In unprecedented fashion, 2011 was the year of political debate in Egypt. But not every political question found an answer
For Egyptians, 2011 was the year of momentous political change. Starting with The Two Saints Church bombing in Alexandria on New Year's Eve, which left many wondering to what extent Mubarak's regime was using the Coptic minority to distract people's attention from its own corruption, then the January revolution, the year opened a field of political debate that for decades was consider a luxury few could afford.
Political discussion took over not only the media but the streets, coffee shops, bus stations, work places and every other place where two or more people found themselves in proximity.
Not all political discussion led to answers. Ahram Online reviews ten of the major questions Egyptians could not answer in 2011. These questions reflect the terrain of political developments that engulfed the country.
1. Who is responsible for the Two Saints Church bombing?
The terrorist bombing of the Two Saints Church in Alexandria that took place on the early hours of the 2010-11 New Year's Eve, leaving twenty-four dead and many injured, remains an unsolved mystery for Egyptians. Several Salafists and hardline Islamists were arrested as suspects in the wake of the attacks and were brutally tortured by police. One of the detained, Sayed Belal, died as a result and was buried in secret on 5 January, becoming the most famous victim of torture after Khaled Said, who was killed by police in June 2010. Despite the violent police reaction, those behind the attacks were never found. After the January 25 Revolution, a retired police officer, Mahmoud Abd El-Naby, claimed Egypt's State Security was behind the bombings. Allegedly, a secret political organisation formed by former Interior Minister Habib El-Adly in 2000 to support the regime and silence any opposition to the Gamal Mubarak succession plan was behind the bombings. The Two Saints Church bombings came after Egypt witnessed a rise in sectarian clashes. It also followed violent attacks by the state on Copts in the district of Omraneya, allegedly triggered by illegal construction within a church. Escalating sectarian tensions and increasing discrimination against Egypt's Christians triggered public debate following the January 25 Revolution during which former Prime Minister Essam Sharaf promised laws would be issued against religious discrimination. No such laws were passed to date.
2. Who killed protesters during the 18-day revolution?
So far, no one has been held accountable for the death of hundreds of Egyptian protesters during the 18-day revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak. On 28 January, many young Egyptians died protesting against police brutality. Again on 2 February, during the infamous attack on Tahrir now dubbed the “Battle of the Camel” many more protesters lost their lives after an organised demonstration, supposedly composed of “pro-Mubarak” protesters, stormed Tahrir with sticks, knives camels and horses. The battle went on for two consecutive days during which Tahrir demonstrators were also attacked by rocks and Molotov cocktails. Snipers also stood on roof tops and surrounding bridges using live ammunition on anti-Mubarak demonstrators. Until today, although many have been accused of organizing the “Battle of the Camel”, including former National Democratic Party members and former ministers in Mubarak's regime, no one has been convicted. The Ministry of Interior also denied allegations that snipers who fired at protesters on the night of 2 February were linked to the ministry. Both former Interior Minister Habib El-Adly and Mansour El-Eissawy, appointed after the ouster of Mubarak, made statements denying that ministry snipers fired on protesters.
3. Did Mubarak order the army to kill protesters?
A statement made by head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, led many to assume that Mubarak gave orders to the military to shoot at protestors during the 18-day revolt that led to his ouster. Tantawi claimed during a speech given after the military council took over power that the military “refused orders to shoot” and thus should be considered as a protector of the revolution. In his statement, Tantawi did not specify who gave the orders, leading people to assume it could only have been Mubarak. However, in his testimony at Mubarak's trial, on 24 September 2011, Tantawi told the court that the former president never gave the military orders to shoot at protesters.
4. What is the army's stand on the revolution?
The SCAF has presented itself from the moment it took over power as the “protector of the revolution”, claiming that military leaders defied orders to shoot protesters. When military tanks and cars were first seen on the streets of Cairo, they were met by chants and cheers from hundreds of thousands of anti-Mubarak protesters. The demonstrators chanted “The people and army are one hand” as they stood on military tanks and took pictures with soldiers. However, only a few days into the revolution, testimonies started to emerge of military torture. Several alleged they had been detained and tortured by the military in buildings surrounding Tahrir Square, including the Egyptian Museum.
Testimonies also included stories of the military forcing the detained to chant for Mubarak. Shortly after the ouster of Mubarak, a campaign against military trials of civilians was launched, revealing that thousands of Egyptians were being arrested from the streets, either for breaking curfews or on accusations of “thuggery” and crime, and were sentenced in military courts. A website called Tahrir Diaries was set up to reveal the detail of different cases, showing that many of those arrested were activists detained for political reasons.
By March, the military also started intervening violently to end sit-ins and protests. Testimonies emerged of fatal shootings or some beaten to death by the military during attacks on activists. The first visually documented violent attack was in October when military vehicles were seen running over Coptic demonstrators protesting against discrimination near the Maspero television building. Videos showing the brutal violence spread on social media sites. Some protesters were also reported to have died from gunshots. Meanwhile, a military attack on protesters near the Cabinet in December left many dead or wounded, of which most deaths were caused by live fire. Videos showing the military brutally beating and shooting demonstrators, as well as stripping one woman near naked, circulated on social media sites and private satellite channels.
