About OUFI

My photo
London, United Kingdom
Welcome to my Blog. This Blog provides a platform for free expressions on issues of importance that appeal to the independent mind. Matters of political, moral and social concern, that may agree with or contravenes our free and well-intentioned thinking, have free reign on this blog. Friends and colleagues can express and respect different opinions on current or historical issues that at times may run counter to established worldview. “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire

Friday, 5 July 2013

A stateless Egypt


A stateless nation as Egypt today is a rudderless nation with no aim in sight but a blurred political landscape for a perspective.  For now, it lacks a legitimate constitution to steer it through these turbulent and uncharted waters.  With the employment of military force used to oust a democratically elected president is, in my view, an illegal act that borders on criminal ramification. It is an act of recoil of inalienable Rights of the majority.   Democracy has legitimised the office of president from the chaos that had prevailed previously and that legitimacy was the product of the ballot box.  The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) won a fair contest.  To all observers, it was judged as honest and lawful under the auspices of a carefully laid out constitution.  Unless a voting procedure makes the ousting of the same president by the electorate or some other electoral means that that law allows, then no other power can legitimately cut short the term of this presidency.  In the absence of such procedures, President Mohamed Morsi, should continue to enjoy the recognition as president of Egypt until the end of his tenure of office.  Indeed, it is incumbent upon him to do so.



Democracy, especially in Egypt, gained after an exhaustive struggle by brave young idealists and radicals alike represented a gigantic step towards modernity.  Egypt was rising from the ashes of autocracy and despotism like a phoenix of once a great nation.  Egypt under its new colours of Freedom and independence needed to live by the rules it set itself.  Breaking those rules to allow the military a say is a regressive step of apocalyptic proportions in need of urgent damage limitation.  Not to like a policy in the making, during a term of office, is not a Right to coerce the majority of the people through the barrel of a gun, or to suddenly posit an opting out clause mid-term.   Democracy allows for reform or even change of policy carried out by lobbying or persuasions or other constitutionally allowable processes.  By such due process, an avoidable error can be remedied without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Those who voted for MB rightly thought that Morsi’s government was for them including all that what MB’s party policies may entail.  This situation is not dissimilar to any political party voted into office throughout the Democratic world.  Although, Democracy by its nature can leave a minority deprived of a say, it also opens the door to many avenues for reform.  ‘Safety valves’ such as Pressure groups, Petitions, Lobbyists and so on, can bring pressure to bear on all governing parties.   




With passion running high in the mind and hearts of a Middle Eastern Arab, such as the Egyptians, can indeed lead to violence which is looking a very likely consequence.  Events, as they unfold, in the next few days will show.  Unfortunately the wishes of the majority, as a clear result of the election, won fairly through a democratic process, have been prized away with their headquarters in ruins, their leadership in tatters and their president under house arrest.   The honeymoon was far too short for any president let alone for one coming through the autocracy of Mubarak's regime.  They have a right to be angry.  Hopefully, this anger can be thwarted by concern above all else for unity and solidarity for purposes of saving a nation.


Doubts will hang over the legitimacy of the government that may eventually evolve out of this commotion are inevitable. However, since the Army, hopefully, only temporarily, at centre stage of power, it will need to accede its will to form an independent and autonomous legislature.  To be trustworthy in setting, once again; derailing the  course of democracy.  A linear process untrammelled by encumbrances or coercive influences.  So that to prioritise processes of law in all branches of government the army must take heed to all concerns of the majority for a bright political corridor to democratic rule.  The artificial symbol of the politically inexperienced interim president looks temporarily inept, not exactly conducive to tranquillity and calm.  At best this is a stillborn presidency.  The flying of overhead jet-streams is weak efforts at conciliation which will fool only some.  More importantly, however, many questions must now be asked which the army under equal obligation must answer; what are the new rules of government, who sets them, as to whether a hegemonic military force will impose such new laws.  Will the Military impose its rules not to undermine any constitutional guarantees to govern and safeguard the constitution?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Freddie, you are stating that it was wrong to have removed Mursi from the presidency because he was democratically elected. That may be true but the majority of those that elected him did not and still do not understand what is meant by democracy and until such time, Egypt will remain stateless.

Democracy is a means for the people to choose their leaders and to hold their leaders accountable for their policies and their conduct in office. I am sure you acknowledge this. Mursi and the brotherhood were held accountable because they were leading the country into the abyss and another dictatorship just like Iraq.

OUFI said...

Dear Anonymous,
You say “The majority of those that elected him did not and still do not understand what is meant by democracy” I am not so sure how you can arrive at this conclusion. What authority or reference to gives you such certainty of that being the case?

Even if your statement is valid, I clearly say in the article, Democracy demonstrates that it is a people’s government – by the people for the people. It has the mechanism to allow reform and revision. To topple a democratic government at first sign of dissatisfaction is throwing away a whole system of government without learning from it or seeing how it can grow organically; argument and persuasion.

Whether you can call those at high office leaders or representatives they are obliged to carry out their party’s promises. As I see it, in Egypt’s case, Moslem Brotherhood were voted into office because of what they represent- Islam, and its ideology and beliefs. Maybe because, as you insinuate above, the majority of the voting public were too ignorant to know what other policies the party were carrying, the fundamental fact remains; the voters sought the principle diktat of the party, which is the Sharia Law. Those on the outside cannot sit in judgment to the right or wrong use of a voting right but respect the vote made, prima facia, in good faith.

You say “they were leading the country into the abyss”. I say, that is far too speculative and in the light of my argument the honeymoon allowed was far too short for any substantial benefit yet to be felt.

Anonymous said...

Your comments are based on a personal opinion rather than on the facts being relayed by the various respectable news channels and newspapers.

OUFI said...

Which part of my reply do you feel as just an opinion?. Before we start to get bogged down away from the subject I am not sure whether correspondent's reports are facts but perspectives on how they see things. Each correspondent build his/her own landscape that they present to their viewers/listeners.

Anonymous said...

Well several correspondents are on site and report the matter first hand. Its not like one part if correct and another is not. Democracy as you and I know it did not, does not and will not exist in the Middle East. Perhaps in a couple hundred years. I cannot put it more clearly.

OUFI said...

Dear Anonymous,

I am not sure who you are but you seem to have the capricious indulgence of moving the goal post. I am lost as to how to respond and which item to respond to; as a consequence we are not going anywhere towards the argument.

You have included me in your general and rather dramatic sweeping statements but I don’t think I have at any time given any hint of my speculative ideas. Nor have I been dogmatic enough to encourage ideas or to substantiate speculation as facts. In the meantime, however, let me remind you that eye witnesses can differ in their subjective experiences of observed incidents. No matter how impartial they may think they are; their narratives would inevitably include culturally induced biases and or discriminatory interests. As to whether Democracy will even exist soon or in “couple hundred years” I leave that to a clairvoyant with a crystal ball in absence of an infallible source. All the same this is immaterial and a meaningless exercise to consider as these are quite sweeping statements hopelessly disguised as facts; no matter how clearly you put speculation, their clarity will not morph them into facts.