ONE of many problems with Mubarak's regime was the lack of transparency. An unpleasant symptom of this was that people often failed to have their questions about the decision-making process answered. Since the recent revolution, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has been in control of the country. It has assured the public that it fully supports the revolution and that it is committed to ruling for a transitional period of six months, after which it will hand over authority to a civilian ruler, to be chosen by the people in free, transparent elections. The revolutionaries entirely trust the SCAF and all the Armed Forces. Since appearing on the streets on January 28, they haven't fired a single round at the public and have worked hard to restore law and order. However, there are still the same complaints about a lack of transparency on certain issues, especially concerning the ousted President, his family and some of his senior aides. Mubarak, his son Gamal and top National Democratic Party officials have yet to be questioned and tried, despite all the news about their having been up to their necks in corruption. Similarly, no-one has explained the suspicious presence of Mubarak in his long favourite resort area of Sharm el-Sheikh and the protection he and his family continue to enjoy there. Nor have the other people who sabotaged political life in Egypt for three decades been referred to trial. They include Safwat el-Sherif, the former head of the Shura Council and the NDP's Secretary-General; Fathi Sorour, the Speaker of the People's Assembly; and Zakariya Azmi, the former head of the presidential office. All there were heavily involved in corruption. The ambiguity surrounding Mubarak and these other senior, tainted figures could undercut the trust that citizens have for the SCAF, which shouldn't underestimate the possible pressure from other Arab rulers to have the toppled Egyptian leader held to account for the crimes he committed.
