Paranoia clouding logic and governance

Egyptian President Mohammad Mursi’s televised speech on Wednesday could have been scripted by any number of Arab autocrats who are under popular pressure. The formula is as simple as it is familiar: Desperately cling to power through paranoia (genuine or staged), scare-mongering and deflecting attention, while simultaneously offering an extended hand and a clenched fist.

“Political polarisation and conflict have reached a stage that threatens our nascent democratic experience and threatens to put the whole nation in a state of paralysis and chaos,” Mursi told a live audience. This is undoubtedly an attempt to dissuade people from joining a nationwide mass rally against him tomorrow, the first anniversary of his presidency.

However, there is no sign that his speech has made the slightest dent in the opposition’s determination to press on. On the contrary, reaction has been defiant and social media has been buzzing with disdain. “At least [George W.] Bush was stupid but funny! We only got stupid,” wrote an Egyptian journalist on Facebook. “Even Libya got crazy, but funny! We still only got stupid.”

In a speech that offered no surprises, the most striking thing was Mursi’s level of paranoia. He pointed the finger at “enemies of the revolution” and “enemies of Egypt” — unspecified, of course, as they usually are in the Arab world — saying they “have not spared efforts in trying to sabotage the democratic experience”.

Mursi said he was “faced with a war” to make him fail from the outset of his presidency. Don’t us Arabs love a good conspiracy? In this case, it supposedly includes former regime members who want to “turn the clock back” to the era of Hosni Mubarak, as well as members of the judiciary, local and regional media that are apparently spreading lies and the opposition, which is somehow “acting against the revolution” that it started.

In a nutshell, everyone but his Muslim Brotherhood is out to get poor Mursi. In his trademark style, he has called for investigations, including the trial of Ahmad Shafiq — who narrowly lost the last presidential elections — for embezzlement.

When Mursi is no longer in power, he should pursue his calling as a detective. It is ironic that he should rely so much on investigations when he repeatedly expresses such little faith in the judiciary which, he said in his speech, should not be involved in politics. Mursi will do well to note that in a democracy, the government should not be involved with the judiciary.

His speech did contain admissions that he has made “mistakes on a number of issues,” and that reforms are necessary. He also told the opposition that “our hands are extended ... in dialogue”. However, such conciliation seemed designed to validate his accusations, threats and justifications by portraying himself as balanced and objective.

Mursi “blamed his opponents for the bulk of the nation’s problems,” wrote Abigail Hauslohner, the Washington Post’s Cairo bureau chief, who described the speech as “defiant”.

Mursi “widened the divide between his Islamist supporters and Egypt’s secular opposition during his speech,” wrote Patrick Kingsley, the Guardian’s Egypt correspondent. The president “refused to offer serious concessions” and “instead criticised opposition politicians for failing to engage in what he perceives to be constructive dialogue”.

Mursi said he has an “obligation” to correct his mistakes. This may sound like someone accepting responsibility, but it can also be interpreted as another of his refusals to step down. He offered opponents a role in amending the new constitution. However, since they were refused a proper say in the first place, despite promises to the contrary, it is hardly surprising that there has been a breach of trust.

Mursi was right to state that “there is only one revolution” in Egypt, but it is not the one he is thinking of. The uprising against Mubarak is over. The current one is squarely against Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The president reportedly declared that “it is time for surgery, to purify” the country. Such language is worryingly familiar. His late neighbour, dictator Muammar Gaddafi, threatened to “cleanse Libya house by house” when the protests first erupted there.

Gaddafi’s ally, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad — against whom Mursi has been consistently and unequivocally vocal — had said a year ago: “When a surgeon ... cuts and cleans and amputates and the wound bleeds, do we say to him that your hands are stained with blood? Or do we thank him for saving the patient?”

Mursi urged opposition figures to “enter elections if you want to change the government”. However, that is precisely what the opposition wants — more so, it seems, than Mursi himself, given his repeated rejection of calls for early elections.

He claims that not allowing him to finish his full term in office will be undemocratic. However, a recent poll by the Egyptian Centre for Public Opinion Research revealed that 54 per cent of Egyptians support early elections. As such, heeding majority sentiment will be the democratic thing to do.

Furthermore, if Mursi is so confident that the people are behind him, what better way to cement his legitimacy than holding early elections and emerging victorious again? The answer is quite obvious: In times of crisis, leaders never accept early elections if they think they may lose.

Sharif Al Nashashibi is an award-winning journalist and analyst on Arab affairs.