Egypt's New Suez Canal

R

I have never actually thought the Suez Canal project, in its own right, was a priority for Egypt and highly doubt the economic viability for it, I don't think the project will generate the payback that has been promised by its champions. For one, the drop in oil prices is not good for the Suez Canal and will probably trigger a fall in the revenues of the Canal. I doubt that in the next five years the project will prove winner on standalone basis.

What is undeniable however, is the economic recovery that Egypt has witnessed since the very dark days of last winter of 2013/4. By the time the curfew that lasted many months was lifted in November of 2013, the economy was in tatters with virtually zero new investment, unemployment at sky high levels and the Egyptian consumer culture was badly shaken, confidence was at an all time low.

The Egyptian opposition has a great deal of legitimate criticism towards the Sisi regime in the areas of human rights and in the lack of transparency in the so called Egypt's War on Terror. The Sisi regime has created a totalitarian feel in the county with a 1950's flavor. There is no shortage of areas to criticize Sisi on, but where the Egyptian opposition, Muslim Brotherhood and the cadre of orientalist and novice reporters lose credibility is on the economic front.

There is little doubt that the management of the economy since these horrible days in the winter of 2014 has been excellent. What the Suez Canal  project did was truly amazing, it acted as stimulus for the economy and a confidence booster for the nation. the economic turnaround has, by any measure, been impressive. From total stagnation, Egypt saw GDP growth topping 4%. 

I have been critical of some aspects of financing the Suez Canal project through fixed interest bonds, that made it politically impossible for the Central Bank to raise interest rates to support the Egyptian Pound instead of opting for the economy choking currency controls. That aside, the proof is in pudding, the economic benefit is clear for all those who want to see.


Yes, a military guy with clear authoritarian tendencies, cavalier attitude towards human rights,  horrible ad hoc public speech giving skills, and who has worrying populist tendencies can actually lead and deliver an economic recovery! Criticise what should be criticized and praise what should be praised or at the very least remember that: silence can be golden if you can't accept the truth.


Ayman S. Ashour

In Search of Balance: Al Jazeera Verdict In Egypt Today

A strange mix of feelings of sadness, dismay and anger arise in me as I read seemingly endless attempts from many Egyptians to justify and defend the court ruling against the Al Jazeera journalists in Egypt, here are some of my reflections and thoughts on this:

1. I don't view Al Jazeera Arabic as normal media or press, I view it as enemy state propaganda outlet, it reminds me so much of the Soviet Radio during the years of the cold war, it is pathetic, cheap, non relenting propaganda.

2. Al Jazeera English has many top notch reporters and professionals who have been trying to do a credible job and seem to have more professional more balanced overall editorial management, but they have been used by their Arabic Language sister company mentioned above.

3. I don't believe Al Jazeera English correspondents and other professionals working in Egypt are affiliated with Muslim Brothers, work for them or conspire with them and I don't believe that the evidence against them, I read about in the press, has shown them to be enemies of Egypt.

4. I believe that Egypt is right to arrest, deport and fine those who break its laws.

5. I acknowledge that there are thousands of Egyptian and foreign reporters reporting and writing at times negative and / or highly critical news and analysis of Egypt, yet appear to have not been interfered with, which is good and is indeed a legitimate argument to defend Egypt's position, being focused on Al Jazeera. Yet, the Dutch Journalist, who was being tried in absentia with Al Jazeera staff, appear to have no affiliation with Al Jazeera.

6. It is also very clear that the space for dissent in Egypt is narrowing and we see many Egyptians voices silenced from Bassem Youssif to Belal Fadel and many others. It is hard to deny this as a fact.

7. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that Egypt is facing a very serious war with a very difficult enemy and that combating the threat of violent terrorism is a TOP priority for Egypt. I do believe that this would naturally have an impact on freedoms. Years in the security industry have taught me the difficulty of balancing issues of security with privacy, convenience and freedoms in general; true in Egypt as it is in USA or Australia.

8. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that Egypt has always had authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies and desire to curb dissent and the government has had a history of using the worst means to silence liberal non Islamist opposition to protect the ruling regimes, often at the expense of the country itself and its future.  Accordingly, using terrorism as an excuse to suppress freedoms should not be just allowed to happen with no opposition.

