Egypt resisting the Brotherhood’s attempt to abduct it

Why did the Egyptian revolution happen? Was is to return to old practices, so the Muslim Brotherhood system may replace the military system, which is six decades old? There is a fear about Egypt's future, after several voices in Cairo said that Ahmed Shafiq and Mohammed Morsi do not represent the Egyptian revolution or even Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, who see in Shafiq a serious competitor for the presidency, have gone in further further than this, as they consider him a threat to the revolution, which is need of "rescuing”. Perhaps the need is to rescue the revolution from the Brotherhood themselves who have succeeded in abducting it. Now, who represents the revolution after Shafiq and Morsi won almost half of the votes in the first round and are now competing for the number one position in Egypt? Where will the next president derive his legitimacy from if this was not from the ballot boxes? Are the Muslim Brotherhood action's not contradictory? No one, Egyptian or non-Egyptian, can be for and against democracy at the same time. Whoever accepts to resort to the ballot boxes should continue the game until the end. But what to do if the only game the Brotherhood masters is to obtain power at any cost regardless of the means used to get it. There is a mistaken understanding of the elections by many in Egypt. But what is attracting attention, in light of what Ahmed Shafiq has achieved in compared with the other candidates, is the existence of a resisting remainder inside the community. It seems that the Egyptians have understood, apparently, the meaning of the fall of the country into the hands of the religious parties, particularly as a result of the comic-tragic scenes at the People’s Assembly. It was clear through the sessions of the People’s Assembly, which is dominated by the Brotherhood and Salafists, that there is no hope for the religious parties, which are in fact parties using religion to achieve political gains. Why did the revolution happen then? Was the objective to reach a deal between the Brotherhood and the ruling junta that leads the former to gain power at any cost, particularly on the backs of the youths who lit the first spark of the people’s movement that ended the rule of the Mubaraks? The talk that Ahmed Shafiq has nothing to do with the Egyptian revolution, applies to the brotherhood as well. They have reaped the fruits of the revolution after they made sure they can reach an agreement with the ruling junta. It was clear at a certain stage that the Egyptian army has abandoned Mubarak, that no option was left for him except to resign if he wanted the army to protect his house in Heliopolis and secure his transfer, along with his family to Sharm el-Sheikh. Each step taken by the army in the last week of January 2011 was very well planned. Each step took place in arrangement with the Brotherhood that did not intensively push their militias onto Cairo's streets, except on the 28th of this month. If it is required to portray a general picture of the situation in Egypt, it can be said that Brotherhood are seeking to monopolise power, considering that the ruling junta is unable to take decisive decisions on the one hand, and that the Egyptian people have become an obedient tool in their hands on the other. Maybe the only talk of Gamal Abdel Nasser that is meaningful is his justification of confronting the Muslim Brotherhood: “I tried to deal with the Brotherhood, but unfortunately I found that they only wanted power at any cost. They have no future plan regarding the welfare of the country. When I criticised them they tried to assassinate me. One can never trust them”. It may be true that the ruling junta is no longer composed of what it was in the past, but what is true also is that the military institutions posses broad interests in the country. This institution has control of a good part of the economy, and it will not be easy to convince senior officers to abandon specific privileges that include social security and housing, which are not available to the average citizen. The most important thing of all, is that Egyptians are not yet ready to hand over their fate to the Muslim Brotherhood, which do not have any vision of how to address the problems Egypt is suffering as a result of 60 years of rule by a regime which was established on the notion of eliminating the civil community and its powers. In fact, the Brotherhood have no clear or thoughtful answer on how to revive tourism, reduce the population growth, or raise the level of education and services. Can we imagine a new cinema film being filmed inside the country, not outside; a film that has to do with what is civilized in this world, when the president of Egypt will be from the Brotherhood? A part of the Egyptian community has no option except to resist. Large groups of the community did not find anyone, but Ahmed Shafiq to cling onto, not for being the last prime minister in Mubarak’s era, but for being an Egyptian official that practiced authority as it should be practiced, according to those who closely knew him in all the official positions as an officer, then minister, then prime minister. Moreover, the popularity of Ahmed Shafiq, reflects the need of the Egyptian people to feel safe and secure in their country. Egypt has not given up yet. It has not given up to any sort of underdevelopment. The evidence on that is the turnout on the ballot boxes which the Brotherhood are seeking to use to seize power. Anyone who doubts this, can take a look on the model of how the Brotherhood operates in the Gaza Strip.