Current religious tensions in Egypt could be described by some as chaos. I, however, see it as an initial sign that something radical is taking place in Egypt. These bubbles rising to the surface have been suppressed for many years. Perhaps they are rising now in a desperate attempt for attention before they explode. It is normal that many years of silence would result in persistent demonstrations with an endless list of demands. These demands belong not only to today, but are decades of unsettled issues that were deliberately ignored by the former regime, which thought that by ignoring the issues people would forget. As it turned out, the former regime was wrong. Years ago Egyptians wouldn't date take to the streets with this determination. They underestimated their own power. But now, they cannot maintain their previous silence. The unrest in Qena prevails as one of those bubbles coming to the surface simply because their root causes have not been solved in the past. There is more to the story than a city denouncing its governor due to his religious identity alone. We are facing mentalities that festered amid the former regime's deliberate attempts to create division among the people. The government now must give attention to this problem. All scenarios of resolving the Qena crisis are faces by potential threats that call for sufficient vigilance by Egypt's decision-makers. That is, if the government has decided the easier solution is to substitute Qena's Coptic governor with a Muslim one will satisfy the people's demands. In that case, the government should expect a series of uprisings stirred by those who are not content with their governors, let along the massive numbers of Copts who will denounce being stripped of their rights and treated as minorities. According to the ideology of those calling for a Muslim governor, minorities should take a side seat. However, what democracy means is that there are no majorities or minorities. Every citizen is equal regardless of their share of the population and should be given full rights. Thus, the government will create a series of uprisings if it resorts to the easy – and temporary – solution, because while responding to people's demands it will be destructing the powerful image of the state that should be maintained in peoples' minds. Taking the easy road would be an implicit message that blocking daily life could bring the intended results, but it also shows that minorities can take extreme power based on the power of their protests. Ironically, some have justified their motives behind closing roads as the only effective way for their voices to be heard. This shows a lack of trust in the current interim government. The other possible scenario is for the government to appoint another Coptic governor, which I think is best. It will assert the rights of the Christians to be represented and at the same time ease the governorate's worries of having a governor tied to Mubarak's regime. If, however, citizens are calling for the current governor to be removed only because he is Coptic, they are lacking knowledge of the true meaning of democracy, and satisfying their demands is a folly that cannot be justified by any means. The third scenario, which has already been enacted, is to halt the governor's activities for three months. This will give the government time to sense the residents' reaction. But after the tree months, will they chose the rational decision? The justification by some that two successive Christian governors have not added real value to the governorate is absurd. My reply to this is that it prevails to misleading generalizations and should also raise the question of the performance of Muslim governors. Some also ask, “Why must Qena fulfill the quota for Coptic governors?” My response is that no one is gaining at the expense of another. Anyone who is qualified should be allowed the opportunity, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. It is not part of Islam to exclude someone due to religion. All religions once lived in harmony – what happened? The truth is, this is a product of the old regime, which planted seeds of sectarian tension, and we've taken care of the rest. If they succeeded in splintering the nation into fractions to distract them from ongoing corruption, we participated by leaving the door open for them to manipulate us. In conclusion, it seems some have taken the responsibility of suppressing citizens even though the old regime is gone. Ironically, the former regime transmitted a disastrous way of thinking to certain segments of citizens' minds, particularly regarding religion. The former regime has succeeded in fragmenting our efforts to unify even though it is gone. Yet sometimes democracy requires denying some demands which are unjustified, no matter how many they are or how disastrous the consequences in the short-term. Hence, illegitimate demands from the public should put no more pressure on the government. BM
