After the one-year commemoration of the Egyptian revolution went by calmly and after the movements carrying the revolution project stressed its peaceful character and its continuation until the achievement of its goals, one should look into the backdrop of the climate that prevailed prior to the commemoration and tried to disrupt it. It was said – prior to the commemoration – that there was a plan aiming at triggering wide fires in Cairo and at provoking bloody clashes to lead the army to the street and in the face of the demonstrators. Numerous official newspapers and websites thus carried warnings against the transformation of the celebration of the Egyptian people's rise into a stepping stone for anarchists and extremist leftists among others, dubbed by the media that is loyal to the ruling military council as being “saboteurs.” This marked a malignant and inappropriate return to the dictionary of Hosni Mubarak's regime. What is important is that the commemoration was staged and that hundreds of thousands of Egyptians expressed their insistence on proceeding with the revolution until the achievement of its preliminary goal, i.e. the toppling of the regime. This is the exact goal which the aforementioned campaigns tried to disfigure and depict as being a catastrophe that will affect Egypt. But those carrying out these attempts are forgetting that prior to the January 25, 2011 revolution, Egypt's situation did not allow further sabotage and destruction, considering that Mubarak, his family and their entourage did not spare one public space from their soiling, sabotage and destruction, from the economy to education and the health sector. This reached the point where during Mubarak's last years, Egypt stood on the brink of many catastrophes, in the face of which the revolution constituted a loud alarm bell. Those excessively expressing fear over the fictive role of the anarchists are merely conveying another form of insistence by the old regime on the sustainment of its raison d'être, its role and the wretched pattern with which is managed the country throughout many years. Between the latter and the military council are many similarities rendering the military men who are currently holding the actual power in the country a highly conservative authority, refusing to recognize the great change introduced by the revolution on the Egyptian scene. As for the military council's attempts to engage in an alliance with the Islamists, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood group (at a time when the Salafi movement is supporting the military rule almost without discussion), this constitutes the most dangerous approach facing the fate of the newly-established Egyptian democracy. Indeed, the military council never stopped maneuvering around the revolution and its goals and never recognized any of the mistakes it committed, from the slow adoption of legal measures against the murderers of the revolution's victims to the serious handling of the trials of the symbols of the former regime. Moreover, it linked all these steps to the government which will assume power upon the end of the transitional phase. But the council's wish to maintain power for an undetermined period of time does not require much astuteness, as it became clear since the first one million-man march staged after Mubarak stepped down and the first return to the sit-in on Tahrir Square, i.e. when the military expressed their disgruntlement toward any action revealing complaints over their authority. As good students in political opportunism, the Muslim Brotherhood leaders are playing the military council's game with full consciousness, thus distancing themselves from it whenever it announces its wish to prevent the elected parliament from exercising its right to oust Kamal al-Ganzouri's government, and growing closer to it whenever it grants them powers, even if at the expense of the other forces. Nonetheless, all of this failed to annul the truth which is clear to both the military and the MB, i.e. that there is a serious third force representing the conscience and soul of the revolution, which is very far from them and is safe among its people.
