2013-05-18T05:20:16-04:00 Bel Trew http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=bel-trew Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Bel Trew Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1603783 2012-06-17T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-17T05:12:10-04:00

Bel Trew http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bel-trew/
After a year and half of military rule, Egyptians have been choosing their first president since the ousting of dictator Hosni Mubarak, from two candidates: the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Mursi and Mubarak's last prime minister Ahmed Shafiq.

Following 18 months of bloody street battles, fledgling political alliances and revolutionary initiatives, the people face, what liberal analysts have widely dubbed, the worse-case electoral scenario: a reactionary Islamist versus a former regime figure many believe to be the military junta's man.

The polarising candidates have split the nation.

"People are voting 'negatively' rather than 'positively'," says Khalid Fahmy, History Professor the American University in Cairo. In both rounds, speaking to voters in the polling stations, it is clear many are opting for the candidate who would best counteract the contender they do not want.

Despite the newfound confidence and political lexicon the country has discovered post January 25 Revolution, the politics of fear, Fahmy explains, is something Egypt has been unable to shrug off.

Particularly, Fahmy added, in terms of the role of religion in politics and the position of the Islamists.

"We're terrified of an Islamic state if Mursi wins, religion should never be inside politics - we want a civil country, we simply will not be free if the Brotherhood take power," said Irene, 50, a Christian house wife, outside a Munira district polling station. Her whole family, and the local Christian community, is voting for the former regime figure.

"We know Shafiq is the army's man, which is why we are voting for him," her daughter, Sara, 29 added, "He will have the power and the backing of the military, to control the country."

"We have a dual nationality - if Mursi wins we're leaving the country," says the father, Ishaq, 52, a secretary at a local church.

Others are voting reactively to different fears, particularly following last week's key political developments.

"We've just witnessed a military coup," said Ahmed Aziz, 49, assistant manager of a telecommunications company, outside a downtown Cairo polling station after voting for the Brotherhood's candidate. "So I'm praying that the votes will count, and people will cast their ballots against the military candidate, Shafiq. If they count the ballots right, it will be a clean win for Mursi."

Aziz was referring to events last week, which saw the Egyptian military effectively take power of the whole country.

It started with a Thursday verdict by the High Constitutional Court (HCC) that ruled parliamentary electoral law and the Political Disenfranchisement Law, which would see former regime members like Shafiq banned from running for political office, unconstitutional.

The Disenfranchisement Law, which many liberal and revolutionary groups, fearing a former-regime figure taking the presidency, had pinned their hopes on, was dismissed. Ahmed Shafiq was allowed to run.

Parliament, which was elected in November and heralded by the international community as a sure sign Egypt was on the path to democratic enlightenment, was subsequently dissolved by the military on Friday. Without a parliament, the constitution building assembly, is expected to be dismantled as well.

According to the March 2011 military-authored Constitutional Declaration, the only document currently determining the political structure of Egypt since the 1971 Constitution was thrown out, the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) are representatives of the president and parliament until their elections.

So, the SCAF automatically assumed all the authorities of the parliament once it ceased to exist.

The next day, the SCAF said that they will announce their own criteria for electing the assembly's members, thereby giving them control over the constitution.

In addition the SCAF will release a second amended constitutional document outlining the new president's authorities next week.

This means the military, in a startlingly brilliant move, have assumed full legislative and executive powers of the county, which they are exercising, moments before the civilian president is due to be elected. Just when it is too late for liberal groups to do anything about it.

Some revolutionaries are banking on the electoral system to save the day and so are voting for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate to dilute the state as personified in Shafiq.

"Shafiq equals more than Mubarak whereas the Brotherhood have been opposition figures for decades - Mursi will do as much as he can to take him out," said art teacher Mowtaz Abdel-Fattah, 39, outside a Sayeda Zeinab polling station. He admitted he has been forced to cast his vote without thinking too much about Brotherhood policies, as he does not believe in the Islamist group.

"Given the presidency, Shafiq will come back with revenge. Imagine what we did to him, the protesters ousted him as prime minister in March last year - even when he was voting in the first round, people hit him with their shoes," Mowtaz said.

The Muslim Brotherhood have made a lot of mistakes, Mowtaz added, but it is not comparable to Shafiq: their hands are clean of blood.

Hossam Magdy, 20, radio producer, who was also waiting outside the polling station, vehemently disagreed.

"Shafiq, as prime minister during the bloody Battle of the Camel, killed my friends in the revolution and the Brotherhood, in betraying us by negotiating with the military and abandoning us during clashes like November on Mohamed Mahmoud Street, supported our deaths."

