The Abbasiya clashes may be the clearest warning yet that Egypt has a long way to go before stability is regained, writes Ayman El-Amir* It is not unusual that revolutionary change is initially chaotic, bloody and confused. This is particularly true when the action is undertaken by agitated crowds representing every political trend rather than by a disciplined military coup hatched by close conspirators. It is not uncommon, either, that the revolution by the masses turns upon itself and starts feeding upon its own to protect itself against a conceived counter-revolution or internal dissension. The common metaphor is that of a cat that devours its kittens out of fear of a present and imminent danger. It would swallow them back in order to protect them. The so-called Arab Spring has gone berserk, devouring its friends and foes alike, not so much because of fear of the counter-revolution but because one faction wants to steer the nation in its own direction. As a consequence, an environment of chaos is deliberately incited and revolutionary change is disrupted or misdirected. This is what happened in several episodes of the Arab Spring. The Egyptian revolution is a case in point. The magic of it all is that it was spontaneous. It was not planned by one particular faction, but originally conceived as a mass protest, not a revolution, yet everyone participated in unfurling it. Islamists of all shades waited for a few days to ascertain that the protest movement had gathered irreversible momentum and then stomped on the stage. They had in their ammunition decades of underground planning, political and military training, indoctrination, funds and a sympathetic following by oppressed believers. Hosni Mubarak's police state regime had kept them, and every other serious opposition, off balance. The Muslim Brotherhood in particular had no official status since it was abolished in 1948 following the assassination of former prime minister Mahmoud Fahmi Al-Nouqrashi, which was traced back to the Brotherhood. The freedom the Brotherhood felt after the success of the 2011 revolution encouraged every other religious group who had hitherto no political agenda to develop one. Most of them gained political legitimacy after post-revolution parliamentary elections granted them power in the legislature. The Brotherhood and the Salafist Al-Nour Party controlled, by electoral default, 70 per cent of parliamentary seats. Then the sky became the limit to political ambition. Islamists who had arbitrarily been banned from political action in Arab countries are no ordinary opposition. They are in opposition to anyone and any movement that does not share their dream of a theocratic state. Like old communist parties of yore, discipline, obedience and rigid ideology kept the group cohesive, with unquestionable reverence for the top leadership. There was little room for debate or disagreement since the leadership claimed monopoly of the interpretation of the word of God or, for the other side, of Marxism-Leninism. For the countries and peoples of Eastern Europe the challenge of modernity, better standards of living and greater freedom achieved by the capitalist West forced change. For Islamists, the failure of borrowed socialism, nationalism and modernism left the people with backward monarchies that manipulated the faith of Islam to bestow legitimacy upon their dominion. Further decline, the failure of political reform and sub-standard rates of development only served to produce hard-core radicalism and violence perpetrated by Al-Qaeda but not limited to it. In other countries of the Arab Spring the spread of chaos was the norm. In Tunisia, the state of emergency was declared for the fifth time since former president Zein Al-Abidine bin Ali fled the country in January 2011. Demonstrations and protests involved many sectors of society for a variety of reasons, starting with unemployment and demands for salary increments, all the way to protests by media staff because of restrictions on the freedom of the press. Protests and tribal warfare flared in Libya and clashes were reported in Benghazi, where the revolution first erupted, as well as other cities. This led to the postponement of elections for the General Nation Congress scheduled for this month. Unrest continues in Yemen, not so much because of the infiltration of Al-Qaeda but more because the Saudi- sponsored Arab Initiative was a piece of patchwork that allowed former president Ali Abdallah Saleh, and members of his family whom he appointed to key positions, to get away with murder. Syria and Bahrain, with vast differences in the intensity and scale of the revolution, are still far from conclusive victory. Revolutions are never perfect, but some are more imperfect than others. The revolution in Egypt has changed hands and, in the process, unleashed conflicting forces, from thugs to theocrats. The fight for power shifted from street battles to court battles. Of all these battles, the bizarre case of Salafist presidential candidate Hazem Salah Abu Ismail stands out. By offering his candidacy to the Presidential Elections Commission (PEC) he also certified that neither one of his parents held any foreign nationality -- a requirement of eligibility. It soon turned out that his deceased mother had been a naturalized US citizen for six years and she voted in the 2008 presidential elections in California. This was enough not only to disqualify Abu Ismail but also potentially to bring him to face criminal charges of presenting a false affidavit. He strongly denied the fact that his late mother carried a US passport, claiming that it was a "US conspiracy to divide the nation". As planned, his statement was enough to agitate his supporters. The case took a weird turn, with the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood demanding the amendment of Article 28 of the Constitutional Declaration adopted in March 2011, to strip PEC of immunity against appeals on its decisions -- a motion they had rejected earlier in parliament. In the spirit of confusing the purposes of the revolution, religious zealots demonstrated to force-change the law in favour of one candidate. The bloody clashes in Abbasiya a week ago gathered everyone who could find a place on the bandwagon: Islamists, thugs, anarchists, jobless youth, hired hoodlums and pro-Mubarak riot squads. Like other riots before it, victims fell, hundreds of injured were rushed to hospitals and barbs were exchanged on TV talk shows and via newspaper statements throughout the nation. If this were the French Revolution of 1789, thousands upon thousands would have been sent to the guillotine to be executed on charges of treason, depending on whose point of view carried the day. That a counter-revolution has been brewing for 13 months is hard to dismiss. Historical evidence from the 19th century and the last 50 years points to the fact that the rise of Egypt could be seriously detrimental to some neighbouring countries that thrive on maintaining the status quo. That is why some of these countries are not completely innocent of plans to foil the Egyptian revolution and return the Mubarak regime to power. When the flags of these countries are raised in Tahrir Square demonstrations it is something to worry about. Like other Arab countries that hatched successful revolutions, Egypt is caught between a commitment to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to peaceful gathering and protest, and the need to contain perpetrated violence. The former are new values that have still to pass the test of time and experience. The preponderance of religious and ultraorthodox doctrines that have emerged as a secretive means of resistance to autocratic rule in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia has given Islamic indoctrination a firm social and political standing. So did years of Wahhabi instruction for millions of Egyptians who flocked to Saudi Arabia for gainful employment. Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are facing the difficult challenge of building democratic institutions that can be embraced by the majority of the people. With poverty, ignorance, unemployment and political subterfuge reigning, and religious power so ambitious, stability will take years to attain. Now that the thin line between revolutionary zeal and chaos has been crossed it will be difficult to restore and sustain. Tradition takes years and generations to build, respect and maintain. For those who believe that the election of a new president and adopting a new constitution is all it will take to restore law and order, think again. * The writer is former corespondent of Al-Ahram in Washington, DC, and former director of the UN Radio and Television in New York.
