Calvinball plays out in Egypt

The euphoria over the appointment of Egypt’s first democratically elected President has been dampened by the Army’s efforts to emasculate that high office, prompting speculation of a soft coup. But there’s no clear winner. Just an open playing field and a game without any rules

The world had seen it before. The million-strong crowd, the triumphant flag waving, the sloganeering, the firecrackers and the life-size posters, and the relentless victory dance. The images that were broadcast from Egypt this past Sunday, when the name of that country’s first democratically elected President was announced, were both expectedly and yet ironically similar to the ones that had flickered on our screens 14 months ago when a popular pro-democracy movement led to the ouster of Egypt’s long-serving autocrat. The process of democratic transition that had started then with the resignation of former President Hosni Mubarak, in effect came full circle on Sunday with the appointment of his successor — Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi. Expectedly then, the day’s celebrations matched in fervour and tenor the victory pitch of February 2011. But given the fact that Mr Morsi’s high office has already been emasculated by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces — the handful of Army Generals who currently run the country —Sunday’s euphoric revelry over a process that had surely started with a bang but has now been reduced to a whimper seemed rather silly.

SCAF’s sudden diktat came last week just as the counting of votes polled on June 16 and 17 had got underway. Issued in the form of an amendment to the original Constitutional Declaration, it severely limits the powers of the President, denying him not just oversight over the military but also negating his control over the key Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs. Moreover, through the amendment, SCAF has also conveniently accorded to itself sweeping powers over the Constitution drafting process that is yet to begin. And that is not all. Only days before the presidential election began, SCAF nullified a previous election law that disqualified a majority of Egypt’s elected legislators and effectively dismantled Parliament — this time through the Supreme Constitutional Court.

The popular mood was further dampened by the fact that Egypt found itself faced with two unpalatable choices for the post of President. With most of the leading candidates having been thrown out of the race on flimsy grounds in the first round itself, it was the Muslim Brotherhood’s second-choice candidate, Mr Morsi, and the military’s pro-regime candidate, Ahmed Shafiq, who found themselves catapulted to the forefront.

For many Egyptians, this last round polling was not about voting for a leader but against another. On the one hand was Mr Morsi — an unremarkable Muslim Brotherhood functionary barely known outside of his party offices with little political experience. On the other hand was Mr Shafiq — the military-backed, former Air Force commander who had briefly served as Mubarak’s last Prime Minister in the heady days of the ‘revolution’ in 2011. The deeply polarising nature of the presidential run-off was evident in the final votes tally. While Mr Morsi garnered 52 per cent of the votes, Mr Shafiq was snapping at his heels at 48 per cent. It was a close fight that was followed by a nail-biting week of anxiety as SCAF delayed the announcement of the results, leading to speculation of electoral fraud.

After all, the military had been understandably nervous of the Muslim Brotherhood capturing a lion’s share of the Egyptian political space. Little else explains its rash decisions to abolish the democratically elected Parliament where the Islamists held an overwhelming majority of the seats, and soon after clip the wings of the President at a time when there was a very real possibility that a member of the Brotherhood would occupy the high office.

There were also legitimate concerns that the SCAF might fudge the results and install Mr Shafiq as President. But manipulating an election is not that easy — especially not when the numbers have already been leaked and there are too many independent observers. Also, a Shafiq presidency would have earned the military tremendous public wrath that could have led to violence and instability.

For now, it seems like the SCAF chose to play safe and go with Mr Morsi as the President. However, that does not in any way diminish the chances of a showdown between the two parties. Already, a confrontation is brewing with Mr Morsi insisting that he be sworn in by a Parliament that, according to the SCAF, does not even exist. But then again, the Speaker of the House has made clear that he does not consider Parliament to be dissolved and, therefore, will be holding sessions as usual!

The situation remains fluid. The present is still unravelling and it is next to impossible to predict the future. Talks of an ‘Islamist winter’ and a soft coup by the military abound. Many have wondered if Egypt will go back to being a military dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. Others remain more concerned about the kind of governance Mr Morsi will provide. Will he protect Egypt’s Coptic Christians or will he impose shari’ah law that will discriminate against women and religious minorities? Will the Brotherhood form radical alliances with other Islamist groups across the region? Will there be the possibility of war with Israel?

But these are questions for the future. For now, there are more pressing concerns, such as how the new President-elect will even function without a Parliament and a Constitution, or how he will share political space with the military? There is no doubt that both the military and the Muslim Brotherhood need each other for their survival. And while they will do well to learn to live with each other, the judiciary, as the third key player in this situation will also have to act more responsibly. In recent months, it has shown an unending capacity for the imaginative and the ludicrous that has significantly eroded its credibility and rendered it a wild card of sorts.

At this time, anything is possible. There is no definite authoritative figure, no laws, no goals, and no principles — just an open playing field. As a commentator recently observed, the situation in Egypt is akin to a game of Calvinball — the game that has no rules. Introduced by Bill Watterson in his widely popular comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, in this game players make up the rules as they play along. Through the course of the game, players change, goals change, scoring techniques change. To win, the players have to respond quickly, imaginatively and effectively to the ever changing circumstances.

The game sometimes resembles other sports such as football but often turns out to be something entirely different — much like Egypt seems to be in the process of a democratic transition but no one really knows how the ‘revolution’ will actually play out. In the comic strip, a game of Calvinball provides much humour as ball players become spies and spies become double agents with hidden goal posts. The situation in Egypt too would have been rather funny given how power has shifted from Mubarak to the military to Morsi and now may be back to the military. Only, if it had not been so confusing.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on June 28, 2012.)

