competing powers and gave his party the same number of seats as the other main political parties.
With a slight shaking, the Mursi throne can be brought down. The opposition should change the behavior of the presidency by pressure, not by overthrowing him. The Egyptian Constitution doesn’t give legitimacy to bringing Mursi down, because bringing down the president is not like withdrawing confidence from a government, or conducting an early poll about early elections.
[email protected]
