Following a seemingly lenient ruling against two judges, it will be more difficult for pro-reform activists to mobilise the masses on the outstanding principles, writes Samer Shehata* On Thursday May 25, like the two previous Thursdays, thousands of plainclothes and uniformed security forces were deployed on Ramsis Street and in the vicinity of the High Court, the lawyers' and press syndicates and the Judges' Club. But unlike previous weeks, tensions were palpably lower, pedestrians had relatively free passage, and traffic was back to its usual level of Thursday afternoon congestion. Perhaps most significantly, however, far fewer people turned out than in previous weeks to support the judges and to commemorate last year's referendum, known as "Black Wednesday," when protesters and journalists were attacked and sexually assaulted. Semi-spontaneous protests did not erupt and far fewer people were detained and arrested. The smaller numbers of protesters and the fact that the parliament will soon be taking up new law concerning judicial authority, however, does not mean that the conflict between the Judges' Club and the government is nearing completion. With only a handful of weeks left in the current parliamentary session, it is by no means certain that a new law will be passed before the current session ends. Even if new legislation were to be approved, it would be naïve to think that a National Democratic Party (NDP)-dominated People's Assembly would ratify a law concerning judicial authority that the Judges' Club or democratic reformers would find acceptable, let alone one that insures judicial independence. In fact, at least two different versions of the law are currently under discussion in parliament, one supported by the pro-government Supreme Judicial Council and the other put forward by the Judges' Club and the majority of independent and opposition parliamentarians, including the Muslim Brotherhood MPs. It is by no means clear whether a compromise can be reached and if so, which version the final legislation will more closely resemble. In the coming period, however, supporters of democratic reform and an independent judiciary will find it more difficult to generate the same level of popular interest and support as in previous weeks. For although the issue of judicial independence is much larger than the individual cases of Mahmoud Mekki and Hisham El-Bastawisi -- the two judges who were dragged in front of a disciplinary board earlier this month on bogus charges -- it is harder to mobilise people to take action in favour of abstract ideas than it is to rally them around concrete cases of injustice. Mekki and El-Bastawisi's plight was particularly absorbing because it was a tangible, human story of two likable judges -- unlikely heroes in some ways -- singled out by the regime for doing absolutely nothing wrong. All of us got to know their faces and personalities and we imagined the best of ourselves in them: respectable, educated, middle class people, doing their jobs while working for a better future. Standing up for principle, El-Bastawisi and Mekki quickly became national heroes. And since the reality of election fraud was already well-known, the charges against them seemed egregiously absurd. But because Mekki was found innocent and El-Bastawisi received a simple reprimand -- however unjust -- and will remain a sitting judge (it was feared before the hearing that he might be removed from the bench), the issue currently in front of the public is abstract and not concrete; it is the lofty principle of judicial independence rather than the harsh reality of two judges unjustly accused by a government attempting to intimidate the entire judiciary. From this perspective, the disciplinary board's ruling of 18 May was shrewd: defusing the situation by finding Mekki innocent and saving face for the government by reprimanding El-Bastawisi while allowing him to remain on the bench. It was a victory for the two judges, the judiciary and the cause of democratic reform in Egypt. But the larger and more difficult struggle remains. Moving proposals for a new judicial authority law to parliament is the next logical step, of course. But it is hard to imagine the regime accepting any legislation that allows for complete judicial independence let alone the full judicial supervision of elections. And it is difficult to be optimistic about the chances of such legislation in the People's Assembly where a legion of NDP parliamentarians await. Rather, we might possibly see another form without substance Article 76-style reform. After all, procedural manipulation, delay, bureaucracy and superficial reforms represent a more sophisticated form of authoritarian politics; much more effective than brute force, repression and intimidation. * The writer is an Egyptian-American professor at George Town University.