Neither candidates are fit to be the president, Hossam added. Consequently, Hossam is spoiling his vote "so that no one can use my ballot."

This is a very real concern for voters.

"I saw my dead grandmother's name on the electoral lists, God knows what candidate the regime will put her name by," said Hossam speaking of one of the key electoral violations noted by observers. Mowtaz confirmed he spotted his deceased neighbour on the lists as well.

Monitoring groups also registered pre-marked ballot papers, members of the military voting even though it is banned and vote buying. Reports of a shipment of invisible ink pens, prompted the electoral commission to ban personal writing implements in polling stations.
The Lawyers Syndicate announced Saturday that only 15% of eligible voters hit the ballot boxes.

The low voter turnout during day one of the runoffs was telling that something is rotten in the state of Egypt.

Mohamed Waked, political writer and member of the National Front for Citizens and Democracy, said how the lack of voters had been reported in "feloul" (remnants of the old regime) media, was key.

"For some reason, the message of the day from old-regime media was lamenting the low turnout which is in stark contrast to the first round of voting a few weeks ago where they focused on big democratic festivities," Waked said. "Television presenters reported that the next president will have a minority rule, that he won't have the support of Egyptians and that he is effectively losing before he starts."

As of Saturday, the pro-regime line has been to discredit the elections story.

There was even interest in the boycott movement.

Waked, whose political group had embargoed the electoral process from the November parliamentary elections, said he and other key figures spoiling their ballots, were invited to speak about boycotting on a pro-Shafiq channel, which had never approached him before.

"This made us worried."

The only explanation, Waked could garner, is that the military regime are conversely gunning for the Brotherhood's candidate Mursi.

"It appears they are getting ready for Mursi and preparing to discredit him. Why? So the military can pass the constitution they want."

Waked explained that with Shafiq in power, no groups will join the constitutional committee. It would be all too clear that the military, with control of the parliament and their man Shafiq in office, held total power.

The upcoming president, he added, is unlikely to have any real powers.

"From state leaks over the last month, we can ascertain that the SCAF's expected mandate will not allow the president to appoint certain key ministries such as Defence, Interior, Foreign Affairs, Media/Communication and Justice ministries," he said.

These same sources had already correctly predicted that the military would be announcing its own amended constitutional document.

Indications of how this amended document will go can be gathered from looking at the current military-authored Constitutional Declaration. According to Articles 25 and 56, the president will not have the power to author legislation or public policy.

The rest of the sub-articles in Article 56 omit key presidential powers that were previously enshrined in the 1971 Constitution. For example, it is, as of yet, unclear who will be able to appoint the key positions of the prosecutor-general, the head of the Constitutional Court and the National Council for Justice Judges who control the judiciary.

The military declaration does say that the president will enjoy all presidential authorities as outlined in Egyptian law. However most of the powers of the Egyptian president were listed in the 1971 Constitution not in legislative form, so this does not mean much.

"The constitutional documents are also notoriously vague, meaning the new president will have to go to the Constitutional Court every day to find out what the articles actually mean in practice," Waked explained.

Therefore, he concluded, it does not matter to the SCAF if Shafiq or Mursi win.

This is also indicated in the timing of the release of this new amended constitutional document. It would have made more sense, Waked says, for them to have issued it weeks ago to "make the political situation in Egypt look more sane."

Announcing the presidential mandate post-elections, when the president is chosen and nothing can be done about it, implies that the document will be "insulting."

Previous SCAF statements also back up these predictions. The military council's November "El-Selmy communiqué" outlined key supra-constitutional principles, which included giving the military the right to object to (read: author) constitutional articles, whilst keeping their own mandate out of reach of the president.

The only confirmed powers the next president will enjoy include social security, like petrol and food subsidies and the economy - a poisoned chalice when Egypt is in such dire financial position.

Waked spoke of approximately 3million civil servant jobs that faced the axe. Who better to take on these unpleasant duties than the increasingly unpopular Brotherhood?

Nevertheless, this is all speculation - it is impossible to truly know.

This lack of information is the real problem revolutionary forces face in Egypt due to the opacity of the ruling military council (we do not even have a confirmed list of its members). Without a full constitution in place, there is also no discernable rulebook. Waked argues that the revolutionary tactic to vote strategically in the elections has been misleading.

