Egypt's revolution began last year with the removal from office of the now jailed former President. After three weeks of mass protests across the country, the army stepped in and forced him from power. There then followed a series of arrests of government ministers and advisers on charges of corruption. As we have noted before, though, little else changed in the eyes of ordinary Egyptians, except that the economy worsened and the security situation in the country broke down. Those looking for life to get better were to be bitterly disappointed. The rich stayed rich and the poor stayed poor. At the time, many ordinary Egyptians had been convinced that the overthrow of the President meant that life would very quickly change for the better. They would get jobs and they would have more money to spend. They heard stories of vast quantities of stolen money being deposited in banks outside Egypt, and it was just a matter of time before all that money would find its way into the hands of the poor. After decades of poverty, their day had finally come. None of the material gains happened, leaving many people wondering just what the revolution had been all about. It was little surprise to many, then, that when it came time to vote for a new President, vast numbers voted for a return to the past, seeking to elect a member of the old regime, a military man, who could put the country back on its feet and put an end to the chaos that has torn Egypt apart for the last eighteen months. Many of those who voted for Mohammed Morsi saw that, at last, the change they had longed for had come about. At last, they would get jobs and life would get better. The fact is, though, that life is not going to get better any time soon. It will take a long time before the problems inherited by the new President can be tackled successfully. How could he possibly improve the lot so quickly of the millions of Egyptians who live on just a couple of dollars each day? How could he reverse the vast and unwieldy machine, set in motion by President Gamal Abdel Nasser to provide jobs for the masses, which cripples the working of government and now hinders the country's progress? How could he provide an adequate education, denied them for so long, for Egypt's masses? All of this will take a long time. With the benefit of hindsight we will one day see just how much of a change there was. Will all the promise amount to anything? Will he be able to make a difference? Will he be allowed to make a difference? Or will the new President, like others before him, start off well and end up paralysed by the system around him, creating in him another Pharaoh to rule for the benefit of the few? The challenge is to resist thinking this way. Experience has taught Egyptians to think the worst of their governments. Recent months have seen what many analysts describe as behind the scenes deals. They suggest that all along, far from there being a clash between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces there has, in fact, been tacit agreement between the two. Just one week ago, with the election of the President, we saw Tahrir Square filled to overflowing with his jubilant supporters, proclaiming that they would stay there until the army fully relinquishes power and hands it over to a civilian government. They would stay there, they said, for as long as it took for the SCAF to step down. In a matter of days, Tahrir Square was empty once more. The crowds had gone home. What had become of those promises to stay there forever? Similarly, many analysts also suggest that the current standoff between the President and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is nothing more than another backroom deal. In issuing a decree to recall the People's Assembly, after it had been dissolved just before the Presidential election, it seemed that the President and the SCAF were on course for a massive showdown, in which only one could be the victor. Would the President come out on top or would the army retain its powers? The situation certainly raises a number of powerful and alarming issues. If the President is above the law and can issue a decree disregarding a decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court, then who is bound by the law at all? Why should ordinary citizens heed the law, when the President does not? On the other hand, many suggest that at the present time the only person with any credibility or moral authority to make decisions is the President himself, since he is the only one chosen by the direct will of the people. Neither the Supreme Constitutional Court nor the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces were elected by anyone. In fact,these analysts suggest, both are made up of men appointed by the jailed former President. They are the old regime in anything but name. In such a situation, then, the elected President has the right to challenge their decisions. So, the parliament reassembled for five minutes, then went on its way again. Ostensibly, it met and asserted its right to meet. Cynics suggest that it met with the full approval of the ruling military, making it seem as though something was really happening to challenge their authority, yet having been allowed to make its gesture in the eyes of the people the parliament dissolved itself again. Quite what is going on in these days remains hidden from most. Who really holds power is not clear. Whether the elections were free and fair and resulted in real change will only be seen in years to come. Whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood are really working for the best interests of the country or are merely opportunists seizing their chance for power will be known one day. Their broken promises to the Egyptian people over the last eighteen months and the way they later abandoned the protesters to their deaths leave many doubting their sincerity. And yet in all these murky waters something positive is happening. With the election of Dr Morsi as President, the revolution has entered a new phase. For the first time, the actual institutions of government have been changed. It is difficult to do so after so many years of hero worship, but the real change to believe in is that individuals in government can come and go, but the institution of government goes on despite them. No matter who sits on the throne, it is the people who are really in charge. Egypt is not a monarchy. In a republican system of government, such as in Egypt, power derives from the people. It is not a gift bestowed on them by their rulers. Unelected officials may play a role for some time in bringing stability back. Elected politicians may play their role for a specific term of office. But the will of the people remains. The will of the people doesn't just mean a group of people who shout the loudest in Tahrir Square, claiming that “the people demand" this or that. That is just another kind of tyranny. It is not democracy. In a democracy, the only way of knowing what is the people's will is through the ballot box. The ballot box has given Egypt a new President. In the absence of a parliament it is he alone, not his party or those close to him, who has the authority to rule. The real revolution has only just begun. As the revolution unfolds in the coming months and years, we will see how the people's will is finally carried out, inshallah. British Muslim writer, Idris Tawfiq, is a lecturer at Al-Azhar University . The author of eight books about Islam, he divides his time between Egypt and the UK as a speaker, writer and broadcaster. You can visit his website at www.idristawfiq.com.
