Dr. Mustapha Kamel Al-Sayyid was
the guest speaker. He is a professor of Political Science in the American
University of Cairo. He came here to discuss the issues affecting Egypt, more
specifically to differentiate between the two types of social movements, and
the possible outcomes of their clashing ideologies for the future of Egypt. Afterwards,
Dr. Francisco Nemenzo Jr., a Professor Emeritus of the University of the
Philippines, gave a sort of reaction to the issue at hand.
In the previous year, there was
so much chaos in Egypt due to social movements striving for democracy. However,
the main conflict was the clash of 2 social movements: the old and new social
movements in Egypt. First of all, a social movement is defined by groups of
people inspired by ideas guided by one goal and ideal, also called unity. The
old social movement was a socialist, Catholic, and civil rights movement. The
new social movement, on the other hand, was a human rights, women’s rights, and
environment movement which included people of the same class – middle. This
also included professors asking for freedom from intervention of government and
military forces in the academe since almost 2/3 of the government comprised of
old movement people. Furthermore, those who started the revolution were not
interested in seizing power but in changing the old ways.
The relationship between the 2
social movements would define the future of Egypt or the revolution. The new
social movement or new groups were very active in initiating social movements.
However, the old social movement believed that if they were united in their
faith in Allah, then they would have all the power. The Salafists is an
advocate group of the old social movement who wanted to apply the rules of
Shariah on Islam immediately. There was even an incident wherein the Muslim
brothers, another old social movement’s group, assassinated the Egyptian prime
minister because he was believed to be monopolizing the power. The Muslim
brothers were an illegal operation, a banned organization. They tried hiding
their headquarters by opening one elsewhere but they were eventually allowed to
open one in Cairo last 2011.
Moving on, I would like to
elaborate more on the differences between the old and new social movements. The
old social movement has been present for almost 8 decades beginning 1928,
polyclass in social background, initiated the establishment of and restoration
of society guided by Islam, has plenty of resources and sympathizers who
support them all the way, has a large membership which makes it better endowed,
there is homogeneity, and composed of Muslim brothers and Salafists. On the
contrary, the new social movement became active in movements only during the
1980’s, comprised of middle class people and secular (Atheist), wanted a civil
state (where religion and politics were separated), proposed to have internet
access as a right, strongly believed that they could mobilize the people, and
they are composed of the Human Rights Organization, Kefaya, March 9 (comprised
of professors who want autonomy), April 6 (where they engage in general
strike), Independent Trade Unions (who want freedom of expression), and
FaceBook groups (denouncing police brutality and sending through the internet
of videos showing proof of abuse).
The internet is truly a
wonderful invention. It is a means of connecting people from all over the world
without leaving the comforts of your home. The internet was also a very
important tool in propagating the cause of the new social movement. They use
this as a way of communication without censorship and to disseminate
information where they encourage people to join in the revolutions. Since
everything being written in the newspaper should be filtered by the
government, the truth doesn’t necessarily always come out, so this group turned
to the internet where the government has no control over. The slogan of the
revolution of the new social movement is “Bread, Liberty, Social Justice” which
is their belief in some social democracy or ideals.
These two groups are not totally
different in their ambitions. One clear similarity that they share is that they
are united in the sense that they are against Mubarak’s regime. However, they
are different in all other issues such as the pace of transition to civilian
rule. The old social movement wants an immediate transition to civilian rule by
amending the constitution and preparing the country for elections. The new
social movement though believes that time should pass, let the economy
stabilize, then the country can start holding elections. They were also
disagreeing in the modalities of transition which is how to go about the
transition. The old social movement wanted to amend the constitution immediately,
while the new social movement wanted to make a completely new constitution. The
new social movement knows that only specific groups will win the election and the
changes made will only benefit the group’s members and supporters, not the
consensus. Another is the nature of the constitution – whether it will be
Islamic (old social movement) or Secular (new social movement). There are also
disagreements on position versus the military council, position on the fate of
the revolution, and the methods of political action.
Since democracy prevailed, there
are some implications seen. One is ideological differences among the political
groups. Another is absence of balance among political forces, which tempts
majority groups into authoritarian measures. Lastly, there might be political
instability. (Word Count: 908)
No comments:
Post a Comment