9. I do believe it is critical for Egypt, as a state to avoid the collapse that can be witnessed in so many failed states in the Middle East, the examples of Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq are chilling and frightening and I have sympathy with the tens of millions of ordinary Egyptians, who are willing to turn blind eye to suppression of freedoms to preserve the State from collapsing.

10. Sadly, I believe that insensitivity by some of the liberal forces in Egypt to the grave Islamist threat that Egypt is facing, is causing them to challenge the State authority. With tens of millions of tired and frightened ordinary Egyptians wanting the State to reestablish its authority, the ill timed courage is resulting in deeper suppression of freedom, with popular consent, this is most distressing of all. My hope is that the vigilance against the excesses of the State would be confronted through means other than the hated and futile street protests.

AA
June 24, 2014

Death toll at Rabba ... what would it have been in USA?

Death Toll

Death .. the end of life, the loss of loved ones, the longing, despair and suffering ..a  sense of abandonment, incompleteness in every respect. I don’t belittle death, nor do I take joy in the death of those I differ with, or oppose. The death on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt makes me sad, period and full stop, no ands, ifs or buts, enough bloodshed!

This is how I feel about the deaths at Rabba, the horrible loss of life,  I would now like to explore a sensitive topic, from a detached and admittedly non-feeling, non-emotional view point, just a cold factual look at events. And that is: what would the death toll had been, had the Rabba sit-in  taken place in the USA, not in Egypt?

Back in the early 1980’s when I first moved to the US, while driving, I was pulled over for over-speeding by the California Highway Patrol, it was my first ever interaction with US Law Enforcement types. The police car lights appeared in my rear view mirror, followed by the loud police siren, I slowed down, not sure what to do. Then I heard a loud speaker instructing me to pull over and stop, which I did. I then opened the car door, to get out and speak to the cop; I had thought that was the polite thing to do, the policeman shouted a warning “get back in the car or I below your head off” … I got back in the car and the policeman came to my window, he instructed that I must keep my hands on the stirring wheel where he can see them, I complied.

My experience after that was actually a pleasant one, I did not get a ticket, just a warning, the police man explained to me that opening the door was a serious mistake, seen as threatening, either running away or confrontation and that he would have had the right to shoot me. Future episodes of over-speeding never resulted in further death threats but almost always resulted in fines. 

I have been reflecting over the death toll at Rabba, and wondering how events would have unfolded, had the sit-in been in California or Massachusetts and ignoring the reasons behind the actual sit-in and why it occurred in the first place. Had the sit in just happened, what would the authorities, legitimate or not, isn’t important; assume even they were alien occupation authorities, what would have happened?   In the USA, first and foremost, the focus of the police force, coming in to disburse a protest ,would be their own safety, the safety of the policemen themselves. This clearly was not the case in Egypt, where the lives of the conscripts is viewed as cheap. I can never see a scenario where a US police force would have allowed, over 100 of its own, to die ,to end a protest that they were instructed to disburse, never!! Show me something similar in the history of the US!

What that means is that the level of violence used by an American police force would have been much higher. We then move on to the issue of the huge number of innocent peaceful unarmed civilians, who were part of Rabba. Here we come to a number of obvious topics; first the incitement and the language of violence used by the leaders of Rabba; while there was talk of peacefulness, there was talk of blood and fighting. Second we come to the barricades and the massive amounts of stones gathered by some of the protesters to “protect” themselves. These two points alone constitute a violent sit-in, without getting into the debates of did the protesters have Molotov cocktail bottles, machine guns and rifles or not. I have heard, in person as recently as this week, testimonies from residents of Rabba of barrages of shots being fired at the police, but let’s ignore all of this and  just assume it was thevideo by MB own news agency designed to intimidate ordinary people shouting out  “strength, determination, belief” and the barricaded entrances and huge mounts of ammunition of rocks and stones …. what would an American police force have done?

My belief is that an American police force would have given warnings for the protesters to leave, asked the residents to evacuate the area, and then would have moved with a very high level of deadly force that minimizes the risk to their own. I believe the sit in would have probably been wiped out in a relatively short period of time with the death toll being well into the thousands if not the tens of thousands.

