As is known, revolutions usually erupt in countries ruled by dictatorial regimes, while the countries where people are blessed with democracy are untouched by revolutions, because the citizen there has many ways and mechanisms to express his opinion, and the means to change regimes and governments are clear in every election, where there is no ambiguity or speculation involved. Things are of course different in the Arab world, and Egypt is a good example. There, the revolution is still ongoing, since its eruption on January 25, 2011, in many ways. The events unfolding there are but a proof that things in Egypt have yet to settle, and that Egypt will need time before it gets back on the path to the future. It is the right of any person, group, political party or civil organization to oppose the administration of President Mohamed Mursi, and expression of opinion is one form of this legitimate and legal opposition, as long as this takes place in a peaceful manner, without recourse to violence or incitement. It is the right of newspapers and media outlets that are opposed to the Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, to pursue a discourse in politics and the media that criticizes the President and exposes his mistakes, since he is originally of the Brotherhood. The same applies to the Muslim Brotherhood itself, which may fall into mistakes given the broad sphere of its operations and movements, and the friction between it and other factions present in the Egyptian society. Similarly, the media outlets that support the Brotherhood, which are many, have the right to criticize the civil factions and their leaders, and seek to highlight things that make the people “become fonder" of the president. These things are taken for granted in any democratic society, and Egypt is supposedly now democratic, after its revolution. Yet these rights do not mean at all that it is acceptable to call for the overthrow of a president who was democratically elected in free and fair elections or, in parallel, call for any opposition to the president to be stifled or the newspapers and television networks that attack or censure him to be shut down. Those who oppose the president, his party or his group must continue to do so, and to expose the mistakes of the president, his party or his group. They may demonstrate in public squares and hold sit-ins without disrupting people's businesses or the state's institutions. And when the time comes for the next presidential elections, after the president finishes his term, they may call on people to vote for another president, for instance on the premise that the outgoing president had not delivered on his promises, had failed or even because he is simply not fit to be president. But calls for toppling the president by laying siege to the presidential palace or the headquarters of his political party, or burning them down, violate democracy, and are not things that the Egyptian revolution has sanctioned. In truth, we do not know whether the conflict in Egypt is about anything other than the monopoly of power and the exclusion of others. Unfortunately, a majority, if not all political factions, have fallen into this trap, and they now believe that they are alone on the arena, and have the right to act without any consideration to other factions. I reckon that the situation Mursi is in would have been the same for any other president. For one thing, the period that followed the revolution witnessed nothing but quarrels among the political forces and a scramble for power that pushed every faction to seek to exclude others and alone reap the fruits of the revolution – without sharing them with the other parties that went to Tahrir Square, slept on the asphalt and chanted against the regime, and sometimes even died for the homeland. The Muslim Brotherhood, the Freedom and Justice Party or the president himself cannot possibly have the support of all Egyptians for his decisions or measures, or admiration for his speeches and statements. Indeed, there is a big difference between respecting the president and honoring his stature, and being subservient to him or accepting everything he does or says at face value. On the other hand, the president himself must make a concrete effort to change the impression some people might have that he represents his group and his party only, and that his sole goal is to put the state under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood or implement the latter's agenda. He must therefore prove that he received the majority vote in presidential elections, and not in elections to choose an imam for a mosque or a preacher. Mursi's dilemma lies in the fact that, so far, there doesn't seem to be any creativity or imagination in the way he has ruled Egypt. Yet, it is still too early to tell. To be sure, the problems in the country are too big to be solved in one month or even one year, and the time that has elapsed is too short to judge a member of the Brotherhood who was in the opposition for years, before becoming the leader of the largest Arab country. Ultimately, what matters is for Mursi to boost confidence among the Egyptians in that he is able to resolve the country's problems, and not to drown in them. He must also show some creativity in dealing with these problems, to depart away from the useless methods used by the former regime – which was a dictatorial regime that thought the people believed its democracy...until it was overthrown.
