The bloody clashes that took place in the middle of Cairo two days ago, on the backdrop of the demolition of a Coptic church, were not surprising except for those who thought that the mere fall of Hosni Mubarak and the “neutrality” of the Egyptian army on the last January 25 were sufficient for the emergence of a new dawn in Egypt. That fall alone did not set the path for a new Egypt, one that is free of social and economic crises and one that is especially free of the concern of sectarianism, which is constantly emerging in the different Egyptian towns and constantly reminding of the depth of this problem in the Egyptian society and of the growing incapacity to find just and serious solutions to it. Where can the solutions possibly come from at a time when the ruling military council has no modern vision of Egypt in order to transfer the country from the crises of the long Hosni Mubarak era to the full-fledged era of the revolution? The military's project is to try and maintain stability while responding to a minimal level of the general national needs and promising to prepare a political atmosphere allowing for pluralistic elections that will produce a system capable of inheriting the authority. This comes in light of omnipresent doubts from the part of most of the Egyptian parties concerning the seriousness of the military council when it comes to keeping its promises of actually transferring power to a civilian successor. Indeed, the prominent military officers have had a taste of power over the past ten months; and they are now used to appointing and sacking cabinet members in addition to making definitive decisions concerning the internal political situation. On top of that, the practices of the military council resemble to a large extent those practices lived by Egypt prior to the revolution in confronting the protests and the demonstrations. Perhaps the most important of such practices are those that we have seen on televisions, two days ago, when army vehicles invaded the protestors' masses in front of the Egyptian Television building. This led to several dead and injured victims with crushed bones and mutilated bodies. It is perhaps unfair to hold the military council responsible for the internal crises that it inherited, including the ghost of sectarian sedition that is once again prevailing over Egypt. In reality, the former regime has always used sectarian division in order to poison the political atmosphere and shift the popular demands targeting the head of the regime into ones that enhance the division among the Egyptians. In addition, the Egyptian army, like any other country, is not the most suitable institution to come up with a reform process based on liberal rules, the kind that is currently needed by Egypt as well as other Arab countries in order to move to the aspired for era of modernity. Because the leaders of the Egyptian army lack this vision, there have been accusations against them indicating that they have been oscillating between their support of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi movements at some point, and their support of the Copts at some other point. This has pushed the army to tighten its security grip during the latest confrontations along with the resulting bloody repercussions. Many sides will try to make use of the Cairo clashes, not to say that they will be pleased with the victims left by these clashes. In Egypt, some Salafi movements believe that the firmness used against the protestors constitutes a “lesson” to the Copts who are – according to those movements – raising the ceiling of their demands in an unprecedented manner in return for having participated in the revolution and in the ousting of the former regime. In addition, some neighboring countries where similar revolutions are simmering, are looking at the scene of the sectarian division in Egypt and at the victimization of the Coptic minority once again as an indication to the threats against the minorities in those countries if the revolutions were to succeed in overthrowing the current regimes. This brings about the traditional question asked by many, including the sects' leaders all the way to the masses: are the minorities of the Arab world destined to find protection only in the shadow of the dictatorships? And must political freedom necessarily lead to the majority's control over everything that disagrees with it in the Arab countries? Doesn't the contemporary Arab lexicon include the least bit of liberalism and respect for the others that might spare us all that?
