Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Egyptians are expected to turn out to the polls Saturday in mass numbers to vote on a package of proposed constitutional amendments. It’s a national referendum that seems certain to make history on several levels.
For starters, it’s the first Egyptian national vote in living memory with any degree of uncertainty about the outcome.
Under former president Hosni Mubarak (and all of his predecessors) elections tended to be stage-managed affairs bearing the superficial hallmarks of a functioning democratic process. Egyptian citizens (who have always been a politically savvy bunch) sensed decades ago that the game was rigged and stopped even pretending to care.
That whole dynamic ended with Mubarak’s forced resignation last month in the face of a historic 18-day popular uprising. Now, with the country being ruled by the Supreme Armed Forces Council, Egyptians face the task of building a functioning democratic society. That means deciding which elements of the existing political infrastructure can be repaired and reformed and which elements need to be scrapped entirely and rebuilt from scratch.
This question seems to define people’s feelings heading into Saturday’s vote. Opponents of the amendment package have argued passionately that it is insufficient to simply “fix” the existing constitution and demand a full rewrite — even if that means slowing down the country’s transition to civilian rule.
“The 1971 constitution fell in the revolution. It has no legitimacy,” said Mohammed Salah, a young activist speaking this week at a press conference called by a coalition of secular activist groups who were instrumental in the revolution. “The people want a completely new constitution.”
On the surface, the eight amendments formulated by a military-appointed commission of legal scholars, satisfy many of the basic demands of the protesters who brought the old regime down. They would establish presidential limits of two four-year terms, eliminate obstacles to forming political parties and launching independent presidential campaigns, limit the once-dominant powers of the executive branch and make it much harder for future presidents to govern under indefinite martial law, as Mubarak did.
Approval of the package would place the country on a fast track to parliamentary elections as early as September. Rejection would likely mean a disruption of that schedule and an extension of Egypt’s period of military rule.
Egyptian media has been dominated for the past week by extensive back-and-forth debate over the amendments. Despite a near-universal desire to get the country in civilian hands as soon as possible, an impressive array of political actors has called for a rejection of proposed changes. This includes many of the youth groups who first sparked the rebellion, as well as future presidential contenders Mohammed ElBaradei and Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League.
The only significant political player that has endorsed the changes is the Muslim Brotherhood—a development that essentially turns the referendum into a test of the venerable Islamist group’s street power. Flyers distributed throughout Egypt by the Brotherhood are notably short on the usual religious references, but urge its followers to vote yes “for the sake of Egypt’s stability.”
More cynical observers view the Brotherhood’s enthusiasm as a bit of a power play. They charge that the group is trying to speed the path towards early parliamentary elections where its existing grassroots machine would give it a significant advantage before newer political forces have a chance to solidify and organize themselves.
Whatever the outcome, perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the feisty amendment debate is that nobody is pushing for a boycott.
Watching Egyptians peacefully and passionately disagree about the future of their country can’t possibly be a bad thing.
Ibrahim Eissa, the iconic editor-in-chief of Egypt’s al Dostour daily newspaper, practically telegraphed his own professional demise. In a column last week, discussing the recent shutdown of a satellite news programme, Eissa made ominous predictions about a looming press crackdown.
Parliamentary elections are coming this autumn with a presidential vote next year. President Hosni Mubarak is 82 and frail, with no clear successor in place. With both elections widely expected to be marred by vote-rigging and intimidation tactics, Eissa predicted that the government would move to suppress the country’s independent media voices.
“The Egyptian regime cannot give up cheating in elections, so the only solution for the authorities is to stop any talk about rigging, rather than stopping the rigging itself,” Eissa wrote. He wrapped up by saying that the government was only starting with the satellite channels, “and then the turn of the newspapers will come.”
On Tuesday, according to Eissa’s supporters, his turn came. He was abruptly fired by al Dostour’s new owners, prompting protest sit-ins by his staff and predictions of a widening media crackdown.
Known as a talented writer and savagely witty government critic, Eissa’s al Dostour was one of the main players in a crowded independent newspaper scene. The paper has displayed a passion for uncovering government scandal and offered lavish coverage of Mohammed ElBaradei’s campaign for domestic political reform.
But al Dostour’s real trademark has been Eissa’s own front-page columns, where he gleefully made a regular habit of targeting the government’s sacred cows. Last year, when Mubarak’s son, and rumoured successor, Gamal was giving a high-profile string of speeches and interviews, Eissa responded with a column bearing the simple headline: “Mr Gamal Mubarak, sir, would you please shut up?”
Not surprisingly, Eissa has been in trouble before. He was al Dostour’s first editor-in-chief when the independent paper was launched in 1995. Three years later, the paper was forcibly shut down and Eissa was essentially blackballed after publishing a letter allegedly from an Islamist terrorist group threatening attacks on Christian businessmen.
In 2005, al Dostour was allowed to return with the same ownership and with Eissa at the editorial helm again. The country’s political dynamics had changed by then, thanks partially to the emergence of the feisty Kefaya movement–which directly challenged the taboo on criticising the president or his family.
In 2006, he was sentenced to a year in prison for writing about a lawsuit personally accusing Mubarak of corruption. That sentence was reduced to a fine. In 2007, he was sentenced to two months in jail for crossing a major red line by writing that Mubarak’s health was deteriorating. His sentence was eventually commuted by presidential decree.
