Some facts are hard to face. And when it comes to the 25 January Revolution, there is no shortage of painful facts around. Take, for example, the Friday of Reclaiming the Revolution, as the protesters called it. The name, for starters, is misleading. Do we really have a revolution to reclaim? All we've done so far is change the head of the regime; everything else is more or less the same. So whom are we reclaiming the revolution from? Are we reclaiming it from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) or from the government? And while the errors of both the SCAF and the government are not in short supply, who is going to do the reclaiming? The obvious answer is that the revolutionaries should reclaim the revolution, right? Now this is easier said than done. For one thing, the revolutionaries have split up into so many parties and coalitions that one loses count. Everywhere you look, you'll see mercenaries posing as revolutionaries , even saying all the right things, although we know they hardly mean any of it . The real revolutionaries, the young ones who started it all, the ones who -- with wisdom far beyond their years -- gave credit to the entire nation for their work, are hard to find in the midst of it all. The revolution made us optimistic. But that was when the youth was taking the lead. Once they retreated from the scene, once they were upstaged by zillions of alliances, coalitions, and fronts, things changed. One wonders if it is still possible for the revolution to be reclaimed by its true leaders, by the whole of the nation that is, or is it lost forever? Have you noticed that the numbers of people going to Friday protests have been dwindling? Have you noticed that many ordinary people no longer want this kind of protest to go on? Also, have you noticed that the conduct of some of the protesters is unbecoming to say the least? The Friday of Reclaiming the Revolution was not without merit, and the demands the protesters made are quite valid. Take, for example, the protesters' objection to the extension of the state of emergency, their request for elections exclusively on the lists system -- aside from the fact that it is constitutionally questionable -- and their demand for a timetable for the handover of power. These are all good demands, and the SCAF was right to listen, albeit belatedly as usual. In reaction to the above demands, the SCAF called a number of party leaders for consultation. The meeting ended in some progress being made, as on the amendment of Article Five of the elections law to allow parties to compete for single seats as well as lists. The dates for convening the People's Assembly and the Shura Council were moved forward. Furthermore, the SCAF agreed to work towards a Code of Honour to govern the selection of the Constitutive Assembly that will write the constitution. It promised to examine ending the state of emergency and to consider imposing a political ban on key figures of the disbanded National Democratic Party. Admittedly, the SCAF didn't react to all demands. Often it promised to consider some things rather than do them right away. This, in turn, set off another round of grievances. Those who were not invited to the meeting lashed out at those who went, and those who signed the final statement had to justify their action. Some even went ahead and withdrew their signatures. It was all a pitiable scene, one of rivalry and one-upmanship, not of calm reason and mature judgement. To make things worse, the country remains haunted by an endless spate of industrial protests. Bus drivers pressing professional demands took their grievances to Qasr Al-Aini Street and blocked it for a while. Tourism workers in Upper Egypt, who you would think would be worried about their jobs, started blocking the very sites tourists come to see. In Luxor, news reports spoke of cruise boat employees threatening to sell off their boat's furniture in an auction. In Aswan, museum workers closed the Nubia Museum for days. On the West Bank of Luxor, inhabitants blocked a main road leading to the Valley of the King and held a tourist bus up for hours. Wherever you look, lawlessness is winning. A legal debate concerning a church building permit has spawned a full-fledged sectarian incident that we could have done without. It seems that the whole thing started with an irresponsible imam who called from the pulpit of his mosque for the church to be demolished. Then the army failed to intervene, and the police dragged its feet. When the Aswan governor was asked by television interviewers if any arrests were made, he didn't seem to get it. "You know how reckless young people can be," was his only answer. What kind of message is this? Is he telling the public at large that one can be above the law so long as one is young and reckless? By Sunday night, there was blood in Cairo streets as the army clashed with Coptic protesters. According to initial figures, 25 people were killed. The army responded by reinforcing the state of emergency. So much for goodwill between the public and the army. So now our problems are not confined to lawlessness. There is a lack of trust and transparency between those who are in power and the rest of the nation, revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries included. The future looks uncertain and one wonders if elections are going to give us any respite.
