The supra-constitutional principles document has made Islamists in Egypt even more cohesive than they had been, just as it contributed to multiplying the reasons for division among already divided secular forces. The difference thus seems clear, between a faction that does not exhaust its members and supporters with failed million-man marches, and when it calls for one affords it the grounds for success (from its own point of view), and quarreling factions that have agreed on confronting the Islamists and the military, but have not agreed on mechanisms that would ensure their success, whether in terms of their million-man marches or of their plans to achieve gains at the parliamentary elections. The Egyptian people carried out their Revolution, and succeeded at removing Hosni Mubarak's regime, which had lasted for thirty years. Yet the most dangerous of what Egypt has faced after Mubarak stepped down, and which it is facing now, is the fact that the political forces, movements and figures that participated in the Revolution, or even those that leapt upon and rode its wave, seek to exclude every force, movement or figure that do not share their ideas, principles or stances! Thus, about a week before the first real parliamentary elections Egypt has witnessed in around 60 years, the main forces participating in the elections seem like they do not want to compete over the votes of electors, but rather want the results of the elections to lead to this or that political faction seizing control of the country's affairs, so that it may guide it in the way it sees fit, and determine its future in the manner it believes would guarantee its remaining in power – without any faction considering the fact that it is not alone, and that there are in society other factions, forces and groups. Everything that is happening in Egypt now reflects the broad extent of polarization taking place on the political scene, and the belief of some factions that they made the Revolution, and are therefore entitled, after Mubarak has stepped down, to exclude others, and to eat the whole cake on their own – in addition to believing that the fears of other factions and groups from the “Islamization” or the “secularization” of Egypt for example are unjustified, and that the competing forces should believe and trust them despite the fact that their behavior, deeds and stances do not inspire trust. Most striking is the belief of some of the Revolution's prominent figures, from various movements, that they deserve the Egyptian people's gratitude, knowing that no political faction could have changed the Mubarak regime on its own or even agreed with other factions. And had the Egyptian people not been prepared, mobilized and ready to carry out their Revolution, the state's security apparatus would have been sure to arrest activists or politicians and throw them in jail, on charges of working to topple the ruling regime. Islamists in Egypt are now growing increasingly cohesive, and they consider that they will obtain the parliamentary majority for many reasons, connected to their being the political force that has paid the greatest price in confronting the Mubarak regime, as the latter's jails were never for a day devoid of their members and prominent figures. It is also because they have been the most closely connected to various segments of the population by virtue of their economic and social activity, while “secular forces” are still paying the price of their fragmentation, quarrelling and repeated mistakes. The scene in Tahrir Square last Saturday reflected the nature of the difference between the Islamists, who carried out a display of power, gathering more than a million people in the square with admirable speed, precision and organization, and secular forces, some of the activist members of which insisted on remaining in the square only to engage in a clash with security forces, when the latter sought to disperse the protest. Those who wish to protest may have logical justifications, but certainly the clashes raised questions among some segments of the Egyptian population about the difference between the Islamists' million-man marches and the demonstrations of Liberals. Indeed, Islamists attended in the thousands from most of the provinces surrounding Cairo, they gathered, chanted and raised their banners. Meanwhile, secular forces became divided first over participating in or boycotting the demonstration, then began to exchange accusations over the soundness of the stance on participating or boycotting. Thus the Islamists killed several birds with one stone: they imposed amending the Selmi document in accordance with their demands, capitalized on their skill at gathering crowds, tested the ability of their supporters to answer their call, and then cleared the square with perfect timing. If one were to review the lists of candidates to the parliamentary elections, which will begin next Monday, one would not find a prominent Islamist figure challenging another over an individual seat, even if the competition still stands in terms of voting on the basis of lists. As for the prominent figures of secular forces, does one even need to talk? Indeed, not only will the competition between them on seats result in most of them losing, but it will also result in giving their Islamist competitors better chances of winning. And in cities, villages and streets, one finds the candidates of Islamist movements among the people, while the advertisements for the candidates of secular forces can be found on movie channels or on the famous 6th October Bridge, among ads for soft drinks and electronic appliances… The Islamist movement focuses on the basics… As for secular forces, they have placed themselves in the category of nonessentials.