"People thought they could fight the SCAF with the parliament - since it has been dissolved by the military it clearly didn't work," Waked explained, "so now people want to do it with the president? At least with the parliament there was some equal representation, as multiple parties were involved, but the president he is one guy, one party, how can he unite everyone?"

Meanwhile, back at the polling stations, however disaffected with the electoral process, people were still hoping and voting.

"No one has any idea about what is really going happen," says Mowtaz, looking at his inked finger, "after so many months' struggle, it can't be for nothing."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1120026 2011-11-30T04:41:03-05:00 2012-01-29T05:12:01-05:00

Bel Trew http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bel-trew/
"I haven't even put up a quarter of my campaign posters", said Gamila Ismail, an independent parliamentary candidate for the area surrounding Tahrir, the night before elections took place. "People are lost, they don't know if voting an independent is a vote worth making."

The judges running the polling stations were reportedly given the final list of candidates and the amount of ballot paper a few hours before the stations were due to open. On Sunday night people exchanged frantic Twitter messages asking for maps, as the election website went down.

Tension was high as fights broke out in the constituencies. At least two parliamentary candidates were attacked. One, Refaat El-Basyouni, was hospitalised, another candidate's son was stabbed to death whilst he was putting up his father's campaign material.

However Monday and Tuesday went ahead as planned. There was a heavy military and police presence. Long queues of voters were seen at many polling stations. Turnout is expected to have been over 70%.

In comparison to last year's elections, which saw at least eight deaths, the first two days of the voting process, which will take over a month, have been comparatively quiet.

Nevertheless as the sit-in continued on Tahrir, candidates pulled out, polling stations opened late or were closed and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) turned out in full force, it was clear that Egypt's first foray into 'democracy' had not been plain sailing.

"I've boycotted the elections since last Friday", said Shady Essam, 26, a parliamentary candidate in Mansoura, whose brother Ramy (known as the singer of the Egyptian revolution) was detained and tortured by the army back in March.

Aside from the excessive use of violence against protesters by the police force and the army, which saw over 40 people killed and thousands injured, Shady was increasingly concerned by the laws regulating the elections and the power the new parliament will have. "The legislation gives the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) and the felool (ex-regime remnants) power to take a large part of the parliament", he explained.

The constitutional declaration, a document penned by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) in place of a full constitution, is also a worry, Shady explained. "Article 58 of the declaration essentially states that the SCAF have legislative, executive and judicial authority over parliament and the people. Even emperors don't have this power."

In the SCAF's 28th communiqué to the people, Shady explains, they promised to hand over power within six months to a civilian government, which they haven't. Emergency law was supposedly reduced to six months, again a promise they failed to deliver. "They make a referendum but do not fullfill it and after that they kill us. We need a new government with full authority and full power, then I will run in elections."

Those boycotting the elections face a dilemma. Monday and Tuesday saw a strong Islamist presence at the polling stations. I witnessed Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) members (the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) with laptops outside at least one station, taking down people's ID numbers and 'showing' them how to vote.

Campaign flyering in the queues (an illegal activity) was also prolific. In Alexandria, journalists reported Muslim Brotherhood representatives handing out toys to children as the parents voted. There were also instances of the Muslim Brotherhood giving food to voters.

"With the events on Tahrir, yes, the credibility of the FJP has been questioned", said Hossam, 39, head of Egypt's wing of Allianz insurance company who I met in a Down Town polling station. Despite the events in the last week and going to a French Catholic school, he was voting FJP, "They have a good plan for the country", he explained.

This sentiment was repeated by a lot of the voters I spoke to, many of whom didn't know anything about the alternatives in their area, such as the independent candidates. Campaign time has been short and interrupted by major clashes between protesters and the SCAF.

Certainly, this was a sentiment shared by some of the protesters I spoke to. "After the massacre I wasn't going to vote, it took me four days to decide what to do", adds Rahim Hamada a 30-year-old photographer who has been sleeping on Tahrir for most of the week. "Boycotting is the right thing to do but if this parliament is responsible for writing the constitution I don't want it to be written in an Islamic way."

The Muslim Brotherhood is determined to win, he added, "if they left their brothers dying in the streets [of Mohamed Mahmoud] to win the elections they'll do anything."

There was not enough support for the boycott, explained Gamila Ismail who postponed her campaign for a few days following the violence but decided to run in the end. 'My constituency is Tahrir, I consider myself a revolutionary candidate,' she said, "We need to find a way to take the revolutionary ideas and make sure they spread widely."

Despite being the scene of some of the worst state-led violence since the 18 days, there were diminished numbers on Tahrir during Monday and Tuesday voting periods.