Al Dostour was purchased last month by a group led by business tycoon Sayyed al Badawi, who also heads the liberal Wafd party. Eissa’s problems with the new ownership appear to have begun almost immediately. In a series of interviews, Eissa said the final conflict with the new owners surrounded an editorial written by ElBaradei and timed to run this week on the anniversary of Egypt’s 1973 attack on entrenched Israeli positions in the Sinai, known as the October war or the Yom Kippur war. Eissa said the owners felt it would be disrespectful to run such a critical article on a patriotic national holiday.
“They wanted me to remove the article written by ElBaradei… I objected, they asked me to refrain from publishing it for a few days but then a few hours later I was informed of (my dismissal),” said Eissa.
Al Badawy, the head of the new ownership group, denied that the ElBaradei article was the source of the conflict, and indeed the editorial ran on the front page of the Wednesday edition.
For what it’s worth, it’s hard to see why this particular editorial prompted Eissa’s sacking. ElBaradei’s article hails the 1973 Egyptian assault as “a victory for precision and planning. It was the opposite example of the chaos and randomness that Egyptian society has known since then”.
Whatever the reasons, Eissa appears to be on the verge of his second major blackballing. His regular satellite television show was pulled by the government less than a month ago.
“I do not know what to call this, except a systematic removal from the media,” wrote Zenobia, a prominent local blogger who has closely tracked the case. In a series of interviews, he pointed to a systematic effort to muzzle the independent media before what could be an unstable and messy election/succession cycle.
“There’s a silencing of many of the independent voices present,” Eissa told the Shorouk daily newspaper. “It’s another return to the atmosphere before 2004 when the Kefaya movement appeared on the Egyptian street.”
Ashraf Khalil is senior reporter for Al Masry Al Youm English Edition
Ibrahim Eissa, the iconic editor-in-chief of Egypt’s al Dostour daily newspaper, practically telegraphed his own professional demise. In a column last week, discussing the recent shutdown of a satellite news programme, Eissa made ominous predictions about a looming press crackdown.
Parliamentary elections are coming this autumn with a presidential vote next year. President Hosni Mubarak is 82 and frail, with no clear successor in place. With both elections widely expected to be marred by vote-rigging and intimidation tactics, Eissa predicted that the government would move to suppress the country’s independent media voices.
“The Egyptian regime cannot give up cheating in elections, so the only solution for the authorities is to stop any talk about rigging, rather than stopping the rigging itself,” Eissa wrote. He wrapped up by saying that the government was only starting with the satellite channels, “and then the turn of the newspapers will come.”
On Tuesday, according to Eissa’s supporters, his turn came. He was abruptly fired by al Dostour’s new owners, prompting protest sit-ins by his staff and predictions of a widening media crackdown.
Known as a talented writer and savagely witty government critic, Eissa’s al Dostour was one of the main players in a crowded independent newspaper scene. The paper has displayed a passion for uncovering government scandal and offered lavish coverage of Mohammed ElBaradei’s campaign for domestic political reform.
But al Dostour’s real trademark has been Eissa’s own front-page columns, where he gleefully made a regular habit of targeting the government’s sacred cows. Last year, when Mubarak’s son, and rumoured successor, Gamal was giving a high-profile string of speeches and interviews, Eissa responded with a column bearing the simple headline: “Mr Gamal Mubarak, sir, would you please shut up?”
Not surprisingly, Eissa has been in trouble before. He was al Dostour’s first editor-in-chief when the independent paper was launched in 1995. Three years later, the paper was forcibly shut down and Eissa was essentially blackballed after publishing a letter allegedly from an Islamist terrorist group threatening attacks on Christian businessmen.
In 2005, al Dostour was allowed to return with the same ownership and with Eissa at the editorial helm again. The country’s political dynamics had changed by then, thanks partially to the emergence of the feisty Kefaya movement–which directly challenged the taboo on criticising the president or his family.
In 2006, he was sentenced to a year in prison for writing about a lawsuit personally accusing Mubarak of corruption. That sentence was reduced to a fine. In 2007, he was sentenced to two months in jail for crossing a major red line by writing that Mubarak’s health was deteriorating. His sentence was eventually commuted by presidential decree.
Al Dostour was purchased last month by a group led by business tycoon Sayyed al Badawi, who also heads the liberal Wafd party. Eissa’s problems with the new ownership appear to have begun almost immediately. In a series of interviews, Eissa said the final conflict with the new owners surrounded an editorial written by ElBaradei and timed to run this week on the anniversary of Egypt’s 1973 attack on entrenched Israeli positions in the Sinai, known as the October war or the Yom Kippur war. Eissa said the owners felt it would be disrespectful to run such a critical article on a patriotic national holiday.
“They wanted me to remove the article written by ElBaradei… I objected, they asked me to refrain from publishing it for a few days but then a few hours later I was informed of (my dismissal),” said Eissa.
Al Badawy, the head of the new ownership group, denied that the ElBaradei article was the source of the conflict, and indeed the editorial ran on the front page of the Wednesday edition.
For what it’s worth, it’s hard to see why this particular editorial prompted Eissa’s sacking. ElBaradei’s article hails the 1973 Egyptian assault as “a victory for precision and planning. It was the opposite example of the chaos and randomness that Egyptian society has known since then”.
Whatever the reasons, Eissa appears to be on the verge of his second major blackballing. His regular satellite television show was pulled by the government less than a month ago.
“I do not know what to call this, except a systematic removal from the media,” wrote Zenobia, a prominent local blogger who has closely tracked the case. In a series of interviews, he pointed to a systematic effort to muzzle the independent media before what could be an unstable and messy election/succession cycle.
“There’s a silencing of many of the independent voices present,” Eissa told the Shorouk daily newspaper. “It’s another return to the atmosphere before 2004 when the Kefaya movement appeared on the Egyptian street.”