Jun 4, 2012
Posted by Gregory Aftandilian
The recent verdict against former president
Hosni Mubarak, in which he was found guilty of
complicity in the murder of hundreds of
Egyptians during the January-February 2011
revolution and given a life sentence, has
generated heated controversy among many
revolutionary activists in Egypt because they
believe he should have been given the death
penalty. The acquittal of Mubarak's sons
on corruption charges (though they remain in
prison on insider trading charges) have added
to the activists' anger. However, the
fact that Mubarak and his interior minister
were sentenced to life in prison is a milestone
and shows that the Egyptian judicial system has
indeed changed from how it acted during the
Mubarak era. Both Egyptian presidential
candidates, by their different assessments of
the verdict, are using it for political
purposes to broaden their appeal but it is
unlikely that they will be able to exploit it
to their advantage.
For the
revolutionary activists, the verdict against
Mubarak as well as other judicial rulings were
unsatisfactory. Not only was Mubarak and
his interior minister not found directly
responsible for the deaths of protestors in
January-February 2011, but that six senior
police officials were acquitted of ordering the
killing of protestors. Even though
Mubarak and his interior minister, Habib
Al-Adli were sentenced to life in prison for
complicity in protestors' deaths, that was not
enough for the activists. They clearly
wanted Mubarak, Al-Adli, and the police
officials to be found directly responsible for
the protestors' deaths and given the death
penalty.
Sensing an opportunity, Muslim
Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohammed
Mursi tried to ride the tide of this anger by
stating: "If I am chosen [president], I
will directly initiate a criminal investigation
to identify evidence against those who killed
revolutionists, those who caused corruption and
those who robbed the nation...I repeat, I am
with the revolution and I will continue to be,
even after I become president." Although
Mursi was trying to seize the revolutionary
mantle and broaden his appeal outside of the 24
percent of the vote that he received in the
first round of the presidential elections, it
is unclear how far this message will take
him. As a self-described
anti-establishment candidate, Mursi is hoping
that Egyptian citizens will see him as someone
who will safeguard the revolution, but many are
not buying it. One activist who came to
Tahrir Square to protest the verdicts told the
Washington Post that the Muslim Brothers "are
trying to buy the votes of the revolutionaries
by standing on their side, but if it was not in
their best interest, they would have remained
as quiet as always."
Mursi's opponent,
former prime minister and former air force
commander Ahmed Shafik, also seeing an
opportunity, tried to seize the high ground by
stating that he respects the verdict against
Mubarak, adding that it means that "there is no
one in Egypt who is any longer above the law
and cannot be held accountable." Shafik
clearly wanted to distance himself from his
past associations (and praise of) Mubarak by
showing that he was cognizant of the new Egypt
and was not going to turn the clock back to the
Mubarak era, as many fear. It is highly
unlikely that the revolutionaries will buy his
message, but Shafik's targeted audience is not
that segment of the population; rather, the
audience is the secular-liberals who want
a changed Egypt but one not dominated by the
Brotherhood. By showing that he respects
the new Egypt (where a deposed president can be
sentenced to life in prison) Shafik is trying
to say that he is not beholden to his former
mentor or his regime and is not going to
replicate it. Although many
secular-liberals still have strong reservations
about Shafik, the more presidential he sounds,
and the more respect he shows to the new Egypt,
the better chance he will have to get at least
some of their votes.
And then there is
the so-called silent majority, which many in
Egypt describe as "people of the couch."
These are Egyptians who did not take to the
streets in 2011 and want a return to normalcy,
albeit with less repression than in the Mubarak
era. For these people, representing
perhaps a majority of the citizens, whether
Mubarak was deemed directly responsible for the
killing of protestors last year or was merely
complicit in their deaths is a moot
point. They are probably in awe that the
judiciary handed down a life sentence to their
former president and are not upset that Mubarak
did not get the death penalty. What they
want first and foremost is a functioning
government, an improved economy, and a
crackdown on crime. Shafik certainly
hopes that many of them will turn out to vote
for him in the second round of the presidential
elections. His projection of a
strongman image, in fact, is designed to
appeal directly to them, but that is not enough
to win because he cannot count on them to vote
in large numbers. Hence, Shafik needs to
appeal to the secular-liberals who want a more
democratic Egypt, and that is why he is now
trying to sound like a reformer.
While
the Mubarak verdict has made a splashy news
story and has brought some revolutionary
activists to the streets, the outcome of the
presidential election will not likely hinge on
this verdict. Rather, the election will
depend on which candidate will be able to
muster a coalition larger than his
opponent. Each of the two candidates has
liabilities--Mursi because he represents a
fundamentalist movement now seen as trying to
monopolize political life in Egypt; Shafik
because he represents in large part the old
regime. In building their coalitions,
they must also try to shed these images as best
as they can while they appeal to the voters.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for National Policy.
Printable Version
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS AUTHOR