Madina newspaper Over 35 years ago, I asked late Dr. Fuad Al-Attar, who was an expert in constitutional law, about the difference between a revolution and a coup d'état. “If it succeeds, it's a revolution; if it doesn't, it's a coup d'état,” Dr. Al-Attar said laughingly. Of course, he was talking about the revolutions of the 1950s and 1960s, all of which were coups d'état, with the first one taking place in Syria in 1949 by Husni Al-Za'eem. These coups, whose leaders called them revolutions, stopped two years ago following the coup in Mauritania. The people of the Middle East have confused revolutions with coups d'état because this region has not seen real revolutions led by people for centuries. In a military coup d'état, the army is the owner of the political project and the coup in the sense that it is the military generals who have the power to carry out their political agenda. Revolutions, on the other hand, which are staged by people, can topple the regime but they do not have the power necessary to make changes. That is the reason why the same questions were posed in Tunisia and Egypt following the collapse of both regimes: What comes after all this? Who will take over? And in what capacity? Is there a foreseeable timeline to make the change for which revolutions were staged? Perhaps the lack of understanding of the difference between a revolution and a coup is what worries the people who have taken to the streets since the beginning of this year. When the regimes were toppled, the people were confused. They were the same people who joined forces to overthrow the regimes and they were the same people who were divided because they did not agree on the goals to be achieved after the collapse of the regimes. They were even more confused and divided because those who have taken over power in Tunisia and Egypt were not the same people who staged the revolutions. In other words, the military officers were tasked with the mission of managing the revolutions, military officers who had nothing to do with these revolutions, military officers who are used to obeying superior orders without questioning, military officers who listen to the orders of the supreme leader (former presidents of Egypt and Tunisia), military officers who swore to protect the constitution. Armed forces are used to pledging allegiance to and protecting the constitution. However, these armies were surprised when they knew that they had to do the opposite - they had to overthrow the current constitution because it was the reason why people staged a revolution. This is another paradox that confuses the military, and leads to people being suspicious and worried about its hesitation to implement the programs of the revolution. Even if military generals want to achieve the revolution's demands, they find it difficult to identify the nature of these demands, and to understand who came up with them and if there is there a national consensus about them. For these reasons and many others, the military officers in charge of managing the revolution view the revolution as a quagmire which they would like to find a quick way out with little or no cost. People in the street, on the other hand, view the revolution as a beautiful dream coming true, a dream that gets more beautiful the less the military intervenes in the revolution. There is a growing chasm of trust between the predicament the military officers find themselves in and the confusion of the revolutionaries. The military view revolutionaries as a threat to the country's institutions while the revolutionaries view the military with mistrust because it is not taking any immediate action towards achieving the demands of the revolution. These demands include settling old scores (trials for former regime figures) and adopting policies and visions on which the revolutionaries believe they have a consensus, while the military is worried that these policies and visions cause a division in society. This is the current situation in Egypt, but there is a way out if procedures are put in place that guarantee the smooth transfer of power. These procedures include: The military officers who run the revolution should admit that this is a revolution no matter what the consequences may be. They should support the revolution and immediately hold the former regime figures accountable to end any suspicions and show that the military is committed to transferring the regime to a democratically elected one. Revolutionaries should appoint a committee representing them with which the military should hold dialogues about national issues. Efforts should be exerted by the military to end the continuous struggle between political parties that want to take advantage of the current situation to seize power and parties that view the revolution as an opportunity to lay down new rules for the political game. This requires the following: * Referendum results which were ignored by the constitutional announcement made by the Higher Council of Egypt Armed Forces should be accepted. * All political forces should agree on general principles that govern the new constitution. These principles should be based on: First: Shariah principles. Second: The principles of all international covenants on human rights and which were approved by all Egyptian parliaments since the inception of the United Nations in 1945. The principles of international covenants approved by the Parliament supersede any domestic law, thus the new constitution should not have any articles against the general principles of all international treaties approved by the Egyptian government. * All political forces and the military agree on the importance of complying with Shariah, on the one hand, and with all international covenants endorsed by the Egyptian government on the other. Based on this, it will be easy to achieve agreement and commitment. * A mechanism which includes the general rules for selecting representatives of national parties for a committee which will be in charge of laying down the new constitution should be adopted. The mechanism should be based on the basic principle that the constitution is for the entire nation not for a political majority and that the mechanism should be based on equality, ie, an equal number of members of each party should be selected according to two rules: First: Each political force or group, no matter how big it is, should have two representatives in the committee. Copts should be represented by a percentage equal to their number compared to that of the number of the committee members. Women should be represented in percentage equal to their participation in the labor force. Second: Geographic representation which means that each governorate should be represented by two locals no matter how large its population is. The above can be viewed as a notion which confirms the need for a roadmap and a confidence-building process which will help overcome all difficulties during this transitional phase. However, the rate at which events have been transpiring does not offer a real opportunity to ponder over issues and learn lessons. As a result, we tend to pass judgments based on our feelings when we should be using our minds which in the end can disrupt the process of designing a road map. __