Nevertheless the five-day battle on Tahrir has done damage to the Muslim Brotherhood's reputation.

From the beginning of the sit-in the MB made an official statement saying they would not be joining those on the square. They have been accused of working very closely with the SCAF. MB members who participated, like Magdy, a protester who was arrested and tortured by the army and police a few days ago, were told that their membership would be reconsidered if they continued to stay.

During his detention, the Central Security Forces called numbers in his phone, including Muslim Brotherhood members, to tell friends and family that he had died. MB representatives phoned his wife to say that, if he was in fact dead, she wasn't allowed to say he was a member, they had disowned him.

"As far as the Islamic revolutionaries are concerned, people who used to love the FJP do not so much now", Magdy added. He was going to vote FJP but has since changed his mind.

What is being referred to as 'the second wave of revolution' in Tahrir is facing other problems aside from the elections. As witnessed during the previous sit-in of July/August, it is clear that non-revolutionary groups have infiltrated the square again.

There are reports of women being sexually assaulted. Last night the 'midan security' forcibly removed the street vendors from the square by attacking them with large sticks. Protesters told me that both the vendors and the security forces had been permeated by secret police and thugs.

Groups of 'baltagiya', who were initially thought to be the vendors retaliating, then turned up under 6th of October Bridge at around 11pm. There was a several hour battle with rocks, Molotov cocktails and reportedly gunfire. 'I think the square has been infiltrated since Thursday,' says Nazly, 28 a protester on Tahrir who, together with another girl, was beaten up on Mohamed Mahmoud street a week ago. 'I'm convinced those who attacked me were thugs posing as the Popular Committee. A lot of the harassment has been very systematic. It's deliberate tactic to break up the sit-in.'

As the thug-led violence on the square escalates, people tend to go home, leaving the square vulnerable to attack from the SCAF. This happened on the 1st of August when the diminished numbers on the square were forcibly cleared by army and police working together.

"We've been under the SCAF's rule for 9 months. The police hasn't changed, nothing's changed, people say their opinion and get arrested" said Khaled Said's mother, whose son's death inspired the Egyptian revolution in January. "Last year's elections are being repeated all over again. It's worse than Mubarak's time. We need to stay together, we need to stay strong."
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1103656 2011-11-20T04:01:03-05:00 2012-01-19T05:12:02-05:00

Bel Trew http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bel-trew/
It is not yet known how many protesters have been arrested.

The tear gas is so thick, the air across down town Cairo stings. Spontaneous protests have sprung in Alexandria, Suez and Diametta.

Two days ago, several hundred thousand people protested on Tahrir against military trials for civilians, the detention of activist Alaa Abd El Fattah and the Supreme Council of the Security Force's supra-constitutional document, which would give them powers greater than the president, when the Egyptian constitution is finally written.

"Down with the military regime", all of the groups chanted, from the Salafis to 6 April Youth Movement. The protest was peaceful. In fact it was a celebration - we even had birthday cake for Alaa, who turned 30 in jail.

Around 200 people stayed on Tahrir over night, mostly the families of the wounded, who have yet to receive any compensation or treatment for their injuries from the government.

I was on Tahrir in the morning, these groups were not blocking the movement of the traffic, they were peaceful.

Just before 11am, the central security forces violently removed the protesters from the square and arrested many of them. Journalists were beaten up. An Al-Masry Al-Youm cameraman was assaulted and had his camera card stolen and deleted. Security forces occupied the square. So protesters returned in full force and took it back.

The CSF have been tear gassing the square since 2.30pm yesterday. By 4pm the violence had escalated. "A lot of the injuries were to the face, we saw rubber bullets and pellets. Yesterday and through the night was very aggressive" explains Yasser, a field hospital doctor who has been working solidly for 14 hours.

This make-shift hospital Yasser is working from has two entrances, both very close to the front line of Mohamed Mahmoud street - a battlefield that is still raging now. "We got teargassed at both ends and as it's closed, it clouded in the middle". Doctors had to flee until the gas had dispersed.

"Yesterday afternoon they started shooting directly at people's faces", explains Nazli, a protester who was shot in the arm and sustained a leg injury whilst taking medicines to the front line. "One guy who is part of the No To Military Trials for Civilians campaign was shot in the jaw right next to me, his jaw was shattered and spraying blood so we took him out to the ambulances. At that point Malek arrived". Malek, another activist, had been shot in the face.

