Some leading figures in the Muslim Brotherhood, who fled the country after 30 June 2013, announced in Brussels earlier this month a list of principles they labeled the “Brussels Document”. The announcement of this document coincided with the 9 May communiqué by the Brotherhood in Cairo, which was the topic of my article published by Al-Ahram Weekly last week (under the title of “Same mentality unchanged”). The document spoke of rolling back the results of what it called the “military coup” and the restoration of the “democratic process”. In the meantime, it called on the army to go back to the barracks and to remain neutral as far as politics is concerned, and to desist from political alignment with any particular side.
On the other hand, it advocated the complete revamping of what it termed the “corrupt deep state” — whatever that means. In this respect, it linked this demand with a reference to the “January Revolution” and talked about reconstructing all state institutions through cooperation with all political forces without exclusion or discrimination.
It dealt with both concepts of transitional and social justice and called for ending what it qualified as “social injustice” through an economic programme that aims at achieving development that would benefit the Egyptian people.
Furthermore, the document dwelt on civil society and the empowerment of women and youth that would be commensurate with what it referred to as their role in the “revolution” — in reference to the events of 25 January. As far as civil society is concerned, the text promised to “liberate” it from the control of the executive branch of government and to empower it to play its role in development efforts.
The document gave a top priority to what it termed as “human security”, a bizarre term to say the least, as well as recuperating the squandered wealth of the people inside and outside Egypt. The last point in the “Brussels Document” dealt with foreign policy. In this context, the text confirmed national independence and reiterated the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries.
What is striking about this document is the complete absence to any references to the 30 June Revolution that set in motion the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. The absence comes as no surprise. Throughout the last 11 months, the propaganda machine of the Brotherhood has centred on the “coup” they allege took place in Cairo. They were encouraged by the attitudes of both the US administration and the European Union vis-à-vis the new interim government in Cairo, as well as by the decision of the African Union to suspend Egypt until the election of a democratically elected government. Their target has been to try to strip the new regime in Egypt of any degree of legitimacy, either within Egypt or abroad. They thought that a combination of internal pressure — by unleashing waves of terrorist acts and violent demonstrations by their followers — and international pressures could undo the new setup in Cairo.
The positions taken by both Qatar and Turkey, of supporting their cause, the former through Al-Jazeera channel and the latter through an orchestrated campaign led by the Turkish prime minister himself and his minister of foreign affairs, who tried to impose international sanctions on Egypt by the United Nations and the European Union, gave them a false sense that it was only a question of time and they would be back in power.
The onset of the presidential elections, that have already taken place abroad from 15 to 18 May (later extended to 19 May), on 26-17 May sent the Muslim Brotherhood into overdrive. Hence the communiqué of 9 May addressed to Egyptians and the so-called “Brussels Document” targeting Western governments, media and public opinion.
The two texts have one thing in common: namely, depicting recent developments in Egypt after 30 June as a coup staged by the army against popular will. Their definition of popular will is limited to their power base, ignoring the untold millions of Egyptians who descended in the streets to protest their dictatorial one-year rule. Those millions do not exist for the Muslim Brotherhood. Their will does not count as far as they are concerned. This explains why there is no reference whatsoever in the Brussels Document to this popular will. Instead, it is both the army and the state that are to blame for their overthrow last year.
The large turnout of Egyptians abroad to vote in the presidential elections has come as proof that the Brussels Document is detached from reality and that its intended impact will be almost nil. The reason for that is that it lacks credibility. All the 10 principles of the document were not respected while the Muslim Brotherhood was ruling the country. This is, in fact, the reason why the majority of Egyptians decided to chase them out of power. The Egyptian people felt betrayed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the way they exercised power from 2012 to 2013. The trust between the ruler and citizens was broken, I personally think beyond repair. The people who drafted the Brussels Document have disregarded this important fact and have preferred, as has been the case for the last 60 years, to single out the army in a vain attempt to mobilise the people — particularly the young — against the Egyptian military.
Many observers and political watchers were surprised by the unexpectedly high turnout of Egyptians abroad to elect a new president for the country. I believe that this can be explained by the repugnance of Egyptians for violence and terrorism. The Egyptians realise, too, that the country should return to normalcy as quickly as possible. The large numbers of Egyptians who went to the polling stations abroad were not only voting to elect a president, but also giving a vote of confidence in the roadmap to the future announced 3 July 2013. In other words, a vote of confidence in the army. Those political forces that fail to read this message will have negligible impact on shaping the future of the country. Neither the so-called Brussels Document nor the communiqué of 9 May can be part of this consensus. The Muslim Brotherhood keeps repeating the same mistake: namely, either you go by the rules I lay down or I act as a spoiler. And that is what I expect them to do in the future. The cost to their cause will be higher this time.
