In a matter of within 24 hours, Egypt’s Mubarak lost his grip on power and resigned from his presidency, with the military assuming power in interim. While the protesting project erupted into a euphoria and many leaders around the world welcomed the change of regime, the future is not necessarily as rosy as many would hope for.
The most powerful force driving this turn of events is certainly not the US whose attitude seemed to be swaying day by day. It may not be the protesting mass either, if not with military support, and in fact the political power has fallen into military hands for the moment. There is no way for outsiders to fathom the political dealings behind the scenes, but the fact that the military has taken over seems to suggest that the military has been exerting great power. How may one otherwise explain why the power wasn’t handed over to the newly created vice-presidency? It is common practice in many countries that the vice-president (or someone else in the government as nominated by the constitution) would assume the role of a president when the president fails to fulfil his/her duty, but what has happened in Egypt has defied this convention. So has the role of the vice-president been usurped by the military? Although the military has maintained that it would stay in power only up to the upcoming general election, there is no guarantee that it will do so especially when no one is really able to exert pressure on it apart from foreign powers. This whole episode is in a way a bloodless military coup in disguise, although very few people and media outlets like to face up to such a reality. After all, Mubarak did have a mandate through the last ‘election’ and the ousting of an elected government by the military is normally met with all-round condemnation.
Throughout the protests, there has not been a single leader or group of leaders that was powerful enough to stand and lead from the crowd and be a formidable opponent to the Egyptian government. It has been suggested at the beginning of the protests that the only unifying theme among the opposition parties is the ousting of Mubarak, but beyond that they do not appear to have common political themes or philosophies. Had Mubarak fallen abruptly and violently, there might have been a political vacuum according to those analysts. So who in Egypt has the might to fill the shoes of the fallen regime who has been in power for over 30 years?
If the general election is to go ahead in September as scheduled, some already believes that Mubarak’s allies and officials can simply re-brand themselves and will probably win the election given their political resources. However, as election results cannot be controlled (in a fair and open election, at least) how will the international community react if the Egyptian people have elected the Muslim Brotherhood which aims to resurrect fundamental Islamic values and is generally considered anti-Western world? Will the Western governments then isolate Egypt as they have to Palestine which has elected Hamas in the last election?
I do not intend to condone Mubarak in any way, but I simply want to point out that many people and media outlets have been a little too optimistic and simplistic in their views on Egypt’s future post-Mubarak. They seem to be oblivious to how treacherous the status quo and the way to the future are. There is still a long way to go and the Egyptian people will have to work hard for their ultimate goals.
埃及的穆巴拉克在短短24小時內，由無意退位到自動呈辭，政府由軍方接管，轉變之快果然出人意表，示威民眾欣喜若狂，多國領袖表示歡迎，但明天是否一定更好？
能帶來這次改變的，相信不是在事件上舉棋不定的美國，最大功臣也不一定是人民力量，而是埃及軍方，現時政權更是落在其手中，當中有甚麼政治交易外人不會不清楚，但從政權交接的安排來看，軍方必定有不弱的影響，要不然為何不交棒給新委任的副總統蘇萊曼？一般國家，如果總統不能履行職務，通常都由副總統（或政府內其他屬下）暫時接任，埃及這個舉動看來有乖常理，副總統是不是被軍方架空？雖然軍方說過不會長期執政，但政治這東西很少說得定，實權在軍方手中，軍方想做甚麼，相信沒甚麼人控制得了，除非有外國介入。說得實在一點，這是一場不流血政變，不過大部份人和國際傳媒都對之視而不見——說到底穆巴拉克是經「選舉」選出來的，軍方上場取代民選政權通常換來的是四方譴責！
多日示威，反對派沒有一個或一班有力的領袖統領大軍，沒有政治力量和政府匹敵，觀乎當年八九，學運領袖不祇有號召力，連中央也要接見他們！示威之始，就已有人提出，反對派唯一共同點，就是推翻穆巴拉克，但再沒其他，萬一穆巴拉克倒台，埃及便會因為不能推舉新領導而出現權力真空。究竟埃及會有甚麼新的政治力量衝擊和改變維持了30餘年的政治現狀？
如果埃及的確按原定於9月大選，已有評論說穆巴拉克的黨羽大可改頭換面，捲土重來，但選舉結果往往出人意表，如果由主張伊斯蘭復興、立場反西方的伊斯蘭兄弟黨上場，國際社會又會有甚麼反應？西方會不會像巴勒斯坦人選出哈馬斯後把巴勒斯坦政府封殺般如法炮製？
我無意維護穆巴拉克，但很多人和傳媒把事情看得太美好，以為變天過後，埃及將會迎來更好的將來，卻看不到眼前的現狀和路途有多險惡，埃及將來如何，就要靠埃及人民共創了。
The most powerful force driving this turn of events is certainly not the US whose attitude seemed to be swaying day by day. It may not be the protesting mass either, if not with military support, and in fact the political power has fallen into military hands for the moment. There is no way for outsiders to fathom the political dealings behind the scenes, but the fact that the military has taken over seems to suggest that the military has been exerting great power. How may one otherwise explain why the power wasn’t handed over to the newly created vice-presidency? It is common practice in many countries that the vice-president (or someone else in the government as nominated by the constitution) would assume the role of a president when the president fails to fulfil his/her duty, but what has happened in Egypt has defied this convention. So has the role of the vice-president been usurped by the military? Although the military has maintained that it would stay in power only up to the upcoming general election, there is no guarantee that it will do so especially when no one is really able to exert pressure on it apart from foreign powers. This whole episode is in a way a bloodless military coup in disguise, although very few people and media outlets like to face up to such a reality. After all, Mubarak did have a mandate through the last ‘election’ and the ousting of an elected government by the military is normally met with all-round condemnation.