I visited the sit-in of Occupy in Washington DC and spent almost an entire evening inside the Occupy Boston protest, I toured the entire Occupy Boston site and talked to many people including some of its leaders. I did not see a single rock, not a single barricade and of course no weapons and we are talking America the land of weapons! Afterwords I chatted with a Boston policewoman who was standing just outside the protest observing it, the police had every right to go in and out of the camp if they needed. Occupy was a peaceful protest in every respect, when it was disbursed, it was peaceful, even the disobedience was peaceful. Rabba was a different deal all together, it never was peaceful, even though many of the people in it, were unarmed and peaceful!

The leaders of Rabba did not care about using the lives of their people to achieve a political goal and in the process hundreds lost their lives; the Egyptian Police, equally did not, sufficiently, care for the lives of their own conscripts, for political purposes and in the process, also over a hundred law enforcement personnel were killed, that should never have been killed, because they had no choice whereas the Rabba protesters, were their under their own will! 

This is a tough topic, because with death, the decent thing to do, is simply blame the authorities and demand justice, but where is the justice for the poor conscripts!!

AA
October 24, 2013

The Muddle East

Everything is the Middle East is the fault of USA and Israel .. and if you dig deeply you will also find British hands too, this is the accepted conventional wisdom in this wonderful region. So let’s now move on to get some clarity on what has been going on in this great neighborhood. 

The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt in late 1920’s as Islamist resistance against the  British… Between the 1920’s and the 1950’s the Brotherhood cooperated alternately with Nazi Germany, the British and the Egyptian King …lots of interesting history, lots of accusations and smoking guns, sometimes a bit more!

The British used the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser and Egyptian army in the 1950's ... but the Muslim Brotherhood were fierce fighters against the British before 1952!

Starting from the 1960's Saudi Arabia and the USA became the main backers of the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing them as counterbalance to Nasser and Egypt which was then in alliance with the Soviets pushing socialist Arab nationalism, dangerous stuff!

Egypt and Israel went into wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, but have signed a peace treaty in1979 and have since then been at peace…

Egypt’s Nasser helped Start the PLO and Fateh to combat Israel in the 1960's ... 

Israel countered by supporting the establishment of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine to be known as Hamas as counter balance to the PLO ... later Hamas turned on Israel..

Everyone is scared of Iran ...

Iraq and Iran had a ten year war then Iraq invaded Kuwait ..everyone then invaded Iraq ..Iraq fired rockets on Israel ..

Qatar, a country with immense wealth and very few people, was worried that Saudi might just take it, so it became buddies with Iran and started Al Jazeera Satellite TV

Iran hates the USA ...

Qatar invited the USA to have massive military base, the largest US airbase in region, is now in Qatar, the most friendly Gulf Arab State to Iran ...

Qatar helps Hamas, but has minimal animosity towards Israel, indeed some commercial ties ...

Iran hates Egypt, USA and Saudi so it is siding with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt ...

USA is neutral on Egypt, gets blamed by both liberals and Islamists for supporting the other side ...

In Syria, Iran and Russia fight the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qada and other non Islamist Sunni forces ...

AlQada is off shot of Muslim Brotherhood who thought it too moderate, they occasionally ally again. One has a green flag, the other a black flag .. Both flags could be seen in Pro Muslim Brotherhood and pro Morsi marches in Egypt … 

Saudi Arabia supports Egypt against Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar supports Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt ....

Israel is, largely, minding its business, building more settlements and facts on the ground ...  The Palestinians are divided .. Hamas like the Muslim Brothers in Egypt and Syria and the PLO like Egypt and Saudi, later is supporting Syria Muslim Brotherhood.....

Anything that goes wrong is blamed on Israel and the USA so don't tire your brain if you are from the muddle east, it's easy!

And if you are American, the mission in Syria is very clear, as you can see from this tidy picture of the Muddle East, so let's bomb Syria!

AA

August 31, 2013

Was The Massacre At Rabaa A Surprise?

Was the massacre at Rabaa a surprise? Could the outcome  have been different?

Short answer is no!

This conclusion results from a basic understanding of the fundamental structure of Egyptian Police and the Egyptian Ministry of Interior (MOI).  A structure that was designed to protect the state from the citizens rather than protecting the citizens as its core mandate. Following are some thoughts I have on the topic

1. Use of conscripts: The vast majority of the the central security “soldiers” are conscripts. I was once told that at conscription intake times, all university graduates automatically get assigned into the army, then  the remainders are asked, who is literate and who is illiterate and the ones who can’t answer the question are the ones that taken for Central Security. I am not trying to mock them, but simply state that it is often, the poorest, least educated, and probably least intellectually capable are the ones that do wind up at the MOI and its Central Security apparatus.

