Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Autocracy And The Demands For Change

Observers of the process of political reform in Egypt would easily notice that it is invariably a function of the temperament and mindset of one single individual in the governing regime. It is that individual who permits or forbids, who orders or prevents, who simply takes charge of everything.  Anything that takes place is by virtue of his orders, in the absence of the governing

Facebook Digg Yahoo Del.icio.us reddit StumbleUpon Mixx Google

Observers of the process of political reform in Egypt would easily notice that it is invariably a function of the temperament and mindset of one single individual in the governing regime. It is that individual who permits or forbids, who orders or prevents, who simply takes charge of everything.

 Anything that takes place is by virtue of his orders, in the absence of the governing regime, unlike the case in any democratic country in the world.

The ruling regime in Egypt is reduced to one person and his single method and vision.

The process of change is conditioned by his decision and the amendment of the Constitution is the product of his opinion.
In late April 2005, chiefs of Egyptian political parties started to respond to the public demands for amending the Constitution by claiming that international and domestic circumstances and developments did not permit that change at the time being.

Once the Egyptian domestic political environment was prepared to accept the status quo, all people were surprised by President Mubarak’s call for the People’s Assembly and Consultative Council (respectively, lower and upper houses of parliament) to amend Article 76 of the Constitution. But that amendment was tailored to the measures defined by the president and according to his point of view. As a result, the amendment was distorted and even more complicated that the original wording of that article.

That tendency also characterized the subsequent legislative elections which took place in conformity with the designs of the regime.

The 1st of the 3 stages of that election was somewhat politically acceptable but it witnessed the surprise victory of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

 As a result, the 2nd stage witnessed so many abuses by the regime, although those violations couldn’t stop the Brotherhood forward movement.

 Then came the 3rd and last stage which can surely be described as that of victims of change and democracy, leaving behind some 14 voters dead and hundreds of injured people just trying to exercise their right to vote.

Those people thought that there was room for change through the ballot box.

 This is a very serious event that could push some youth toward violence as a method for change, which ultimately could lead to a resumption of the cycle of violence and counter violence that marked the 1990s.

Under the autocrat’s vision for change, the cabinet change was disappointing, as it was characterized by the rise of businessmen and their control of the reigns of power in Egypt and the worrying ascendancy of members of  the Policies Committee of the ruling party, headed by Mubarak’s son.

On the other hand, American and European continued support for Egypt’s ruling regime is a very clear measure of their credibility, while  they claim that they support reform and the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

Of course, western countries may have their justifications for continuing this support, i.e. the framework that governs the world and international relations is that of interest and not that of humane concern.

 This is a clear evidence of the collapse of the human value system of western governments.