Dina Ezzat takes the temperature of national political disputes Readers of Egyptian papers are often presented with two images of the country -- one given by the opposition press and the other by the state- inclined -- better known as national -- press. This week was particularly exemplary of this. The opposition press portrayed a nation in turmoil where the regime stands all alone -- or surrounded by a few hypocrites -- in front of a frustrated public, angry opposition, an irritated judiciary and an incensed civil society. The regime, according to the opposition press, is trapped and has no way out except to pursue serious reform measures demanded by the public. On the other hand, the "national" press had an image of a flourishing and rejuvenated regime pursuing ambitious and, as the word is often used, historic reform measures which will bestow the nation with a level of democracy never seen before. Meanwhile, the independent press, including Sawt Al-Umma, Al-Osbou, Ad-Dostour and Nahdit Misr offered good and bad news -- but not as bad as presented by the opposition papers including Al-Ghad, Al-Arabi, Al-Wafd and Al-Ahali. But to judge by the three sets of papers that appear in Cairo every morning, the nation seems to be nearing boiling point. The regime, the reader senses from columns of the national commentators, is losing its temper with the opposition. And the opposition, especially the political parties, is getting impatient with the regime. And the tug of war is getting too risky for the nation. "The regime is dead and it has to be buried. Anyone who followed the 'revolution of judges' should realise that this regime has to exit the stage after... it has entered a state of clinical death," wrote Abdel-Halim Qandil on Sunday in his column, "For the sake of the nation" that appears on the back page of the weekly Al-Arabi, the mouthpiece of the Nasserist Party. Qandil, who not long ago was assaulted by unidentified thugs for allegedly "crossing the red line", argued that the nation is nearing a state of "civil disobedience". The first sign of this, he argued, was the initiative taken by a large group of judges to boycott the partial supervision of the presidential and subsequent parliamentary elections this autumn to protest against the restrictions of the judiciary authorities that should be allowed to fully observe the electoral process. On the same page, Abdallah El-Senawi, in his weekly column "In Black and White", argued, "Egypt is again fighting for its long suppressed freedoms". This, El-Senawi said, is the real significance of the unanimous decision taken by the Judges Club on Friday to either fully monitor the elections or not monitor at all. "The moment of truth has arrived. This regime is about to go. Egypt is approaching a new phase of true democracy... The constitution mandates judiciary monitoring of the electoral process. There is nothing that the regime can do about this," El-Senawi wrote. On Saturday, the editor of the weekly national magazine October, Ragab El-Banna, offered an alternative view of the angry requests demonstrated by the Judges Club. According to El-Banna, the threats made by the judges to refrain from monitoring the electoral process clashes with the impeccable nature of the judiciary. "The judges do not need anyone to remind them that they should not be involved in political conflicts and that their role should remain above any political give and take." El-Banna made clear reference to another group of judges, albeit smaller, which refrained from joining the threats made by the Judges Club. This other group, El-Banna argued, represents "the noble face of the judiciary that is worthy of the respect of every Egyptian in that it sends a clear message to all intruders who wish to foment unrest in Egypt." On Tuesday, as the Higher Council of Judges sided with those members of the judiciary who decided to refrain from boycotting the monitoring of the elections, higher voices of contempt for the boycott calls were made. And sentiments of support for the council were expressed. "I personally have to salute the Higher Council of Judges for its statement that cleared the situation after what happened last Friday... showing that it is only a minority of judges who are threatening to boycott," wrote Samir Ragab, editor-in-chief of the daily Al- Gumhuriya and one of the regime's staunchest defenders. Another related issue that saw heated debate was the amendment of Article 76 of the constitution allowing for multi-party presidential candidates for the first time. Again the criticism and praise of the quality and significance of the amendments dominated a few columns. And calls for the public to boycott the referendum on the amendments -- scheduled for Wednesday -- prompted support and rejection from both sides of the political spectrum. It was interesting -- but far from surprising -- to read the criticism made against the significance of the amendments every other day in the column of prominent Al-Ahram commentator Salama Ahmed Salama. "The National Democratic Party succeeded in imposing its will on the amendments of Article 76 of the constitution in a way that alienated all other political powers, actually rendering the amendments void of the elements of reform and change that were supposed to open the doors before the political parties and independents for candidates to run in the presidential elections... Today, we know that we stand before an artificial political game that will end with President Mubarak winning a new term in office whether we like it or not," Salama wrote. Meanwhile, the independent papers ran articles by other prominent commentators and judiciary and legal figures, including Tareq El-Beshri and Mohamed Selim Al-Awa, who argued that the amendment is unconstitutional since it violates the basic constitutional concept of equality as it imposes an artificial distinction between members of the political parties and independent political figures. On the front page of the daily Al-Akhbar, editor- in-chief Galal Dweidar argued it was not for any commentator or group of people to decide whether the amendment of Article 76 is significant or merely cosmetic. "It is up to only the Egyptian people to make this distinction... and to alienate those anarchists and saboteurs," Dweidar wrote. Meanwhile, the debate over the political prospects of Gamal Mubarak -- which had been subdued for a while -- resurfaced with its usual "may be and may be not" questions over whether he will run for president in September instead of President Hosni Mubarak or make a stab at the presidency in 2011. "Should we elect Gamal Mubarak for vice- president?" was the headline -- and actually a proposal -- made by Nasr El-Qaffas, bureau chief of Al-Ahram office in Algeria. In the independent Al- Masri Al-Youm of Sunday, El-Qaffas argued that the president was acting in a way that indicates hesitation as to whether he will run for a new term in office. Should the president refrain, the writer argued, there is no reason why Gamal, his politically groomed son, should not run. And if someone else decides to run, "then there is nothing wrong with considering Gamal Mubarak for the post of vice-president. After all, he has political exposure and the training which nobody else has access to."
