The wave of uprisings that swept over the Arab region made it one of the most dynamic, fluid and explosive regions in the world. It introduced perplexity into our lives; a perplexity of revolution unfinished, revolution that lacked clear objectives, and that is being twisted and hijacked at every turn. The most perplexing thing about the Arab revolution is that it had no clear programme. Everyone wanted to bring down the regime, but no one agreed on what to do next. Everyone wanted freedom, justice and a decent life, but no one was clear about what was meant by that. This was the loophole through which the forces of the counter-revolution managed to rally, using everything within their means to keep us behind — from political Islam to neoliberalism, and even the so-called neutral military. Curiously enough, the followers of political Islam are focussing all their attention on religion and identity, not on social demands, and hardly anything on foreign policy. Sometimes it seems as if certain people wish to banish foreign policy from the picture altogether, presumably until the domestic situation settles. We've had successive elections and ended up in a legal vacuum, with a constitution that is shot through with all manners of loopholes concerning legitimacy and Sharia. The question of legitimacy shouldn't have arisen to start with, for no one is disputing the meaning of legitimacy. But Sharia is another story, and the controversy surrounding it has just started, thanks to the constitution's wordage that speaks about the “rulings of the people of Sunna [the Prophet Mohamed's words plus early Muslim customs] and gamaa (consensus of Sunni scholars).” Through linking the constitution with Sharia, the followers of political Islam wish to control society through coercion, a tactic of social engineering favoured by all totalitarian regimes. Now the general public feels that their lifestyle, let alone their livelihood, is endangered. The public suspects that beneath all this talk about Sharia lies a crude attempt to impoverish them. Why else are the staunchest supporters of Sharia going to the World Bank and the IMF for advice? What the proponents of political Islam don't seem to understand is that the public is Muslim and proud of its culture. Our people don't want to be remodelled into better Muslims, nor do they need someone to give them lessons in religion. In Islam, we all know, someone who recites the double testimony (that God is one and Mohamed is his prophet) is just as good a Muslim as anyone else. We all can read the Quran, as it is written in plain Arabic. And we know the teachings of the prophet, even better than most of the followers of political Islam. In countries where the first language is other than Arabic, people may need clerics to lead them every step of the way. Not here. So why are we forced to discuss our identity when what we need is to discuss social and economic policies? Why are we getting so busy with Sharia when we need to formulate a clear foreign policy, a policy that is compatible with our history, with our struggle, with our concern for Palestine? The battle of identity, which political Islam is fighting, can drag Egypt into civil war. This is the threat we are trying to avert. This is the horror we are trying to avoid. The only way the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies can win the battle for the interpretation of Sharia is through brute force. This is why they are so keen on keeping the security apparatus intact. This is why the revolutionaries are worried. Our identity is not in question. So one can only conclude that the current battle over identity is being fought to camouflage policies that would make the poor poorer, heighten the injustice, and increase the arbitrariness of government. As the battle over identity continues, the regime's legitimacy continues to erode. But the ruling Muslim Brotherhood and its friends go on insisting that all is fine so long as the ballot boxes are in their favour. The ballot boxes are to politics what prayers are to faith. You can fill the ballot boxes to the brim, and still miss out on what good governance is all about. For good governance, you need to come up with a programme for a strong state, for a better life, for more dignity for your people. People must have respect for the regime, they must have faith in it, even if they disagree on matters of policy, or dislike the individuals in power. Anything else is tyranny. Anything else means that the ballot box is being used to impose things that the people don't accept, and a regime that people have no option but to resist. To survive, a regime must understand the public and respond to their needs. The leaders must listen to the people and take their cue from them. The proponents of political Islam think they can resolve the country's problems, major and minor, without consulting the public mood. For them, the ballot box is enough. This is wrong. It is sinful. It is an assault on the past and the future. The next days and months are going to show that the ballot box is not the magic wand some wish it to be.
