Justice serving politics
February 24, 2015
The verdict was meant to make an impact: five years in prison for participating in an illegal demonstration. Many people who take issue with the politics of the current Egyptian government will probably think twice before expressing their views as part of a protest. Even more so, because it was Alaa Abdel Fatah – one of the most well-known Egyptian civil rights activists – who was sentenced.
The average Egyptian has been given to understand that prominence offers no protection from a tough penalty. But the opposite is also true: that the less prominent you are, the tougher the verdict. That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the sentences handed down to Fatah's less well-known defendants: they were given prison sentences of up to 15 years.
It will likely be difficult for Egyptians to view the court's verdict as an isolated case. It brings to mind far too many other verdicts recently handed down by Egyptian courts. Hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members have been sentenced to death in several trials. Thousands of opponents to the regime are incarcerated. Amnesty International cites sources that say Egypt had some 40,000 political prisoners by the summer of 2014 – most without a proper conviction.
The judicial developments are in sync with the political ones. When Reporters Without Borders recently published its annual press freedom ranking, Egypt was in 157th place out of a total 180 places. Last autumn, in the wake of a deadly militant attack in Sinai, the editors of 17 private and state newspapers declared that they would no longer tolerate criticism of state institutions.
The publishers framed their position as an act of patriotism in difficult times. Others described it as self-censorship. According to press reports, the government also wants to control the Internet in order to suppress "destructive ideas." Among these are "calls to demonstrate," "defamation of religion," "mockery, slander, and obscenity.” It's a whole new world of rubber band legislation.
The government defends its political course citing concerns about stability and a duty to fight terrorism. But there's a growing impression that it is equally about catapulting the country back to pre-revolutionary times.
Before 2011, the government faced very little resistance, and politics didn't have to contend all that much with annoying troublemakers. The political elite don't seem to care much that the calm prevailing then had less to do with popular acceptance of the government, and more to do with the fear of landing in one of its jails.
It's doubtful whether those times will come again. The terrorism in Sinai shows that not everyone is intimidated by the regime. Above all, you have to ask yourself who is actually being targeted in the fight against terrorism: just the sympathizers of Islamic State in Sinai? Or all those who use peaceful means to criticize Sisi's politics, whether on a religious or secular basis? Monday's verdict would indicate that the Egyptian justice system has a rather expansive understanding of activities deemed harmful to the state.
The Mubarak regime toppled four years ago was seen in Europe and the US as an anchor of political stability. This view has stripped the West of sympathy in Egypt as well as in other Arab countries ruled by power-hungry regimes. Resentment of dictators resulted in protests that, in turn, cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. The mass killings will only end when democratic regimes and institutions establish themselves in the Middle East. Otherwise, revolution will follow revolution in the region.