Another mistake

By Salama A Salama

---

The decision by the government to refer several Muslim Brotherhood leaders to military trial poses serious questions. Is this a return to the extraordinary circumstances that preceded the recent launch of political and constitutional reforms? And can the democratic process survive this on-again, off-again approach?

I am not going to examine the validity of the charges being pressed against Brotherhood leaders. Suffice to say that the charges, based on inconclusive investigations, focus on the Muslim Brotherhood's alleged involvement in money laundering and financing illegal activities. But allow me to question the wisdom of resorting to military courts and of depriving civilians from trial by their natural judge, the latter being a main component of our constitution and any democratic system. One would have thought that we have surpassed the stage when military courts handled cases of a political nature. Even the United States is hesitating to try Guantanamo inmates in military courts.

Sadly enough, I am not aware of any political party or civil rights group in this country, with the exception of the Wafd Party, that has spoken up against the trial of Muslim Brotherhood members in military courts. The move violates the principle of citizenry; the principle that the National Democratic Party (NDP) claims is its main inspiration for constitutional amendments. The Wafd Party has opposed the military trials although it has no political affinity with the Brotherhood. If one can draw any conclusion from the government's wish to try the Muslim Brotherhood in military courts, it is that democracy in Egypt and other Arab countries is nothing more than a false promise.

The development comes at a moment of acute rivalry between the NDP and the Brotherhood. Most likely, it is a pre-emptive move designed to avert any unforeseen outcome of ongoing partial reforms. The move is an indication that the government has made up its mind about the Brotherhood, and that it is willing to repeat earlier mistakes. Almost all previous governments, before and after the 1952 revolution, have tried to eradicate political Islam by suppressing the Brotherhood. Every single time, that policy has failed. The fact that the regime is now resorting to that same old trick testifies to its inability to come up with new solutions.

Such policies only create a negative mental climate in which people shy away from political life. Fear and repression, compounded by a lack of trust, can only impede political progress of any type: liberal, nationalist or Islamic. This may explain why our parties are so emaciated and why our young refrain from supporting the government's ambiguous political discourse. The government's hegemonic impulses undermine its own rhetoric about citizenry and the rule of law.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the staff of Al-Azhar University should come up with one of the oddest demands in the history of universities here and anywhere in the world. Hundreds of Al-Azhar professors have just called for a religious edict cancelling student union elections. This odd demand was a knee-jerk reaction to the riots that marked the elections and the subsequent clampdown.

University professors and students have a reason to be concerned. No one wants their colleagues to get in trouble because of student unions. No one wants to see their colleagues facing military trials. And who needs political reform or democracy if such is the outcome? Democracy is an indivisible whole. But our government approaches democracy as if it were a supermarket offering a variety of products, some to its taste and some less so. This excessive fear from the Islamic current could impede democracy, and undermine confidence in Egypt's system of justice.