The noise from pro and anti-government camps is drowning out calm voices, writes Dina Ezzat With the nation caught up in a heated debate over the prospects of political reforms -- or the lack thereof -- it becomes impossible to expect the press to be anything but a reflection of a tense period that could herald troubling times ahead. With the weekend demonstrations, the banner headlines of a large segment of the Egyptian press -- the semi-official almost excluded -- captured the recent and growing confrontation between the government and opposition on the left and right. The headlines became the markers that defined the pro-government, anti- government and the in-between camp. Naturally, on the pro-government side were the semi-official newspapers and some independent publications. They chose to all but ignore the news of demonstrations and to minimise the issue, or to report in a seemingly straightforward matter which all the same indicated sympathy with the government. Interestingly, the daily Al-Ahrar of the opposition party, at least in theory, seemed to be taking a middle of the road approach along with the weeklies Sawt Al-Umma and Al-Osbou. "The battle to the presidential elections started with demonstrations by the Muslim Brotherhood and the [ruling] National Democratic Party and a play by Ayman Nour" was the headline of Sawt Al-Umma on Sunday. The paper offered its readers facts and figures that indicated mutual sympathy with both government and opposition. Excluded from this safe approach of even-handedness was the highly controversial leader of Al-Ghad Party, Ayman Nour who was accused by Sawt Al-Umma of attempting to win unmerited public sympathy by projecting the image of the political martyr. Meanwhile, the weeklies Al-Arabi of the Nassserist Party and Al-Ahali of Al-Tagammu Party, along with the daily Al-Wafd -- albeit to a lesser extent -- reflected the sense of political anxiety that appears on the rise. "The first martyr in the war of democracy... killed by security rubber bullets and gas bombs" was the headline of Al-Arabi on Sunday, referring to a demonstrator who died during the protests. The sense of polarisation was reflected in the headlines and even more in the opinion pieces of writers on both sides of the spectrum. Mohamed Abdel-Moneim, editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine Rose El-Youssef , took the liberty of qualifying as anti-patriotic close to 15,000 Egyptians, mostly members of the Muslim Brotherhood and a few belonging to the Kefaya, or Enough, movement, who demonstrated on the weekend to demand more political liberties. "Those who organised and participated in these demonstrations are a group of hyper- anarchists who support terrorism and use it as a means to access power," Abdel-Moneim wrote. According to the three-page article the demonstrators have no aim but to incite instability. Simultaneously, and indirectly, Abdel-Moneim expressed sympathy with the few hundred members of the ruling National Democratic Party who also demonstrated over the weekend in support of the regime. On the opinion pages of Al-Arabi, Ambassador Amin Youssri offered an equally harsh criticism of the ruling NDP regime that he called simply inept. "This regime is unable to see the big picture. It cannot see what is going on around it, neither in the country nor the region... This regime is taking the current state of explosive anger in Egypt lightly... Meanwhile, [for lack of supporters] it is knocking on Israel's door," Youssri wrote. But between those who cried treason and those in dismay there were sobering remarks made by some. In a short but impressive interview run by the weekly magazine Al-Ahram Al-Arabi, leading judiciary figure Tareq El- Bishri urged sanity. "The fact of the matter is that the people have clear demands related to the guarantees of the performance of political parties and public movements within the framework of legitimacy and national interests as perceived by people with all its varying hues," El- Bishri told Al-Ahram Al-Arabi. According to El-Bishri what the people hope to get is something that neither relates to "the superficial American calls for democracy or the equally superficial concepts of democracy offered by some of those who enjoy affluence and power in our country." The debate over the demonstrations was only one element of a heavily polarised government- vs-opposition argument that covered other developments including the amendment of Article 76 of the constitution to allow for the first-ever multi-candidate presidential elections. There too the vast majority of commentators were polarised: the government which projected as truly revolutionary and democratic the amendment, and the opposition columnists insisting that the amendment was void of any genuine move towards democratisation. Here again were the few calm voices who tried to see in the dark and highlight the not-so- dark side of the picture. In his weekly column "Free Margins" in the Friday supplement of Al-Ahram poet/ commentator Farouk Gweida argued that the amendment of Article 76 of the constitution is "a historic opportunity... but". According to Gweida it is historic because it takes the nation from a plebiscite to multi-candidate elections. The "but" he argued has to do with the collective ability of Egyptians to truly make it a move towards genuine, not superficial change. For the amendment to be meaningful, Gweida argued, the government will need to allow more liberties for civil society, professional syndicates and university student unions. But, he quickly added, the opposition party would also have to shape up. (Gweida would later suffer a heart attack and be hospitalised following interrogation by security officials over a recent column). Next week, the debate is likely to continue. As this week's press indicated, Kefaya and the Muslim Brotherhood are scheduling a new round of demonstrations. Security, the press also said, is stepping up its preventive measures. Polarisation seems set to intensify. It is not clear whether sobriety will have enough advocates.