2. Training of soldiers and indeed officers at Egyptian militaristic institution is all based on compliance and the use of humiliation to gain this compliance. The recruits are frequently beaten, imprisoned, tortured  to ensure their compliance. The compliance could be over cleaning an officer’s car, shining his shoes or picking his groceries, could even be for their staff officers who are often the nastiest. 

3. Egyptian police structure is fully like that of an army, national structure, four year college officers, including extensive study of law accompanied by beating and abuse of those who don’t comply with instructions, not exactly the best of times, to let topics like human rights sink in. Officers graduate and move up the ranks, Captain, Colonel, Brigadiers, all the way to Generals. Most leave traditional policing, for extended periods, to engage in other functions within the MOI: ID cards, car registrations, drivers license,  permits, prisons and countless other administrative tasks that make up the huge MOI Empire. A police general may be some twenty years removed from any traditional policing work. Contrast this with simple city based policing, where police officers receive qualify within 6 to 12 months and remain fully focused on policing in their own communities, with this huge cadre of police officers and hundred of thousands of illiterate police foot soldiers.

4. Egypt MOI and Policing in Egypt operates on a national level, so an officer from Alexandria is assigned to Aswan, then Mansoura then Port Said etc. and is almost never allowed to work within his own immediate community in actual policing work. A throw back to the days of the colonialists, when the British and French Administrations rotated their people lest they went native on them and became too attached to the communities they were there to control. This also offers the MOI a tool of reward and punishment, so an officer from Cairo who may take human rights a bit too seriously gets despatched to the Gaza border until he cools down.

The above factors and doubtless, many others are what lead me to conclude that, until fully re-engineered from the grounds up, it will be hard to expect different results from the MOI than what we have witnessed over the last few years. If the protest is armed, partially armed or even lightly armed as the Muslim Brotherhood defendants claim Rabaa was, then the blood letting would indeed be worse. We should not forget that hundreds of protesters died in the early days of Jan25 revolution and, there was no dispute that, those were indeed peaceful unarmed protestors.

Until the Police and MOI structures are fundamentally altered to resemble that of a modern police force, expect more mass needless killings, more torture and more brutality. Sadly President Morsi had the mandate to do just that; to reform the MOI, but he failed to get serious reform even on the agenda. Indeed Morsi praised the role of the police during Jan25 and pursued a policy of appeasement and coaptation with the MOI. 

AA

August 23, 2013

Egypt’s Duck Problem

I love the American saying “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck it’s got to be a duck” for those that don’t get it, perhaps a briefing on the duck test may help. The Egyptian Government and many Egyptians continue to be baffled as to why most of the world outside continues to view the dismissal of Mohamed Morsi from his role as the president of Egypt on July 3, 2013 as a military coup.

Morsi did not want to leave office, he was adamant on staying on as president of Egypt, against the will of the masses and his obvious loss of any mandate. The Egyptian Military gave Morsi a week’s notice and then another 48-hour last chance, but Morsi wouldn’t willingly step down, or call an early election, or a referendum on his remaining in office. Finally, Egypt top generals informed Morsi that he was no longer president and that he was to be taken by the military for safekeeping. It is very hard for any objective person to name the manner of deposing Morsi as anything other than a military coup.

The Egyptian Military and the virtually all Egyptian politicians argued that deposing Morsi should not be considered a coup, because the military only acted to prevent a civil war and that unprecedented numbers of Egyptians were rising against Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood. There was considerable debate over how many millions of Egyptians actually hit the streets on June 30, 2013 to call for the removal of Morsi from power. Estimates of the size of demonstrations ranged from six millions to over thirty million Egyptians on the streets demanding Morsi’s ouster. Many argued that the mass Cairo demonstration exceeded the previously largest known gathering of protest in human history, the demonstrations in Rome on February 15, 2003 against the Italian participation in the Iraq War.

