After the Egyptian military removed former Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, clashes with security forces and supporters of Morsi have occurred since his removal. When I read the reports of these clashes I get the impression that the Military who is now in charge of the country till democratic elections take place within a year, are becoming aggressive towards the protesters who support Morsi. In the beginning of the protest that took place on the 30th of June, I was in favor for the people to voice their concern against the government that Morsi was in control of. The country has seen high unemployment and little progress was being done under Morsi’s administration. The basic utilities that are need to move around and provide living were very limited to the Egyptian people. Making the millions of protesters who demand his ouster justified in their cause.
First off, I truly believe that every human being no matter what country they reside in have the right to stand up against a government which has done little to help and support his/her people. Once Morsi entered into Egypts head of government, he immediately began to consolidate majority of the power to himself. Instead of creating a constitution with minority leaders involved in those talks, the country quickly passed one without any input from minority leaders. How can a new democratic nation be called democratic if not everyone is involved in the talks of the country’s constitution?
With one year of President Morsi’s government the majority of the Egyptian people went back to Tahir Square and voiced their concern for their country and what they demanded. The military then stepped in a gave Morsi a 48 hour timeline to heed the demands of the people or be removed by the military. A key note that I would like to make is that General Sisi who ordered the military to take Morsi out of power was actually appointed by the former president. Majority of Egyptians praised the military for intervening and removing Morsi from power.
However, now we are seeing the same military who answered the call for the people, now violating the rights of the supporters of Morsi as we are told by the media. After Morsi was removed those loyal to him stated that they will draw blood to have Morsi placed back into power. Also Morsi who is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood was once consider as a terrorist organization by the United States. However, after the elections that took place after Honsni Mubarak was oust as well, the United States government continued its pledge to Morsi in aid. The military removing Morsi has been classified as a coup by the Western media as well as Western countries. The United States has yet to classify it as a coup but has juggled with the idea of cutting of aid to the nation.
I personally do not support any military that would turn its weapons on its own people. The sole purpose of the military is to protect it’s nation from foreign and domestic terrorist. Is it possible that before we place blame on one side that we look at everything as a whole? What if supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are trying to create an outlook on the military as the attackers? Reports of attacks occurring in the city of Sinai in Egypt have been executed by Islamic militants. So why would these Islamic militants not be in the crowds with the supporters of Morsi? Creating clashes between the military and civilians is a perfect way to dismiss the temporary government that the military has set up till elections take place.
Now the military has selected a group of prosecutors and minority leaders and handed them the task of creating the new constitution for Egypt followed by democratic elections in a year. The military as well as those involved in the creation of the new constitution have stated that they would welcome members of the Brotherhood to take place in the talks. If the military was truly trying to persecute members of the Islamic faith why would they open the door for them to participate in the talks for the new constitution?
However, in Tunisia the people have went to the streets as well after the assassination of an opposition figured named Mohamed Brahmi and another political figure six months ago by the name of Chokri Belaid. The government in Tunisia is also led by an Islamist government and have done little to investigate the murders of these two political figures. So can it be possible that we are jumping the gun in placing blame on one side before we look at it from another angel. Why is it that the Brotherhood does not want to join in the talks for reestablishing the government of Egypt?
I truly believe that Egypt can reach a place where each and every group in Egypt is represented in the body of the government. However, supporters of Morsi have already made up their mind that negotiations will not happen because they want Morsi back in power. The concerns of other Egyptians who are not part of the Brotherhood are not their concern. Once the military took over the shortage of gas and electricity was no longer an issue. Supporters of Morsi say that this is a conspiracy by the military.
However, Morsi consolidated majority of the power to himself so would he not have some one in charge of public works and the import of oil? If he had no idea that there was a shortage of electricity and gas then that just demonstrates his lack of leading his new government. No economic plan was passed by Morsi and his administration to help those who were unemployed in Egypt. During his presidency the persecution of religious minorities were being executed without any investigations by the government.
I do not condone attacks on peaceful protesters and believe that an investigation to the death of any protester should be conducted. However, we must be careful on who we assign the blame and investigate further. The majority of Egypt wanted this change and with support dwindling down for the supporters of Morsi it will be up to those very same supporters to join in the conversation on how to truly build Egypt back onto it’s feet. Religion should not play a factor into the politics of leading a nation. The process of leading a country is accepting all walks of life and their religion. Creating laws where a majority of the consensus agree on and where the country it’s self is looking at ways that they nation can thrive economically, domestically, and globally. If those ideas can come across those three categories then maybe some sort of progress will happen. However, with violence and force we shall not see that progress from happening.