Citizenship in Post-Awakening Egypt: Powers Shifts and Conflicting Perceptions

[Logo of the Democracy and Citizenship in North Africa after the Arab Awakening: Challenges for EU and US Foreign Policy (EUSPRING) Project] [Logo of the Democracy and Citizenship in North Africa after the Arab Awakening: Challenges for EU and US Foreign Policy (EUSPRING) Project]

Citizenship in Post-Awakening Egypt: Powers Shifts and Conflicting Perceptions

By : Jadaliyya Reports

[The following report was written by Raghab Saad and Moataz El Fegiery of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Study in Januarly 2014. It was published by the Democracy and Citizenship in North Africa after the Arab Awakening: Challenges for EU and US Foreign Policy (EUSPRING) Project.]

Citizenship in Post-Awakening Egypt: Powers Shifts and Conflicting Perceptions

Abstract

This report links Egypt’s shifting political phases to debates more specifically about citizenship rights. It offers a general overview of Egypt’s recent political trajectory, before unpacking the various dimensions of debates over citizenship rights. In each of the three political phases since Mubarak’s ousting, citizenship rights have been curtailed. Crucially, the reasons for their constriction have been different in each phase. Some limitations have derived from largely political power plays, others from more philosophical-theological factors. It is important to distinguish between these different forms of debate if we are better to understand prospects for the future of citizenship rights in Egypt.

Introduction

The struggle over citizenship rights has switched between different routes in the past three years. Since Hosni Mubarak’s fall, Egypt has followed three major political trajectories, and the changing political configuration under each of them has influenced the evolution of citizenship rights. This evolution has not been a linear progression and the main political actors’ discourses on rights have shifted significantly.

This report links Egypt’s shifting political phases to debates more specifically about citizenship rights. It offers a general overview of Egypt’s recent political trajectory, before unpacking the various dimensions of debates over citizenship rights. In each of the three political phases since Mubarak’s ousting, citizenship rights have been curtailed. Crucially, the reasons for their constriction have been different in each phase. Some limitations have derived from largely political power plays, others from more philosophical-theological factors. It is important to distinguish between these different forms of debate if we are better to understand prospects for the future of citizenship rights in Egypt.

The military led the first transitional phase and achieved a rapprochement with Islamists over the transitional roadmap while marginalising liberal forces. The lack of consensus between Islamists and liberals on key transitional issues, including the scope of rights, intensified the polarisation between the two camps, which has continued until today. Political participation, the right to establish political parties and media freedoms flourished in this phase but were still subject to certain limitations. The improvement of the rights of religious minorities, the rights of women and the status of human rights defenders was obstructed.

Drawing on their organisational advantage and long grassroots activism, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its Islamist allies were able to lead the second transitional phase. They controlled the constitution-drafting process and dominated the executive and legislature, but the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule ended dramatically after President Morsi was deposed by the military following massive popular unrest. Citizenship rights were severely restricted under Islamists and even those political rights that flourished after the revolution were jeopardised. The military, liberal forces and the official Islamic and Christian establishments sponsored a new transitional roadmap with the participation of the Salafist al-Nour Party, which, despite being absent from the protests against Morsi, distanced itself from the Muslim Brotherhood and joined the new transitional process. The Muslim Brotherhood and its allies have boycotted this process. They have also been the target of an aggressive crackdown and criminal trials.

The military’s powers, autonomy and popularity have expanded in the post-Morsi era. There have been conflicting signals regarding the state of citizenship in this phase. While the draft of the new constitution has removed some of the limitations imposed under the Muslim Brotherhood, respect for rights has seriously deteriorated in the context of the security confrontation between Islamists and the military. Moreover, the contingent and heterogeneous nature of the political alliance that led to Morsi’s removal has created immense challenges for those political actors who struggle to expand citizenship rights. Although, on balance, the new draft constitution presented to president Adly Mansour on 3 December 20131 can be viewed as a positive development in citizenship rights broadly defined, observers differ over the extent to which the new constitution will promote rights or social and economic justice in reality.

[Click here to download the full report]

 

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Harvard AAUP on Termination of CMES Leadership

      Harvard AAUP on Termination of CMES Leadership

      The Executive Committee of AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter condemns the abrupt termination of the leadership of Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES): Professor Cemal Kafadar as Director and Associate Professor Rosie Bsheer as Associate Director. Though both Kafadar and Bsheer will retain their regular faculty positions, this summary dismissal of two leading Middle East scholars from their administrative positions is a political infringement on academic freedom and the autonomy of professors to shape intellectual agendas in their areas of research, teaching, and programming expertise.

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 4: Why the U.S. Media & Democrats Won’t Save Anyone (3 April)

      Long Form Podcast Episode 4: Why the U.S. Media & Democrats Won’t Save Anyone (3 April)

      In this episode of Long Form Podcast, Laila Al-Arian, Assal Rad, and Sana Saeed address the role of corporate media and the Democratic party in enabling Israel’s Genocide and paving the way for many of Trump’s policies. Speakers also address the Democrats’ double standard on ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

    • Teaching Palestine Today: Liberal Arts Context

      Teaching Palestine Today: Liberal Arts Context

      Join our first session of “Teaching Palestine Today” series. This session addresses the “Liberal Arts Context,” with Lara Deeb, Heather Ferguson, Amanda Lagji, and Leila Mansouri, moderated by Bassam Haddad. Four faculty members at the Claremont Colleges, a liberal arts consortium, discuss their approaches to including material on Palestine and Palestinian perspectives into classes in anthropology, history, postcolonial and decolonial literature, and creative writing. Topics addressed include classroom approaches, syllabi scaffolding, and strategies for building support beyond the classroom.

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 


[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412