To western liberal ears, the size of the demonstrations is largely immaterial, in a democracy, the masses get a chance to vote and turf out their leaders. Indeed those mass demonstrations in Rome failed to halt Italy’s participation in George W Bush’s Coalition of The Willing! So while Egyptians kept on saying, it is not a military coup and we have massive support to remove Morsi from power, devout democrats kept hearing military coup to remove an democratically elected president, anger and recriminations ensued. The western liberals accused the Egyptian liberals of being no democrats, sore losers, who are fundamentally ignorant of democracy. On the other hand, most Egyptians defaulted into conspiracy theories and played the jingoistic card to suggest alignment of interests between The West and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As a supporter of the June 30 protest and a participant in the Tamrrod campaign to impeach Morsi, I am baffled by this inability of the Egyptian Government and Egypt’s liberals to communicate their case more effectively. Yes, I do support the military coup that removed Morsi from power! And yes, I do call it a military coup! The removal of Morsi was ultimately a result of his own coup on legitimacy and assuming dictatorial powers to force an Islamist Constitution down the throat of the Egyptian people. The mass protests started against Morsi following his dictatorial and illegal assumption of judicial and legislative powers in November 2012, Morsi had many months to fulfill his promise of compromise and amending the constitution, but failed to do so, failed to commence any serious dialogue and was proceeding deeper down a path of gaining more control of various institutions of the state. Despairing of Morsi moving to return to legitimacy and reversing his own coup, we Egyptians had no choice but to stage our own coup to return the country to democracy. Did the military and various institutions of the state facilitate and aid the campaign against Morsi? Yes, but they only did so, after sensing the deep anger and hatred we, ordinary Egyptians, who had earlier looked at Morsi with hope, ultimately turned against him. 

There is serious risk that the militant struggle between Islamist forces and the state would help usher in a new military dictatorship and Egypt’s War on Terror would wind up being the excuse to suppress freedoms, in the name of security. The anti Morsi coalition that took to the streets on June 30, 2013 encompassed a broad spectrum of views, from those who long to the return to the Mubarak era, to true and genuine advocates of democracy, equality and justice. It helps to call things by their true names to minimize chances of entering an 1984 like era, and hence let’s start out by saying why we support our military coup. Let's all say, I know it's a only coup but I like it! 

AA

August 23, 2013

The Muslim Brotherhood Democracy of Disenfranchisement

The term gerrymandering was coined out of the undemocratic actions of a governor of my home state; Governor Gerry of Massachusetts. Governor Gerry redrew the electoral district boundaries in a manner that helped his party win the largest possible number of seats. The resulting map of the districts was so absurd, resembling the imaginary salamander and hence the term was invented. Over the years, gerrymandering has continued in many American states, where the party dominating the state legislators could redraw maps to serve their own purposes. Gerrymandering is a fundamentally undemocratic concept; one can look at it as disenfranchisement of those voters, who are being removed from a district where their votes would make a difference to another where their votes are unlikely to affect the outcome of a race. A good example is the carving out of a majority African American area out of a district, where the democratic leaning African Americans are likely to tip the balance of a close race, and adding it to a geographically illogical district that has a large and safe majority of republicans. So instead of the African American votes helping the democratic candidate win, they are wasted. This is dirty politics, no one defends as democratic and some states in the US have made it illegal.

Yet gerrymandering is a relatively benign compared to Ikhwanmandering. This method of disenfranchisement was used in Egypt’s so called parliamentary elections in late 2011 and the early part of 2012. Before we get into what happened in Egypt, let’s just remember what many would know about different election systems; I offer this as not as a political science specialist, but merely as an interested observer.

First Past The Post, Run-offs and Proportional Representation:

Nations have addressed methods of achieving representative democracy in different ways in their constitutions and laws. In the UK and the USA, the First Past The Post is the norm for electing legislators; so whichever candidate gets the most votes in any particular district gets elected; an imperfect system in many ways, but very simple and clear. The French attempted to improve this by creating a system of run-offs or second rounds; whereas the top two vote getters, would have a run off, and whoever gets the most votes is elected. Other nations such as Germany, Italy and Israel adopt a system of Proportional Representation or PR. Different varieties of PR exist, some where voters would vote for a single list, others where voters would rank first, second and third choice off of party lists or candidates. The basic concept of PR is to allow smaller parties to attain representation. We see countries with First Past The Post essentially limited in their choice between Republican and Democrats or Labour and Conservatives whereas with PR, we see far more fragmentation, as in Germany with Social Democrats, Greens, Left, Christian Democrats and Liberals and similar examples of fragmentation in Italy, Israel and other countries.