Throughout the protests, there has not been a single leader or group of leaders that was powerful enough to stand and lead from the crowd and be a formidable opponent to the Egyptian government. It has been suggested at the beginning of the protests that the only unifying theme among the opposition parties is the ousting of Mubarak, but beyond that they do not appear to have common political themes or philosophies. Had Mubarak fallen abruptly and violently, there might have been a political vacuum according to those analysts. So who in Egypt has the might to fill the shoes of the fallen regime who has been in power for over 30 years?
If the general election is to go ahead in September as scheduled, some already believes that Mubarak’s allies and officials can simply re-brand themselves and will probably win the election given their political resources. However, as election results cannot be controlled (in a fair and open election, at least) how will the international community react if the Egyptian people have elected the Muslim Brotherhood which aims to resurrect fundamental Islamic values and is generally considered anti-Western world? Will the Western governments then isolate Egypt as they have to Palestine which has elected Hamas in the last election?
I do not intend to condone Mubarak in any way, but I simply want to point out that many people and media outlets have been a little too optimistic and simplistic in their views on Egypt’s future post-Mubarak. They seem to be oblivious to how treacherous the status quo and the way to the future are. There is still a long way to go and the Egyptian people will have to work hard for their ultimate goals.
埃及的穆巴拉克在短短24小時內，由無意退位到自動呈辭，政府由軍方接管，轉變之快果然出人意表，示威民眾欣喜若狂，多國領袖表示歡迎，但明天是否一定更好？
能帶來這次改變的，相信不是在事件上舉棋不定的美國，最大功臣也不一定是人民力量，而是埃及軍方，現時政權更是落在其手中，當中有甚麼政治交易外人不會不清楚，但從政權交接的安排來看，軍方必定有不弱的影響，要不然為何不交棒給新委任的副總統蘇萊曼？一般國家，如果總統不能履行職務，通常都由副總統（或政府內其他屬下）暫時接任，埃及這個舉動看來有乖常理，副總統是不是被軍方架空？雖然軍方說過不會長期執政，但政治這東西很少說得定，實權在軍方手中，軍方想做甚麼，相信沒甚麼人控制得了，除非有外國介入。說得實在一點，這是一場不流血政變，不過大部份人和國際傳媒都對之視而不見——說到底穆巴拉克是經「選舉」選出來的，軍方上場取代民選政權通常換來的是四方譴責！
多日示威，反對派沒有一個或一班有力的領袖統領大軍，沒有政治力量和政府匹敵，觀乎當年八九，學運領袖不祇有號召力，連中央也要接見他們！示威之始，就已有人提出，反對派唯一共同點，就是推翻穆巴拉克，但再沒其他，萬一穆巴拉克倒台，埃及便會因為不能推舉新領導而出現權力真空。究竟埃及會有甚麼新的政治力量衝擊和改變維持了30餘年的政治現狀？
如果埃及的確按原定於9月大選，已有評論說穆巴拉克的黨羽大可改頭換面，捲土重來，但選舉結果往往出人意表，如果由主張伊斯蘭復興、立場反西方的伊斯蘭兄弟黨上場，國際社會又會有甚麼反應？西方會不會像巴勒斯坦人選出哈馬斯後把巴勒斯坦政府封殺般如法炮製？
我無意維護穆巴拉克，但很多人和傳媒把事情看得太美好，以為變天過後，埃及將會迎來更好的將來，卻看不到眼前的現狀和路途有多險惡，埃及將來如何，就要靠埃及人民共創了。
Comments