The Angry Arab, As’ad AbuKhalil, agrees with David Ignatius (and me) that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is cahoots with Washington DC.
Ignatius:
[L]et’s be honest: The Obama administration has been Morsi’s main enabler.
AbuKhalil:
[T]here is clear evidence that the two governments have been working closely together.
Antother enabler of the Brotherhood are the editors of the Guardian. Their editorial today is so lopsided pro-Morsi that it is laughable.
In pre-empting a decision by the constitutional court to derail his constitution, his decree was cast too wide. The final draft of the constitution has many faults, although none are set in stone. The opposition on the other hand has never accepted the results of freely held elections, parliamentary or presidential, and is doing everything to stop new ones being held.
The editrial and especially its last sentence are simply wrong. Even the Guardian’s own correspondent in Cairo denounced it:
Jack Shenker @hackneylad
Let me say once again, I totally disassociate myself from this @Guardian editorial on #Egypt - it’s offensive & wrong
The argument why Morsi’s side is wrong is simple. The referendum in March 2011 won 77% approval with majority of eligible voters voting. That referendum set out the process to get to a new government and to a new constitution. It also included the modified old constitution. There were checks and balances in there and those included the judiciary being able challenge the legislative or executive when it saw them breaking the law.
By issuing his decrees and giving himself immunity Morsi did away with that.
So a 77% approval was overruled by someone who barely won 50% of the votes in a run off election with even less voters participating. This after receiving only some 25% in the first round of the election.
By issuing his decrees, likely in coordination with Washington, Morsi broke the rules a wide majority had voted for. That is what the protest are mainly about. (For other reasons the protesters have see this excellent overview of the various Egyptian interest groups.)
One argument against the protest is that the alternative to Morsi is the renewed rule of the military. But the military has never left the stage:
Accusations that, by stalling the political process, the opposition is courting a coup misread the military’s role in the current crisis. The army is equally invested in the existing draft constitution, which keeps their core prerogatives intact: a secretive budget, officers’ control over the Defense Ministry, a strong say in national security decisions and the right to try civilians in military courts. The generals are relieved to have found a civilian partner who can manage day-to-day political affairs, while ensuring that the military has the autonomy to pursue its own interests outside the purview of democratic oversight. These concessions are consistent with the Muslim Brothers’ pattern of refusing to stand up to the generals whenever their own path to power has been at stake.
The military, paid largely by Washington, is so in bed with Morsi that he can call on it to suppress further protests:
President Mohamed Morsy will soon issue a law that will give judicial and protective powers to the military, according to the state-run Al-Ahram website.
Drafted with the participation of army leaders, the law will task the armed forces with maintaining security and protecting vital installations in the state, until a new constitution takes effect and legitimate parliamentary elections are held.
This is martial law. What is Morsi now but a dictator backed by the military and under Washington’s political control?
Whoever hopes that such an alliance will somehow evolve into democratically legitimated, independent foreign and domestic policies that reflect the values of the Egyptians is wrong. Very wrong.
But that is what the Egyptians had hoped for. That is why the struggle will continue.