Currently, calls are increasing for a swift handover of power to a civil government. Many argue that the ruling SCAF is but the old Mubarak regime.
5. Should the constitution be drafted before elections or should elections be held first?
A question that bothered millions of Egyptians before and after the constitutional amendments referendum in March 2011, still concerning them for other three months in the summer, was whether it is better to have elections before the drafting a new constitution or drafting the constitution first is better? Two camps, mainly from liberal and Islamists parties, debated for months before finally a date for elections was announced. Thereafter the debate shifted to the supra-constitutional principles document proposed by former Deputy Prime Minister for Political Affairs Ali El-Selmi. The El-Selmi document enraged not only Islamist powers but other political powers in the country as it gave the army sweeping powers and near complete independence, making it a state within a state. The Friday mass protests before intense clashes broke out in Mohamed Mahmoud Street were against the El-Selmi document. Next week, El-Selmi resigned, but questions still hover over the role of the military in the coming period.
6. Yes or No for constitutional amendments?
The constitutional amendments proposed by a council of legal experts and put to a referendum 19 March stirred much debate in Egypt. While most revolutionary political groups called for a “No” vote, former National Democratic Party (NDP) figures, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist movement campaigned for a “Yes” vote. The debate swiftly degenerated, and appeared a choice between the Islamist camp, campaigning for a "Yes" vote, and the secular camp, campaigning for a "No". The majority of Egypt's Coptic Christians also voted for a “No”, giving the vote a sectarian tinge.
The reasons given for each stand were not only related to the content of the amendments, but to their limitations, consequences, timing and the identity of the council that formulated them.
The No camp argued that the 1971 Constitution needed to be completely redrafted, and that voting "Yes" implies an indirect acceptance of roughly 200 other articles within it. The "Yes" camp believed that the amendments were only a temporary measure and as such did not need to include all the changes that requested by the revolution regarding the constitution, as it will be completely redrafted after parliamentary and presidential elections are held. This point proven to be the most contentious; those opposing the amendments say that a redrafted constitution will not be representative. Most of the "No" camp were for drafting a new constitution before elections, arguing that elections would only bring a revamped version of the NDP and the Brotherhood, and they will be the ones responsible for drafting the new constitution.
Some of the “Yes” camp argued the opposite: that the amendments would allow the military to leave power for an elected parliament to write a new constitution. Leaving the SCAF to form a committee to draft a new constitution was seen as non-democratic by the "Yes" camp.
The majority of Egypt voted "Yes".
7. What is a civil state?
Everyone in Tahrir Square in the first 18 days of the revolution was calling for a civil state. However, after the ouster of Mubarak, the definition of "civil" started to differ from one political group to another. For liberals, civil meant a non-religious, secular state, but for Islamists civil meant a non-military state.
The question buffered a large sector of Egyptian society, especially after ultra-conservative Islamist clerics declared that the civil state was against Sharia law and Islam, warning of the negative consequences of separating religion from the state.
The debate about a civil state was brought up again with discussion of the supra-constitutional principles document that gave the army independent power, making the choice between the civil state and military state, versus the religious state and civil state, for some the primary choice. The debate about a civil state is sure to cause more heated discussion in 2012, especially with the rise of Islamists in parliament, as well as the continuing rule of SCAF and the military in Egypt.
8. Are sit-ins and protests affecting the economy?
Despite a backdrop, prior to the revolution, of sit-ins and strikes, through 2009 and 2010 especially, one question people began to ask themselves after the revolution was whether sit-ins and strikes were harming the economy, as often portrayed in the media. The question opened debate about the rights of workers and employees, as well the rights of protest.
The debate was intense, especially in light of a law issued after the revolution criminalising protests and sit-ins that harm production in Egypt. Though the law was largely not implemented on the ground, NGOs and labour activists considered it an attempt to weaken the revolution.
9. When should SCAF hand over power?
Should SCAF hand over to an elected president, or to the speaker of parliament? Should political powers wait until June 2012 or demand an immediate handover of power? Such questions intensified after recent clashes between protesters and the armed forces, and amid the increasing role the army is playing in political life in Egypt. The question of when SCAF should hand over the power and to whom will continue to be one the main questions that will keep Egyptians talking in 2012.
10. Who is the "third party" blamed for killing protesters?
Another point that kept people busy is answering the question, "Who is the third party blamed for killing protesters?" In violent clashes between protesters and security forces — whether the police or the army after the ouster of Mubarak, from February 2011 to December 2011 — SCAF and officials accused "third parties" of igniting violence and killing protesters, denying the use of live ammunition.
And not only SCAF and officials; lawyers representing Mubarak, El-Adly and police officers accused of killing protesters in the early days of the revolution also put the blame on an unknown "third party". For months, Egyptian security agencies have failed to tell the public who that third party is.
Interesting year, wasn't it?
[Developed in partnership with Ahram Online.]
From Jadaliyya Editors:
For more on Egypt Elections Watch (EEW) entries by category, click on the following links:
(1) Parties and Movements
(2) Actors and Figures
(3) Laws and Processes
To view all entries on one page, click on Egypt Elections Watch, and for EEW team members click here. Our Egypt Page can always be accessed here.