"It looked like he had no eye, it was big red circle where it should be", Nazli tells me. Malek was rushed into surgery but unfortunately they could not save it. Cameraman Ahmed Abdul Fattah, also lost an eye in the same way. Harara, a protester who lost one eye in the 18 days, is still undergoing surgery to see if they can save the other.

The protesters do not take the injured to the state-run hospitals as many get arrested on arrival. However, when the wounds are too serious to be treated in the hastily erected medical centres in the mosques and backstreets, they have no choice.

A plain clothed police officer posing as a concerned friend of Malek, attempted to take his medical records (and so proof of his injury) from the nurses. It was only because an activist and friend of Malek recognised the police officer that Malek's records are safe. This particular officer had arrest Malek's friends for protesting in 2005.

By around 6pm, the SCF unleashed an extended spray of long-range tear gas canisters on us.

With little propellers, these canisters spray in a huge arch that is able to reach the backs of crowds, often where the injured are resting. The square was cleared in minutes in a mass stampede. It wasn't until, bizarrely, the Ultras (a football fan club) turned up in their thousands, that the protesters were again able to take the square back.

"It is no coincidence how many cameramen and journalists have been hit", adds Nazli, the wounds were unbelievable."

Certainly I saw stretchers, scooters and pick up trucks bringing the unconscious away from the front line and as the afternoon went on, the wounds got bloodier.

This is the first time since 28 June that the Central Security Forces, controlled by the Ministry of Interior, have come out alone without the backing of the army. People on the square are comparing the last 24 hours to the 28 January battles.

It is also interesting that the chants during these fights with the CSF have been for the end of the military regime and the fall of Field Marshall Tantawi, the head of the army. Very rarely do they shout the other popular slogan: "The Police are the Baltageya (thugs)."

Back in March, I remember the resounding cry being "the Army and the people are one hand."

As the SCAF has increasingly shown its colours, so the people's demands and chants have changed. The army, no longer perceived as the protectors but instead the new regime, are being held responsible for all violent action against the protesters.

Last night there were rumours Tantawi would make a speech on state television. The army have, so far, said nothing. They have not turned up this morning. The Security Forces are in full force, still firing long-range tear gas canisters onto Mohamed Mahmoud street.

But the protesters have kept the square over night. "The people are not going to stop and they are not going to leave", concludes Ziyad, another activist taking a breather from the fight. "They know that the Ministry of Interior is backed by the SCAF. It's a matter of life or death for us."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1088818 2011-11-11T15:11:06-05:00 2012-01-11T05:12:01-05:00

Bel Trew http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bel-trew/ global protest will take place across 13 cities, from London to New York Paris to Manila, in solidarity with detained Egyptian activist Alaa Abd El Fattah. Alaa was imprisoned by the Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) 14 days ago for supposedly 'stealing military weaponry' and 'inciting violence'. His mother Laila Souief, a well-known activist, is on her seventh day of hunger strike. Six more protesters joined her on Wednesday.

However the Free Alaa movement is about more than just the release of one man. With three weeks to go before Egypt's first 'free' parliamentary elections, the continued imprisonment of political prisoners by an increasingly active military junta is extremely worrying.

The SCAF, it could be argued, did not intend to imprison Alaa. In the past they have called prominent protesters, like journalist Hossam El-Hamalwy and talk show host Reem Maged, for questioning and released them. The accusations against Alaa were ludicrous: reportedly the army had already identified the weaponry thief and published his photo prior to blaming Alaa.

The difference was that instead of denying the charges brought against him, Alaa refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of his prosecutors.

Alaa took a bold, deliberate and calculated risk. As an Egyptian journalist wrote recently, making reference to the Khaled Said Facebook page, "We are all not Alaa Abd Al Fattah". Only the detention of someone as high profile as Alaa could have mobilised this many people and put pressure on the SCAF.

But military trials are not the only way that the SCAF is attempting to control the Egyptian people.

On Monday, online political journal Jadaliyya.com and Egyptian national newspaper Al Ahram online will publish the only in depth analysis into the laws and regulations of the up-coming elections and the military constitutional declaration.

The results are extremely worrying: the elections, supposedly Egypt's first foray into democracy, will produce a puppet parliament ultimately controlled by the military.

Egypt as it stands, does not have a constitution. Instead, after nullifying the 1971 Constitution, the SCAF issued a Constitutional Declaration. This was to guide the country until parliament was elected, the constitutional assembly created and the new constitution written. The 63 articles that make up the declaration are pretty vague.

