What do you guys think? And of course there is a difference between the Tamarod movement and the Tamarod leadership but there must have been some meetings between Tamarod and the military before June 30th. The surprising thing is that people like Badr arent upset with some of the things the army is doing that surely should upset pro-democracy activists (basic things such as censorship, banning freedom of assembly). Right after the sit-ins dispersal, however, Tamarod leaders Mahmoud Badr and Mohamed Abdel Aziz surprised Egyptians with a televised national address on state television, calling on Egyptians to form neighborhood watches to protect homes, mosques and churches. In their statements, they adopted the government’s rhetoric of a fight against domestic terrorism. Addressing the nation on the highly regulated state-run television stations in the hallowed halls of Maspero is no easy matter. Clearly, Tamarods address was welcomed, if not invited, by authorities. The January 25 Revolution was both highly criticized and applauded for its lack of any clear leadership. This lack of leadership secured the revolution against back-room deals, but at the same time, placed the supporters of January 25 one step behind those willing to negotiate with the then-ruling military. In contrast, since June 30, whenever the powers that be want to demonstrate they are working hand-in-hand with the ‘revolution,’ Tamarod is always invited to the table. This has led to Tamarod becoming the only group with multiple representatives in the constituent assembly tasked with amending the 2012 constitution. Mahmoud Badr and Mohamed Abdel Aziz were both named as part of the constituent assembly, likely as an attempt to consolidate the body’s appearance of revolutionary legitimacy. Judging by Tamarod’s public position, it is safe to say, however, that the campaign has been taking an active role in the militarys propaganda in a way that is neither revolutionary nor rebellious. The campaign is also openly competing for power, and is not embarrassed to pursue that quest hand-in-hand with the military. Campaign members constantly argue that they cannot help but support the army, saying it is the army that saved the country from the grave danger that is the Muslim Brotherhoods rule. They, therefore, see no reason to hide their appreciation and respect for the patriotic institution. Their arguments are, to some degree, fair. Yet, the fact that they see only the armys achievements and choose to turn a blind eye to the numerous violations practiced by the military backed regime is anything but fair. In truth, Tamarod seems to be more like the Muslim Brotherhood they revolted against. Two years ago, the Brotherhood chose to side with the military, and sell out the January 25 revolution in exchange for personal gains. Tamarod appears to have set itself on a similar path, claiming ownership of the revolution, and reaping its rewards. atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/egyptsource/tamarod-a-mild-rebellion
Posted on: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:30:22 +0000