In Egypt, there is a good argument for PR, where Coptic Christians, who virtually never actually get elected, may be able to have members of parliament, elected by the people and not appointed by a president. Similarly the many different strands, emerging in Egyptian political life could be represented. There is also an argument for the Run-Off system to allow strong parties to emerge. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan worked with then governing Junta SCAF to concoct an amazingly complex system for the parliamentary elections. Their cooperation was possible through, what many assume, an implicit pact designed to marginalize and limit the influence of the original proponents of the January 25 Revolution of 2011. While many legal experts opined that some elements of this system would prove to be unconstitutional, the Ikhwan insisted on this system and were able to intimidate SCAF sufficiently into accepting it. Let’s now review the absurdly complex system that was used in Egypt:

Combo system: The Ikhwanmandering system combines all three systems discussed above together; so we have the PR system and a direct candidate system as well as a run-off. This basically results in enlarging the electoral districts sufficiently to make it harder for those candidates without sufficient organization to compete. The run-offs makes the campaigns more expensive and difficult and afford the better established forces a second chance to bring their national organization power into a district. Sadly, the PR districts while larger than the individual districts, they are not national and therefore still fail to offer representation for minority currents, be it Copts, socialists or other voices. Egypt has no local or regionally elected provincial, regional or locally elected bodies, so it was truly absurd to have PR on a district level, not the country as a whole. 

The Quote System: Another tactics of Ikhwanmandering is to further enlarge the districts by introducing a system of dedicated quota for laborers and peasants. With the definition being loosened enough to allow for wealthy self employed people to run for laborer and peasant seats. So an individual in any big Egyptian City casted votes for an individual candidate, a laborer candidate and a list in his or her own large districts. The quota system served to make it more difficult for emerging political forces to compete against the established Ikhwan or NDP or Mubarak's disbanded party. Oftentimes people simply voted against the NDP in the second round, much as has occurred in the presidential elections. Again, absurdly, while the so called laborer and peasant quota was preserved, the quota for women was dropped.

The Six Week National Ballots: The parliamentary elections of 2011 were carried out over six weeks, with the country divided into three regions, first region had its elections over two days and two weeks later the run offs. The results were announced and then two weeks later, the next region's elections and run offs and results and finally the last region. This clearly was designed to allow for nationally organized forces to be able to support each region in order. While many also argue that it allowed for fraud, for the purpose of discussing Ikhwanmandering, I will not address this topic. The choice of which region goes first needs further research, but it was by no means random. We have seen Ikhwan typically gather their support or protest demonstrations in one or two areas, similarly with elections, it was the use of concentrated national resources to help defeat local candidates who were already spread thin over large districts and financially exhausted with runoffs. 

Shura Council Too: As if six weeks of elections were not enough, SCAF and Ikhwan agreed that there would be a vote for an upper house which would then require six further weeks. The upper house or Shura had virtually no assigned duties and the vote for it was held before any constitution was written and it was unclear if it would actually exist at all under a new constitution. Naturally less than 7% of those eligible to vote bothered to go to the Shura polls.

Many in the west would argue that there are democratic means to overcome gerrymandering; this is indeed true. But let’s not forget that all of these elections were not really for normal legislative bodies, they turned out to be, much to our surprise, the electorate, for the power to form a committeeto write the Constitution. The Supreme Court never had the chance to rule over the legitimacy of this, as the supporters of Ikhwan laid siege to the court for several weeks, before President Morsi declared himself above the Supreme Court and issued a Constitutional Declaration that the Constituent Assembly chosen by the Ikhwanmandered process would be immune from dissolution.  The Ikhwan and their Salafi allies proceeded at breakneck speed to force a Constitution that was mainly focused on the limitations of freedom, limiting religious freedoms to approved religions and limiting equality and citizenship rights to the whim of religious interpretations.

Some Muslim Brotherhood apologists would argue in defense of various aspects of Ikhwanmandering such as the staging of the elections in regions being required to comply with judicial oversight of the elections and no enough judges are available to supervise all the polling stations, yet most judges refused to oversee the referendum over the Ikhwan Constitution and that did not prevent the very same Ikhwan apologists from declaring that defective vote democratic.

The Muslim Brotherhood feared democracy and sought to immunize themselves against it. Their efforts were ultimately about disenfranchisement of their opponents and counter democratic. They had choices and at every juncture they opted disenfranchisement.

AA
July 27, 2013