"The constitution put down more or less all the job responsibilities of every entity that made up the Egyptian state", says Mohamed Waked co-editor of Judalayaia.com and one of the writers of the report, without distinct institutional guidelines, the country has a problem.

It is unclear exactly what powers the parliament will have. Nothing in the Constitutional Declaration states that parliament can write laws it will merely 'oversee' legislation. This is a change from the original constitution that, Mohamed explains, allowed specialised parliamentary committees this privilege.

Instead the SCAF-appointed cabinet will be able to draft new legislation. The SCAF, as acting president, approves all laws and can also draft laws itself bypassing both the cabinet and the parliament.

In other words legislation can only come from the military-appointed cabinet or the SCAF itself. Parliament can amend, reject or affirm legislation but ultimately any decision they make has to be signed off by the army. Until a president is elected (which won't happen before the end of 2013) the SCAF has the final word.

This means political parties are promising reforms they cannot enact. "The Revolution Continues Alliance say they are going introduce a minimum and a maximum wage", explains Mohamed, "that requires issuing a new law". Even if they have majority in the parliament they cannot issue this law.

"Part of the responsibilities of the old parliament was to monitor the performance of the government", Mohamed adds. Technically it had the right to withdraw confidence in a rogue cabinet. "this is not written into the declaration."

Parliament's second responsibility is managing the state budget. Even this is problematic as the budget is just a pledge, parliament has no control over the 'final accounts'.

The biggest challenge the fledgling parliament will face is the system of military privileges. To date, the army is governed by a separate military law written by itself. Its budget is delivered as a lump sum and spent secretly.

The SCAF clearly want these privileges enshrined in the new constitution, as well as a hand in the drafting of the document. Last week Deputy Prime Minister Ali El-Selmy released a supra-constitutional statement to the media, based on proposals submitted by the SCAF in August.

80 out of 100 members of the constituent assembly, responsible for writing the constitution, the statements says, must be chosen by the SCAF.

Article 9 is particularly controversial and caused uproar across the political spectrum. It states that only the armed forces has the right to discuss matters related to the armed forces or to discuss its budget. What constitutes military 'matters' is not clarified.

Also written is that the military can revise any articles that contradict their Constitutional Declaration and have the power to dissolve and appoint a new assembly, if they take longer than six months to write the Constitution.

One of the more sinister and ambiguous articles in the document is that the SCAF "protects the constitutional legitimacy of the nation".

The SCAF could make the case that one party is monopolising power and so, as Mohamed explains, "dissolve a parliament, if they don't like and hold a new election, or new presidential elections, if they don't like the president... They are trying to copy Turkey in the 90s, when the army actually used to dissolved parliaments at will."

As controversial as this supra-constitutional document is (and it has not been confirmed yet) there is a very real fear among the general population of an Islamic takeover. They would rather have a civil state managed by the army, than a civil state 'managed by the Mullahs'.

There is also is the problem of policing. The SCAF is still trying to regain the power of the police that was lost during the revolution. The paramilitary, who were responsible for a lot of the violence against the protesters during the 18 days, hid after Mubarak stepped down.

'Mubarak used to need a paramilitary police force of about 1.2 million soldiers - all he had to face was the Muslim Brotherhood and a dormant Salafi movement, with a few small secular parties'. Now, Mohamed explains, the SCAF will need at least three or four times that much in light of 'a massive sea of discontent'. Even if they were able to rebuild the police force as it was, it wouldn't be able to manage the situation given the expansion of the political arena.

Election rigging is another problem that may hinder a smooth transition into democracy. Although it is unlikely that SCAF will rig the elections (they don't need to) it may still happen on a grassroots level because of the way in which the rural communities are run and complexity of the new election system (a mash-up of proportional representation and first-past-the-post held over a month, in three sections... ergh).

Corruption is still endemic in Egypt and rural constituencies are often run by chiefs of local tribes or key wealthy families, who have their own agendas. Essentially there isn't the manpower to monitor all the ballots, particularly as those set to oversee proceedings are district attorneys who are notoriously corrupt themselves.

At the moment Egypt is living a military dictatorship that is unwilling to risk its embedded power that shaped the economic and political state of the country. The revolutionaries face a tough fight that warrants actions as drastic as a hunger strike... or a global solidarity movement. They need these big gestures. Those attending today's protest should know this. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1071115 2011-11-02T19:00:00-04:00 2012-01-02T05:12:01-05:00

Bel Trew http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bel-trew/
Alaa had been arrested in 2006 by Mubarak's state security for his political views, this time it was by the military.