Turbulence in Indian Ocean

Coup rocks political stability in Maldives as Islamists gain strength

"Be vigilant of what not only might happen in the Indian peninsula, in the islands but also of what may happen in the wider Indian Ocean,” then President of Maldives Mohamed Nasheed had warned cadet officers at the Sri Lanka Military Academy on December 27, 2011. His words rang true on Tuesday when mutinous factions within the police and the Army joined hands to remove him, the country’s first democratically elected President, from power.

Since Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening, he has been held by the military at an undisclosed location, reportedly against his will, while his former Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, has positioned himself at the helm of affairs. He is expected to preside over a national unity Government until the end of the ongoing presidential term in 2013 after which general election are supposed to be held, although how free or fair they will be is anybody’s guess.

Maldives is a young democracy, barely four years old. The past three decades it was under the autocratic rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who ruled the country with an iron fist. Under his reign, Mr Nasheed, a journalist by profession emerged as the country’s best known dissident. A staunch rights activist and champion of democracy and civil liberties, he tirelessly campaigned to end dictatorial rule in Maldives. His activism led to his being imprisoned 16 times; he even spent eight months in solitary confinement undergoing immense physical and mental torture. Eventually, his campaign brought global attention to Mr Gayoom’s abusive regime. Growing international pressure ultimately forced the Maldivian strongman to allow free and fair elections in 2008, in sharp contrast to the electoral shams he had overseen over the past decades.

Mr Nasheed emerged victorious in the 2008 general election and took office on November 11 with a huge popular mandate. From day one, he was committed to taking his fight against autocracy to its logical conclusion by establishing a strong democratic framework in his country. But his transition from activist to President, no matter how well-meaning, was far from smooth. Mr Gayoom was gone but his party was still active and elements from the old regime remained deeply entrenched in the system — be it in Parliament, within the police or the Army — and fighting them off proved impossible.

Along with the Islamists, the old guard was determined to thwart the Nasheed Government’s every effort to reform and restructure the country’s socio-political institutions, and sadly, it seems to have succeeded. The situation was made worse in part by the fact that Mr Nasheed despite his popularity and goodwill, did not have a majority in the Maldivian Parliament, known as Majlis. He was, therefore, heavily dependent on the Opposition to pass any major reform or legislation. And while he did have the support of some Opposition parties at the start of his tenure, much of that eroded in the course of the next few years as Mr Nasheed embarked on a political campaign to weed out all elements of the old regime.

But given the kind of influence still wielded by Mr Gayoom and his supporters, this was a strategic mistake. With the Opposition becoming ever more critical of his rule, Mr Nasheed found it impossible to conduct even the daily business of governance. In recent times, the Majlis was in a complete deadlock as the Opposition refused to let it function. The most obvious fall out of such a political logjam was the corrosion of popular support. A governance deficit meant the prices of essential commodities soared while unemployment too was on the rise. Add to this the Islamists’ slander campaign against Mr Nasheed, and his presidency was ripe for a coup.

Indeed, for months before Tuesday’s virtual coup, the Islamists had been out on the streets attacking Mr Nasheed’s religious views and policies, such as his decision to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Unfortunately, the former President failed to bring these rabble-rousers under control as he dawdled between appeasement and punishment. For instance, the Government first gave in to the Islamists’ demand to ban spas across the country in December 2011, but overturned the decision at a later date.

The final straw, of course, came with the arrest of the Chief Justice of the criminal court. Like many other members of the judiciary who are believed to be in Mr Gayoom’s pockets, Justice Abdulla Mohamed had refused to prosecute members of the old regime and had been stalling cases of graft and rights abuses brought against them. His political bias was vitiating the system and making it impossible for Mr Nasheed to deliver on his promise of an independent judiciary. However, the judge’s arrest led to a constitutional crisis which prompted the Supreme Court to step in and order his release.

But as the Government ignored the order, Mr Nasheed’s critics were quick to  accuse him of browbeating his opponents much like his predecessor. But the fact remains that he had been pushed to the wall and had to retaliate.

As the controversy raged on, the past three weeks saw street protests break out throughout the densely populated capital of Male. On Monday, the headquarters of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party came under attack and overnight, vandals captured the offices of the state television broadcaster MNBC. They also renamed it TV Maldives, as it was called during Mr Gayoom’s regime. The situation deteriorated on Tuesday when soldiers fired rubber bullets at revolting police officers and other demonstrators who had laid siege to the Maldives National Defence Force headquarters in Republic Square.

With the possibility of large-scale violence looming and the military holding a gun to his head, Mr Nasheed was faced with a choice to either crack down on the protesters or leave office. Ever the rights activist, Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening saying that, “It will be better for the country, if I resign. I don’t want to run the country with an iron fist”. His departure speech is a testimony to the kind of leader he aspired to be and only serves to underline what a tremendous blow this has been to Maldives’ infant democracy. Thankfully, he seems determined to fight back as his call to President Waheed on Wednesday to resign stands proof.

Mr Nasheed had once said that Maldives has shown the world that, “You don’t have to bomb a Muslim country for regime change.” And indeed, the Indian Ocean archipelago could have been an apt precursor to the Arab Spring. That the old guard is gaining power in Maldives at a time when Islamist-back Governments are taking over across Arabia is perhaps a telling comment.

Nonetheless, it is still too early to comment on how the recent developments in Maldives will eventually play out. On its part, India whose relations with Maldives go back a long time, will do well to ensure that its neighbour’s democratic credentials are upheld and that the Islamists who have already reared their ugly head are not allowed to run amock.

India had come out in Mr Gayoom’s support back in 1988 when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had sent out military support to buttress the Maldivian dictator’s faltering regime. New Delhi should have stood by Mr Nasheed in his hour of crisis.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 09, 2012.)