Political life in Egypt is taking on a new shape and flavour as we approach the presidential elections that are now set to take place before parliamentary elections. True, Muslim Brotherhood agitation and terrorism is still in the picture in all the sad and curious twists and turns of their schemes and actions, from assassinations and bombings to killing anyone who stands in the way of their demonstrations, and from their storming of metro stations and blocking thoroughfares to circulating rumours intended to harm the economy and, basically, doing whatever they think will bring the country to a halt. Still, in spite of all that, you feel that Egypt is moving in the direction that the people want: towards the restoration of stability and security, the revival of the economy and progress. That hope was manifested in the recent constitutional referendum, the results of which were truely amazing. In addition to a high voter turnout, around 20 million people — twice as many who had voted for the winning candidate in the presidential elections that brought a Muslim Brotherhood president to power — voted in favour of the new constitution. The current phase, which began eight months ago, is one that seeks to rebuild and to get the machinery of government back to normal after a year of the Muslim Brotherhood drive to obstruct the institutions of the state or to subordinate them to its ideological control. We now have a prime minister with relatively broad powers and, in spite of the criticisms levelled against him, his performance is better by a long shot than that of the prime minister under Morsi, who was hopeless. In addition, the economy is recovering and, in spite of the accumulated economic problems, the wheels of government have begun to resume as normal. Such indicators confirm that the aim of the current phase is to lay healthy foundations on which the state will be able to build in the post-interim period. The approaching presidential elections combined with the widespread popularity of General (now Field Marshal) Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi since the 30 June Revolution led many media outlets and political elites to back the popular demand for Al-Sisi to run for president. The trend was especially evident during the celebrations of the third anniversary of the 25 January Revolution, when the iconic Tahrir and Ittihadiya squares filled with photos and pro-Sisi chants. This phenomenon is new to the revolution's “million-man marches” in which the prevailing slogans and images focussed on the principles and demands of the revolution and, at a subsequent stage, on protests against Muslim Brotherhood rule. While the phenomenon may have some positive aspects at the outset, these could be outweighed by a number of detrimental aspects in the long run. First, the political neutrality of the military establishment in the forthcoming phase in the national building process is crucial, not so much for the sake of political neutrality per se, but precisely because of the urgent need for a strong military establishment. There are very practical reasons why the army should remain above the political fray. The period in which the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) took power and became a main player in the political scene wrought considerable damage to the military establishment and its prestige among the public. This could have had profound and lasting detrimental effects had not the Muslim Brotherhood inadvertently intervened. It was against the backdrop of their folly and power-hungriness that the military establishment succeeded in reversing the attrition the previous phase had wrought. Not only did it win back the people's trust, its leadership appeared to have learned the lessons from the interim phase. Second, an Al-Sisi nomination could weaken the process of building solid and democratic institutions of government. With a strong man at the top, especially one with such a mandate vested in him personally, the building process could slacken to the extent of stalling the completion of the roadmap to the future. This would run counter to the nature of society and, especially, the youth culture that emerged and found its voice with the 25 January Revolution. What is of essence at this stage is not the presence of a “leader” or a “symbol”, but rather the down-to-earth laying of the foundations and rules that will enable the nation and its people to stand on their feet. Third, the trial and error process through presidential and legislative elections held in the presence of a strong and vigilant army is probably the best guarantee against a repetition of the mistakes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was moving to assert its exclusive hegemony and steering the state towards collapse. Even if an elected civil president is not as capable as voters had hoped for, the fact that he is committed to function in the context of an institutionalised government and the effective separation and distribution of authorities furnishes the necessary flexibility and resilience to enable the state to absorb the shocks of mistakes, whether committed by the executive or legislative authorities. Fourth, the Egyptian military establishment has the power to offer a new image of leadership in the process of democratic transition in a society in which the institutions are too weak to effect such a transition on their own. We need only look back at the damage wrought during a year of Muslim Brotherhood rule, when the office of the supreme guide (which was not popularly elected) governed a country the size of Egypt behind the facade of an elected president who was ideologically and hierarchically at the service of that office. Therefore, there is a need for a strong military establishment to safeguard the state and its institutions in the event that they are steered off course during two electoral phases and to help the country to stability and the peaceful rotation of authority among political forces that truely subscribe to this vital principle. Perhaps the electoral rounds that took place during the post-revolutionary period could be considered a trial test of the neutrality of this establishment and, simultaneously, its ability to ensure the safety of those elections. Fifth, people enter history only once. The military establishment under Field Marshal Al-Sisi won the hearts of the Egyptian people and went down in history for having saved the country from designs to propel Egypt towards civil war and throw it into the clutches of tyranny. They will continue to perform that sacred mission of protecting the nation. But this duty is not performed by becoming embroiled in politics and government, for in that capacity they will find themselves in the same position as those who governed before them and who were subject to the laws of the revolution when they erred. Rather, the duty is best performed in their current capacities as guardians of the process of democratic transition and protectors of national security and social peace, in which roles they cannot be rivalled. The writer is managing editor of the quarterly journal Al-Demoqrateya published by Al-Ahram.