During the last week, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), who took power after Mubarak stepped down, have been increasingly flexing their muscles. Egypt's historic elections are due in the next three weeks but it seems that the revolution is not done.

Back in January the Egyptian people took to the streets in the name of Khaled Said, to call for economic reforms and the end to emergency law, police brutality, corruption and the regime. "Bread, freedom, social justice" and "Down, down with Hosni Mubarak" were the chants that roared through Tahrir.

Fast-forward nine months, to the past seven days. On Friday, the people protested in the name of Essam Atta, another young man who was allegedly tortured to death by military police (he received the same autopsy report as Khaled Said: a drug overdose). Friday also saw marches for the twenty-seven protesters killed by the army at Maspero on 9 October.

On Sunday, Alaa was detained by the military for supposedly 'stealing military weapons' and 'inciting violence' at Maspero, just days after he spoke at Occupy Oakland in America. Today is Maikel Nabil's 73rd day of hunger strike - he is an activist who was imprisoned for writing a blog entitled: 'The people and the army were never one hand'.

The chants on Tahrir? "Bread, freedom, social justice" and "Down down with the military regime". And, of course, emergency law is still in place.

For us in the UK, the Egyptian revolution lasted for 18 nail-biting days and finished with jubilant scenes in Tahrir on 11 February.

For those here in Egypt, 11 February was only the beginning of months of often-bloody battles, in which activists have repeatedly called for the same reforms as they did in January.

The only change is the protesters are now fighting a military junta rather than Mubarak's regime.

A week ago, the two police officers who beat Khaled Said to death were sentenced to seven years in prison. A protester is currently 'serving a seven year sentence for throwing a stone at a protest,' Sherif Zeinhom, an activist who was released from the same prison the day before yesterday, tells me.

The difference is that the Khaled Said's killers were tried in a civilian court and so both had lawyers, the protesters, like Sherif, face military trials.

Since 28 January, over 12,000 Egyptian civilians have been tried at military courts often for dubious reasons and without access to a lawyer, the ability to bring or examine witnesses or the ability to review evidence against them (Human Rights Watch).

Of the 12,000, over 8,000 people have been sentenced, with 18 reportedly sentenced to death (General Adel Morsy, head of the military court).

The only reason Sherif's case was made public (which ultimately lead to his release) was because of No To Military Trials for Civilians, a campaign headed up by activist Mona Seif, sister of the detained blogger, Alaa.

However, no one has access to all 8,000 names of those incarcerated. There are thousands of civilians serving (often lengthy) prison sentences with no legal support or way of appealing.

Sherif described the violent arrest he was subjected to: "There were thugs inside the security office, the army could see them. I was lying on the floor being beaten by these thugs who had weapons. When I complained to the Naqib (captain)... he just put his foot on my face". The army have, on multiple occasions, been seen colluding with the baltagiya.

With thousands in prison for fabricated and trumped up offensives, Alaa puts it drily in his letter: "We can congratulate ourselves on the return of security".

It is the events at Maspero that truly illustrate the increasing tenacity of the army. Photographs and video footage show army APCs mowing down protesters and corpses with live ammunition bullet holes. Eyewitnesses say the army were shooting indiscriminately into the crowds.

In face of this overwhelming evidence the army flatly denied responsibility and instead, in the last week, have accused protesters of inciting the violence and attacking themselves. On the list of the accused is Alaa as well as, perversely, Mina Danial, a Christian protester who was killed by the army that night. SCAF will, apparently, put a dead man on trial.

What SCAF's motives are is unclear. Some activists believe that they will use the increasing unrest to delay the elections again, in order to give them more time to galvanise their status quo. Others believe they are simply testing the water to see how far they can go.
Whatever the reasons, the Arab Spring revolutions should take note. A revolution is not over until all the demands have been met.

With the parliamentary elections on the horizon and the presidential elections early next year, much is at stake for the Egyptian people. Nevertheless the push for change here, however complicated and divided, is still strong and increasingly galvanised by the continued abuse from the military. SCAF have unwittingly picked an international fight by incarcerating Alaa, as typified by the British media's reaction, the OccupyLSX protest on Saturday and yesterday's Guardian letter. If the military think they can silence the protesters, they are underestimating their stamina and determination. Because, as Sherif puts it, 'Horaya helwa': Freedom is beautiful.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1028400 2011-10-24T19:00:00-04:00 2011-12-24T05:12:01-05:00

Bel Trew http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bel-trew/
The Gaddafi picture debate has raged from the front cover of our newspapers onto social media.

