Egypt had more scenes of protests, disorder and blood in the streets. A visit by US Secretary of State John Kerry and a fierce invasion by locusts were introduced to the scene this week. Al-Youm Al-Sabei website on Tuesday quoted the minister of agriculture as saying ‘We annihilated 50 swarms of locusts coming from southern Sudan'. Al-Shorouk on Monday had ‘Kerry discusses with Morsi buttressing peace, avoided any talks about US aid to Al-Sisi'. The press drew a picture of violence in the streets this week. Al-Watan on Monday had ‘Blood in the streets; meanwhile, MB is dividing the cake of parliament' and Al-Masry Al-Youm wrote ‘Shooting in the eyes anew'. Emad Al-Ghazali looked at the present gloomy picture, writing that two years after the revolution “we have a president who has no abilities or vision.” Without any doubt, he added, “the president who came with a minor majority is part of our problem and will never be part of the solution.” The president said that he views what the people cannot see, and that is true, the writer explained. He views with the eye of the MB supreme guide and his deputy. “People are angry with the performance of the government,” Al-Ghazali elaborated, “yet Morsi insists on keeping it and praising its performance. The judges call for sacking the prosecutor-general and he says that the law does not allow him to sack him as if we did not know that he humiliated the judges, the constitution and the law before.” However, Al-Ghazali wrote in the independent daily Al-Shorouk, Morsi is not doing that haphazardly but within a plan to fully control the state. “Egyptians are now issuing powers of attorney for Defence Minister General Al-Sisi. They issued similar authorisations to Saad Zaghloul during the British occupation. That means people regard the MB as the occupier and Morsi as the British ruler,” he added. He concluded that “the only way out of the present situation is an early presidential election because there is no hope of reform as long as he is the president... he is taking the country to civil war.” Whether to take part or boycott the parliamentary elections added to the controversy among writers this week. Ahmed Ali wrote that it was not easy for any political party to take a decision to boycott the elections or national dialogue as this step may cause political harm to that party. Besides, whoever takes a decision to boycott parliamentary elections should be ready with an alternative plan to compensate for his absence in the parliament. The National Salvation front (NSF) decided to boycott the election and put conditions before taking part in a national dialogue. However, Ali added, the NSF should have taken the decision to boycott the constitutional referendum rather than boycotting the parliamentary elections. The writer considered this as further proof of blundering. “The NSF decision to boycott the elections is difficult because it put it before the option of making that choice a success through organised popular work in the Egyptian street away from violence. Are they ready for this?” Ali asked in the independent daily Al-Youm Al-Sabei. Hassan Nafaa wrote that the NSF decision to boycott the elections would have its impact on the political process and the possibility of building the post-revolution state institutions. However, the impact of this boycott, Nafaa added, will not necessarily achieve the hope of those who are supporting it.The decision will not be useful unless all the parties that took that decision abide by it, a sizeable portion of the voters are willing to support it and the ability of the decision to affect participation in a way that would erode the credibility and legality of the elected parliament.However, the problem with the next parliament is that it is supposed to lead to political stability. But given that Nafaa has doubts that it will lead to that end, he advised the NSF to make sure that it has enough support to stick to a boycott.“The right decision is either all the opposition parties including the Salafis, boycott the elections or all the parties take part. A partial boycott would leave the crisis without a solution and pave the way for a military coup,” Nafaa concluded in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. Makram Mohamed Ahmed wrote that given that the NSF insisted on the boycott, it is responsible to make the decision an organised and popular one in which all sects voluntarily take part in. The columnist warned of mixing up boycotting the elections and civil disobedience which opens the door to violence, further division of society and has an undesired mix up between the revolution and disorder. Without any doubt, Mohamed Ahmed added, the NSF would be responsible for any failure if it allowed confusion between the revolution and disorder. Although the decision to boycott showed a noticeable coherence within the NSF, in spite of all the internal and external pressure that increased by Kerry's visit, its activities are still far from being institutionalised. “The NSF needs to organise its activities and invest every opportunity so that it reflects the will of the street. That is its main and genuine challenge,” Mohamed Ahmed wrote in the official daily Al-Ahram. Emadeddin Adib wrote that the greatest threat to any state is the violation of its sovereignty by another state as it has a negative impact on the independence of its political decisions. Adib said his column came in response to Kerry's meeting with a limited number of opposition figures after active political powers declined to meet him. However, the focus of that meeting was on convincing the participants of the importance of the participation of all the opposition parties in the upcoming parliamentary elections. But, Adib added, Kerry did not manage to persuade them. On the contrary, he stirred up more negative feelings among Egyptians against US policies in Egypt. Although Kerry said in a press conference that he did not visit Egypt to support one party against the other, the writer noted that he clearly called for the participation of all parties in the parliamentary elections, ignoring the opposition decision to boycott. “Kerry's visit opened the door for the violation of national sovereignty and accepting the interference of a great state in our country by supporting one party at the expense of others,” Adib wrote in the independent daily Al-Watan. He concluded by confirming that if that door opens, nobody will be able to close it.
