Categories
Opinions

Opinions: Egyptian Military vs. Muslim Brotherhood: two sides of the same coin

The world has its eye on Egypt, and many have been quick to choose a side. However, the complexity amidst the turmoil makes it rather hard to point fingers in just one direction.

Anti-SCAF protests. Photo from Gigi Ibrahim on Flickr.

In one corner is the Egyptian army under the leadership of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). After a year of chaos under Prime Minister Mohamed Morsi, the SCAF, in the supposed interest of the people, has deposed the Prime Minister. SCAF outlawed his Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, installed itself as interim protectors of the revolution, and vowed a fresh round of elections.

Prim in their medal-laden and immaculately pressed army uniforms, these chosen few wave a paper. They believe their ‘roadmap’ to peace and stability is the only sure defense for all Egyptians against fanatics, counter-revolutionaries and terrorists.

In reality, the army is a cabal that has run and exploited the Egyptian state for five decades. When the revolution in Tahrir square began and millions of Egyptians across the country took to the streets, united in their opposition to the authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak, where was the army? They were the ones wielding police batons as maces and plowing into the very people they now claim to represent. They were the ones that stood by and even aided sectarian violence against the Copts, Egypt’s Christian minority.

To stave off the revolution, they killed innocent protesters; now, to preserve it, they kill hundreds more. This roadmap of theirs will surely be a path doubling back to feed upon itself, producing more of the same. Can one honestly expect anything different from an organization whose command structure remains virtually unchanged throughout all this upheaval? Anybody who truly believes they’ll give over power, or even agree to share it with whoever they allow to win any future elections, is sadly mistaken.

In the other corner is the equally distasteful Muslim Brotherhood. A blatantly Islamist movement with aims at refashioning Egyptian society to be more sharia-compliant, they eked out a victory at the polls in the first democratic elections Egypt has ever had in its 6,000 years of recorded history. They essentially bribed their way past the finish line by providing supplies and services to the marginalized and poor.

Rather than pragmatically compromising, they proceeded to assume they had a mandate to rule alone. They ignored the constitution, handed Morsi powers above and beyond judiciary oversight, and alienated wide segments of the population to the point where their opponents had nowhere to turn to but the military.

They played and lost the guessing game of how many constitutional abuses it takes to bring down a democratically appointed government. By their numerous steps back, they’ve erased the one forceful stride forward the Egyptian people managed to take for themselves.

This is why it is difficult to pick a side. If this was Frost’s proverbial fork in the road, neither road would make all the difference. Egypt’s people continue to suffer and die. Their hopes of implementing a government that is answerable to its constituents is quite dead.

It might as well be decided by flipping a quarter. No matter the result – heads or tails, Muslim Brotherhood or army – we are dealing with two sides of the same coin.

People have long memories, even if they have short attention spans. This brief taste of empowerment may still give Egypt’s people victory – one day.

Categories
Opinions

Opinions: Egyptian turmoil through the eyes of the West

Mohammed Morsi Mural. Photo from Thierry Ehrmann on Flickr.

People have the tendency to declare actions as good or bad, because it’s easier to dump the blame on one party and call it a day. When it comes to the current situation in Egypt, things cannot simply be broken down into “good guys” and “bad guys.”

On July 3, a celebration took place in Tahrir Square.  Egypt’s first democratically elected President, Mohamed Morsi, who was also a leading member in the Muslim Brotherhood, was removed from power by the Egyptian military. Supporters of the military and state, revolutionaries, and Egyptians alike took to the streets, but the festivities were quickly interrupted by what some have argued to be peaceful protests that have left over a thousand dead.

While many Egyptians saw the removal of Morsi as an opportunity for growth and democracy, many saw it as a stab at equality. A whole lot of change cannot occur in such a short period of time without ruffling a few feathers. With everyone wanting their voice heard, reporting on such a layered issue becomes even more complicated.

As people continue to lose trust in Western media, they become wary of which news source is unbiased and factual. The manner in which some Western media outlets have handled themselves during the past few weeks of the Egyptian revolution has not done much to garner the trust of the public.

For example, on Aug. 18, 2013, CNN’s Matt Smith published an article on Brotherhood prisoners who had attempted to escape from jail and were killed by military officials in the process. Smith paints a picture of heartless soldiers mindlessly killing helpless Brotherhood members who just had their “first democratically elected leader” ousted. He then goes on to quote several Brotherhood spokespersons who claim the military is lying and is a danger to the Egyptian people. They also call the events of June 30 a “bloody” and “ugly” coup.

What Smith has done here is convince the reader that the Muslim Brotherhood is a democratically elected political party that is being unjustly silenced, not a terrorist organization that has been accused of several assassinations, countless cases of voters fraud, was previously banned in the country, has ties to Al Qaeda, and openly supports terrorist activities.  Smith forces his readers into sympathizing with MB members because he only focuses on their side of the story. Vital information that the military, Egyptian people, police and government could have provided is left out.

What Smith needed, and what most reporters at this time could have used, is a plain view of all sides.

On the other side of the spectrum is the instances where news outlets publish articles  written by one side and not the other. Gehad el-Haddad wrote in his article published in The Guardian, July 26, “…all the deaths have been among those protesting the coup and calling for the return of Egypt’s hijacked democracy.” He also goes on to say that anti-coup protesters “avoided Tahrir [Square]” and “carefully organized their marches to avoid instigating violence.” According to The Guardian’s website, el-Haddad is a “media spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood and senior advisor to the Freedom and Justice party.” One has to ask where the government’s point of view is.

The idea of being completely unbiased is one that has been deeply debated among journalists. What’s important for the reader to keep in mind is that biases are inevitable in journalism, whether it’s because of association, money or simply unintentional.

PHOTO caption: Mohammed Morsi Mural

Credit: Thierry Ehrmann, Flirckr

-30-

Sources used:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/26/egypt-general-sisi-warned-violence (el-Hadded’s article)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/18/world/meast/egypt-protests/?hpt=hp_t2 (Smith’s article)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/death-toll-in-wednesday-s-violence-in-egypt-rises-to-638-1.1411786 (also used basic information about the protest, “coup,” etc.)

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/07/10/the-murky-waters-of-30-june-part-1-regarding-the-legitimacy-issue/  (muslim brotherhood’s activities, 6th paragraph )

Exit mobile version