When the Egyptian Revolution erupted, all political forces became united in the face of the regime and were able to overthrow it. Credit for this goes to all of the Egyptian people, without whom neither the regime would have fallen nor would those who had ignited the Revolution and set off its first spark escaped pursuit, torture and perhaps death. But now that the head of the regime, and parts of its body, have been toppled, it is only natural for Egyptians to disagree over how to manage the transitional period, as well as over the type of government that will rule in the future and over the mechanisms for achieving remaining goals. Wrong are those who imagine that the stances of the Islamist movement, and at its heart the Muslim Brotherhood, can match those of other political movements, whether they were present on the scene before the January 25 Revolution or were formed during or after it. Interests may converge and bring about agreement over an issue or issues for a limited time, but for the Brotherhood's vision to unite with the visions of others is an impossibility – unless all forces become the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Brotherhood abandons its principles and ideas, becoming a Nasserist, Leftist or Liberal movement. One can therefore understand the contradiction between the Brotherhood's stance on last Friday's protest, which some have called “the Second Friday of Anger”, and others yet “the Second Revolution”, and the stances of other forces from across the political spectrum that called for the protest and participated in it. Yet what cannot be understood is differences of opinion turning into a campaign of mutually exchanged accusations, without either side considering the motives that have driven each of them to adopt the stance they have chosen and considered to achieve their interests or believed to be in the nation's interest, according to the perspective through which they view the positive or negative effects their presence or absence could achieve. And despite the flowery talk that continued to issue from every side during the first days of the Revolution about one another on satellite television shows and in political forums, it is no secret that the belief prevails among some people on both sides that the Revolution would not have started or succeeded without them. The truth is that all forces contributed to the Revolution in one form or another, providing the basis for its success. The debate is becoming increasingly heated today in Egypt, and talk that should focus on the future is pulling all parties towards the past. It is one of the bases of politics for ideas to differ and perhaps struggle in order to achieve the nation's interests. Otherwise, different political parties would not have been established or schools of political thought proliferated. Political forces may reach common grounds with regard to the corruption of the former regime, for instance, or the necessity of overthrowing it. And they may collaborate to obtain the rights of the families of martyrs or to hold to account prominent figures of the former regime, but they will certainly disagree over the method of government in the future, and that is only logical. And whether the next parliamentary elections take place first, as per the constitutional declaration, or whether they are postponed until after a new constitution has been set down and a President elected for the country, as numerous forces are demanding, some forces will coordinate their efforts with each other in dividing up electoral districts or become allied in another confrontation, as they will struggle in order to gain seats in Parliament for their candidates at the expense of other forces. And it will not then be possible for all the views, plans and goals of all political parties, forces and independents to agree over distributing Parliament seats among themselves, so as to have all candidates elected unchallenged! So if the extent of the dispute has reached such proportions and accusations have reached their utmost over Friday's protest, can we imagine what will happen before and during the parliamentary elections, the presidential elections or the process of preparing the new constitution? Right-wing and Left-wing forces nearly became united when they considered the Muslim Brotherhood to have forsaken the Revolution by boycotting the protest, while the Brotherhood considered that there were those who sought to implicate it and place it in confrontation with the army. Thus began the hints and innuendoes over the consensus between the army and the Brotherhood, as if opposing the proposals of the Military Council was evidence of “revolutionary spirit” and of loyalty to the martyrs. Friday's protest has proven that other forces had appeared on the Egyptian political scene, forces that have achieved a connection with the street and are faced with challenges connected to the strong presence of Islamists in general and of the Muslim Brotherhood in particular among the popular classes. It has also proven that the Brotherhood, which over many long years paid the price for its opposition to the former ruling regime, is headed towards a phase in which it will find itself required to use mechanisms different from those it had adopted under Mubarak and under previous presidents. Indeed, political work in a climate of freedom requires mechanisms completely different from those employed in a climate of oppression and pursuit. Doctor Issam Al-Aryan used to send an article to Al-Hayat then get arrested a few hours later, with the article being published two or three days later, the newspaper being subjected to harassment and he himself to torture. The situation is different now. The regime has fallen and the days of Tahrir (liberation) have come. Then the days passed of the first Square where all those gathered formed an “Egyptian Brotherhood”, and a new political map began taking shape, one in which the Muslim Brotherhood and other forces agree and disagree. And thus the Square has widened.
