Renewed Protests in Egypt: The Shafiq Government – An Insult to the Demands of the Revolution

Egypt has seen the appointment of two governments in the past month. On January 31, 2011, prior to his resignation as president, Hosni Mubarak appointed a new government headed by Civil Aviation Minister General Ahmad Shafiq, which replaced that of prime minister Ahmad Nazif. The new government comprised figures from the regime and security circles, including veteran ministers who remained in their posts.[1]

When Mubarak ceded power to the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces on February 11, the latter requested that Shafiq's government remain as an interim government, but under pressure from the protestors, a new government was appointed on February 22, reflecting a broader political spectrum and with representatives from various opposition movements. However, a number of ministers from the previous government remained, including the ministers of foreign affairs, justice, finance, international cooperation, electricity, and the interior.[2]

On Friday, February 25, millions of protestors, dissatisfied with this government as well, demonstrated in Al-Tahrir Square in a demand that it be disbanded. At the time of this writing, thousands are still protesting there, demanding a new government that will exclude any members identified with the previous regime or with the National Democratic Party (NDP).[3] Among the movements demanding this is the Muslim Brotherhood, which has called the Shafiq government "unacceptable" and has declared that it will not be a part of it.[4] Opposition to the Shafiq government was also expressed by Facebook groups which said that it was an insult to the revolution and called on it to resign.[5]

At a February 28 meeting with representatives of the protesters, the representatives of the military administration said that the government must be given a chance to do its job, and that it was crucial for veteran ministers to stay in office, in order to prevent a total collapse of the state's administrative infrastructure.[6] However, according to reports in the Egyptian press, there are plans for a limited reshuffle in the government, replacing some of the controversial ministers.[7]

Following are excerpts from articles in the former government press and in the opposition press expressing opposition to the Shafiq government:

The Ministers of the New Government Are Associated With the Old Regime

Gamal Zayda, a columnist for the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, which was formerly a mouthpiece of the Mubarak regime, wrote: "The news about the change of ministers brought no joy to my heart. I felt that the old regime was still in place and that it was circumventing the demands of our martyred youth who sacrificed [their lives] so that we could see a clean, democratic, liberated and corruption-free Egypt.

"Democracy means responding to the will of the people, and the Egyptian people want a new government with a new prime minister... We want to bring to a close the old era full of corruption, bribery, and deceit. We do not want figures who were brought up on the lap of the oil regimes and who drank corruption with their mother's milk, nor do we want figures brought up on the lap of the Western apparatuses..."[8]

Shafiq Swore Loyalty to Mubarak

Muhammad Al-'Azbi, columnist for the Egyptian daily Al-Gumhouriyya, also a former mouthpiece for the Mubarak regime, wrote against the keeping of Ahmad Shafiq and Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit in their posts: "The kingpins of the collapsed regime remain [in their posts], such as Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit... His [very] name is infuriating, and that he continues to remain [in his post] raises questions [about the new government]...

"[As for] Prime Minister [Ahmad Shafiq], he swore loyalty to Mubarak and continued to fulfill this oath after [Mubarak's] ouster. He never uttered the word 'revolution,' but [instead used] various [other] expressions... That is why the people's cry of 'down with the government' is [still] being raised to the heavens. Similar to Abu Al-Gheit is Justice Minister Mamdouh Mar'i, whose roles in the judiciary do not absolve him of overseeing the forged presidential and parliamentary elections, or of his blunt intervention in the operation of the legal system..."[9]

Shafiq Is Responsible for the Massacre of Protestors

Wael Qandil, a columnist for the independent Egyptian daily Al-Shurouq, penned a number of articles denouncing the Shafiq governments. In one, he wrote: "Mubarak appointed Ahmad Shafiq as prime minister on January 29 – four days after the outbreak of the revolution – to quell the rage [of the public] and in an attempt to control the 'intense protest' – this is [the term he uses] to describe what took place between January 25 and February 11.

"Shafiq's appointment was an attempt by Mubarak to save his throne, but the wave of the revolution was stronger than all [else] and swept Mubarak away, while Shafiq has stayed on as prime minister, even though he is morally and politically responsible for the massacre since January 29.

"Some say that those responsible were the police chiefs, who set the interior ministry offices on fire and opened the prison gates, setting loose dangerous criminals to tear [us] Egyptians to shreds. [But this does not absolve Ahmad Shafiq of responsibility], so there are grounds for demanding his resignation. Either he failed to control the situation and is not qualified for the job, or the events happened with his knowledge, and it is therefore appropriate to demand an account...

"It was Hosni Mubarak who brought Ahmad Shafiq [to power], and all now agree that Mubarak was a hollow [figure] who was swept away by the spirit of the revolution. Logic says that someone [appointed by] a hollow [figure] is himself hollow, and we must therefore respect the revolution, its legitimacy, and its essence...

"Since the Egyptian revolution paid a dear and full price – hundreds of martyrs and thousands of injured and missing – it is entitled to ask that the bulk of its demands be implemented. Ahmad Shafiq saw with his own eyes and heard with his own ears the public's clear and definite demand last Friday, [February 18,] that he step down and that a new national unity government be assembled..."[10]

In another article, Qandil wrote: "...If we spoke of a new era and meant to form an interim government with new [faces], why did we leave figures who were [part of the government] before January 25 and February 11?...

"This is why some people feel concern and are not certain that Mubarak's regime has [really] been consigned to the archives of history – especially considering the reports coming out of 'the state of Sharm Al-Sheikh'... and the leaks regarding contacts between [Mubarak] and some of the figures he appointed before he was deposed..."[11]

Shafiq Has Caught Mubarak's Disease of Clinging to His Seat

Columnist Nagla Budair wrote in the opposition daily Al-Dustour: "Why does Ahmad Shafiq insist on staying [in his post], and why does [the new deputy prime-minister] Dr. Yahya Al-Gamal agree to support him?... General Ahmad Shafiq, a gifted pupil of the former president, has apparently caught that grave and contagious illness called 'clinging to one's seat.' The symptoms of this disease are evident to everyone but the patient himself. The patient hears every voice, no matter how faint, that calls for him to stay in his seat, and in fact amplifies it to twice [its real volume], while completely disregarding the loud voices demanding his resignation...

"This is a disease, and one of its prominent symptoms is [the patient's] belief that if he leaves his post, the world will come to an end and anarchy will reign, and nobody will be able to fill his shoes. [In fact,] he comes to believe that his [willingness] to remain [in his post] is a kind of sacrifice, and that he is putting the interests of the collective before his personal interest (which is surely to avoid the entire headache).

"In this, there is no difference between the deposed president, the rejected prime minister, and [various] hated minister[s]... They are all sacrificing for our sakes. How amazing... All of them are such irreplaceable paragons of talent..."[12]