I posted all these pictures on Facebook as proof there was foul play at Gaddafi's death (the beatings, the bullet hole) and immediately received angry comments from my friends. I was as bad as the men peace-signing over him or kicking his corpse, they said, I was glorifying the violence, disrespecting his death and worse still, inflicting this on the 700+ people who follow my newsfeed.

I disagree.

One of the biggest struggles that the Arab Spring faces is winning the right to tell the story. Take the Maspero massacre two weeks ago in Cairo. The army flatly denied any responsibility for the deaths of 27 protesters. The extremely violent footage showing the army running over and shooting at protesters and the bullet wounds on corpses at the Copt hospital has had over 14,000 views despite only being posted on YouTube last week. The Egyptian protesters cling to this visual evidence, no matter how graphic it is, as these are the words of their story telling.

In fact the Egyptian revolution was sparked because of the cell phone snap of the brutalised face of Khaled Said, whose death had been re-written by a state autopsy.

Across the Arab Spring, the revolutionaries have become acutely aware of the importance of 'soft power' - co-opting world favour through image story telling. Whilst social media may be for many a place to discuss your weekend, for them it is a battlefield.

Therefore it is not a coincidence that the reaction to Gaddafi's photos here in Cairo, is yes, they should be disseminated and published. They do have a place on Twitter and Facebook news feeds.

Gaddafi, like a lot of these dictators, was a fantasist; he was the king of stories. As the NTC 'troops' gained significant ground, he wove tales of the regime still being in power, whilst organising tours of Tripoli for journalists with ample photo opportunities. In his televised speeches he blamed hallucinogenic drugs, Al Qaeda, mercenaries and at one point Nescafe.

The magnificent robes, the waves of lush hair, the sunglasses - these are not merely the symptoms of a vain man, these are bricks in the deliberate building of a manipulative visual presence. He was sculpturing a cult of personality, aimed at impressing the West and crucially the Arab nations: rather than the slick suits that Saif supported, Gaddafi was in Bedouin gowns.

We became all too familiar with his hard power (the guns, the threats) but Gaddafi never missed a photo opportunity, as typified by the recent discovery of yet more pictures with heads of state in his family home.

Even at his most mad (the umbrella moment) Gaddafi chose the ruins of the building Reagan bombed which reportedly killed his daughter, a clever tactic to win sympathy within the Arab world.
The sovereign of soft power, Gaddafi constantly used images and film to tell his story.

So we need to use images to finish it.

For the Libyans, the picture of Gaddafi dead and broken, whether we approve of it or not, is symbolic. It is symbolic of the confirmation of their right to finish their story: which is one of victory and most importantly ownership. How many times did the regime use false evidence, in the form of images, against them? Think about the power of state television, it is pertinent that Libyan-made amateur footage is what announced Gaddafi's death. These photos also proves NATO was not on the ground. For those on their laptops in the UK and for the Libyans in the field: this is key.

The footage also tells another tale: how Gaddafi met his death. He died of wounds suffered during capture, was the official conclusion. The early video footage of Gaddafi being arrested shows him alive and relatively untouched. The later photos and videos show beatings and bullet holes. Recently discovered footage shows him possibly being sodomised by a knife. These images were significant enough for the UN Human Rights office and Amnesty International to call for an investigation into his death. We should talk about it.

From the moment we voted in favour of NATO intervention, the UK cannot escape the fact we got involved - in fact we took a lead. With so few reliable witnesses, obtaining and disseminating graphical evidence of this historic world event is essential. So the problem is not whether the pictures should be printed/posted, rather how they are presented.

Why were my friends upset? They mistook my presentation. They saw it as glorification of violence that doesn't concern them in an inappropriate setting- in other words, the gratuitous posting of violent images for no credible or purposeful end. This is where we differ.

Facebook and Twitter, in my opinion, are even less gratuitous platforms for these kinds of debates than newspapers, as they revolve around discussion. They give us a proper voice, they are interactive and crucially, they are a network - we can forward the information at lightening speed. Let us not merely consume and consume but talk back.

It does concern us. Whether we like it or not, we were involved in Libya. Our country allied itself with the NTC 'troops'. If you take the reasoning far enough we helped put Gaddafi on that bloodstained mattress - we can't step out of the debate now.

To me, if pictures of a tortured dead dictator should be anywhere it should be on social media, where we congregate and talk about it.

How else can we tell our side of the story?]]>