Albeit timidly, some active sides on the Egyptian political arena have started to recognize the mistakes they committed ever since the president stepped down and until this day, after each party became accustomed to blaming the others throughout the last stage. Nonetheless, the scene continues to be surreal and unfathomable for the simple people, or those unconcerned about politics and are merely seeking a better life than the one led by their fathers and grandfathers under the previous systems of governance. In general, the Egyptians are awaiting the decision of the constitutional court next Thursday in regard to the fate of the People's Assembly and the presidential elections. And regardless of the ruling, the Egyptians will keep facing further misunderstanding and confusion, as well as opinions and positions extending beyond the country's interest and serving that of the individual, the organization, the party or the group. It is normal for the politicians to have different views in regard to the situation in Egypt and very logical for this or that politician to judge each position, decision or development based on his political belonging or ideological conviction. For example, the Islamists believe that Ahmed Shafik is part of the old regime and that his election as president would constitute a reproduction of that regime. They also believe that Muhammad Morsi - and not just the Muslim Brotherhood - expresses the revolution and that his arrival to the presidency would convey the victory of the Egyptian revolution. On the other hand, Shafik's supporters are naturally denying the accusations saying he is part of Mubarak's regime and are promoting positions or measures he adopted while he was minister of aviation or prime minister, thus claiming he maintained a distance with the corrupt or those involved in injustice and oppression. It is also certain that when the two teams issue statements to explain some positions or decisions related to the political situation in the country, these interpretations are usually supportive of either Shafik or Morsi, based on who is explaining what! This is all acceptable in politics, while even acute criticism and prowling usually accompany each competition and race in the context of a sports championship. They are part of a legitimate psychological war to win the competition, let alone if it is over the presidential seat of the biggest Arab state! Nonetheless, this does not mean that a person's testimony into a case before court should serve his positions or political convictions, rather than rightfulness and truth! The latter can put forward his opinion in regard to the case's procedures, implications, rulings, or its impact on the revolution, on society or the future of governance in the country in an article or a television show. However, once he is a party and a witness in the case, he must present whatever honest information he holds to achieve rightfulness and justice. This is not any different than what happens when some journalists fail to dissociate their tasks and their political views and consequently become political activists despite the fact that this is a serious professional mistake. Still, one relies on the readers, the listeners or the viewers to differentiate between the journalists' opinions and political positions and the information with which they provide them. But what is more dangerous is the behavior of the so-called constitutional and legal jurisprudent, whose voices have filled the squares while interpreting this ruling or that decision, have spread confusion among the people and provoked controversy over non-controversial issues. The latter, who constantly appear on talk-shows, often have contradictory legal and constitutional jurisprudent opinions, although the goal behind their summoning is to clarify, explain and reveal the hidden facets of the law to the ordinary viewers. And because the media is a profession based on debate, and because clashes increase the excitement, the viewership rates, the advertisements and consequently the financial resources, the "game" had turned into a daily show on most programs! Hence, whenever an event occurs, a case is transferred to court, a sentence is issued or a law is ratified by parliament, we spend our evening listening to the contradictory opinions of the constitutional and legal jurisprudent, while the discussions either end with a fight or with further confusion, controversy and lack of credibility. The game is still on and the simple people are still lost in the midst of the conflict between the jurisprudent.
