Yes, the scene on the Friday of ‘Popular Will and Unification' was alarming to the liberals, the advocates of a secular state, and those who have a legacy of historic rivalry with the Islamists, from leftists to Nasserists or even the apolitical groups that do not want their country to turn into ‘Egypstan'. However, this does not mean that the event on Friday was not thrilling to others, who support the Islamists and who want to see an Islamic state in Egypt. This reflects exactly the nature of things in the country, and the same applies to the position on the ruling military council. Some people consider it a red line that must not be crossed, while others believe that as long as the council is ruling the country, issuing laws and decisions, while its members give statements, this council is subject to evaluation, criticism and perhaps even rejection. What ultimately matters in the Friday of ‘Popular Will and Unification', is that it brought nothing new except to those who were not good at interpreting reality and see what is already under their noses, because they had ignored that all the indications were showing that the Islamists were winning. All the facts on the ground after the revolution are in favor of the latter, for a multitude of reasons. Furthermore, those who do not learn from their mistakes and then persist in repeating them, then lament their conditions or call for what they had rebelled against and opposed before, are looking for more causes to defer blame for what Tahrir Square has become on the Friday of ‘Popular Will and Unification'! Regardless of the support or opposition to the ideas of the Islamists, or their methods and the approaches they use to promote themselves, facts on the ground in Egypt show that they have become a major force that is at the forefront of the political arena. However, this does not mean that they are the only force. There are other factions that can also occupy a large place in the same scene, and which all call for a secular state. However, it seems that their conduct and methods have in the end been in favor of the Islamists! The Muslim Brotherhood has learned from the mistakes of their experience with the army following the 1952 July revolution, and decided not to make the same mistakes again. For this reason, the group has adopted a political discourse that supports the army and the military council following the July 25 revolution of 2011, without abandoning the declared goals of the revolution and which are the subject of agreement among all political forces. The Brotherhood was followed in this by the rest of the Islamists. As a result, they gained the support of many segments of the Egyptian people, who strongly fear for the unity of the armed forces, and who are concerned by criticism, attacks and mockery against the latter and its leadership. This is a fact, regardless of how satisfied these people are by the decisions or stances of the military council. The ordinary people, who were the fuel of the revolution without which the latter would not have succeeded, believe that any split in the army will turn their country into another Lebanon or Somalia. And because they, in their majority, do not hold particular political views, they believe that the discourse of the Islamists in the media and their political stances on the ground do not target nor harm the army. This was in fact a surprise for said people, as there have always been concerns that ideological politicians are a threat to the state if they are to confront any other party. The Islamists have strongly benefited from the concerns of the citizens when they heard about threats to close down the Suez Canal, declare civil disobedience or put government headquarters under siege and deny access to or from them, as had happened with the Tahrir Complex. The reason is that many segments of the Egyptians suffer directly from such ideas and acts, also regardless of whether these acts are the right thing to do to put pressure on the military council and the government of Dr. Sharaf, in order to attain the remainder of the revolution's goals, or whether these acts are wrongful because they entail a retaliation that does everyone harm. What is certain is that such acts are not the subject of consensus among the populace, and subsequently, the advocates of such acts are losing the support of many segments of the population in favor of the Islamists, the party that has a ‘reconciliatory' discourse vis-à-vis the army. The other thing is that the Islamists have, over the years, excelled in dealing with public opinion, by offering services to the citizens, for example, services that alleviate the difficulties of life, in addition of course to the mosques which they use to communicate with the crowds. By contrast, liberal, leftist, Nasserist and youth leaders, who started the revolution, and the members of their groups, have in their majority become guests on satellite TV talk shows. Some have even turned into hosts of such programs, believing that the media is the path to reaching out to the populace. However, the most basic rules of the media and how to influence public opinion tell us that changing convictions and pushing people to take specific actions or decisions, requires direct communication between the interlocutor and the recipient. On the other hand, indirect communication through the media is useful in disseminating news, ideas and visions, but without guaranteeing that this would help alter people's behavior or convince them of the need to adopt certain stances. The Islamists in the streets make gains every day, meanwhile, while the others mourn the rise of ‘Egypstan' on satellite TV talk shows!
