What happens to Egypt?

What happens to Egypt? That is the question on many people's lips.  The question is no longer associated with changing the military regime in Egypt, which was  established in 1952 as a result of a military coup which overthrew the monarchy. The subject is Egypt itself and how to rescue the embattled country. The future of Egypt is at stake, having suffered a wounding crisis following the January 25 revolution, when the 50-year-old regime was finally terminated by the stepping down of President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak was ousted following an agreement between the military establishment, which he mistakenly believed he controlled, and the Muslim Brotherhood which proved to be a force to be reckoned with, capable of mobilising the people on the street.  Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood showed they are the sole force who can martial the populace, including the youth revolution who were behind the mega demonstrations in Tahrir Square. What happened in reality  is that the Muslim Brotherhood entered the revolution with perfect timing which enabled them to reap the fruits of youth, who were the engine driving the revolution via today's communications technology,  which changed the nature of confrontation with the regime. This past few weeks have exposed the Muslim Brotherhood to show that they are not in it to power-share.  They broke the promise made before the recent parliamentary elections, that they would not not control the new parliament. A few days ago, it was revealed that they were determined to draft the new constitution to suit their ends. It also came to light that they would field their own presidential candidate despite an earlier insistence that they would not nominate any of their leadership to the presidential elections and that they wanted a new constitution to embrace all sections of Egyptian society. However,  the Brotherhood over-stepped their boundaries when they sought to impose a constitution tailored towards them, forcing al-Azhar al-Sharif from the Constituent Assembly charged with drafting the constitution text.  The Coptic Orthodox Church followed al-Azhar's approach and also withdrew from the Constituent Assembly. Are the Muslim Brotherhood being manipulative -- using a ploy to enter into a confrontation with the Military Council in order to end the current regime? Some believe that the Brotherhood does not want to power-share whether the partner is the Military Council, the military institution in general or any other party enjoying the least popular representation. A time to monopolise Egypt's power base by providing their own candidate, Khairat al-Shater, who has many question marks over his head concerning his past. In return, some believe that the Muslim Brotherhood are still manoeuvering and that by nominating al-Shater they will circumvent an opportunity for Abdel-Moneim Abul a candidate from an  earlier offshoot of the Brotherhood, who enjoys great popularity. Meanwhile, others believe the Brotherhood were forced to name one of their leaders in the elections to avoid further splits inside the movement. Egypt is looking different in 2012. The question now is not whether we will witness a confrontation between the military institution and the Brotherhood, or even whether if there is a Brotherhood breakthrough inside the army. Is there anybody who is able to find a solution to Egypt’s list of problems? Population growth, limited agricultural areas, poor water supplies, low education level, religious extremism, and the situation concerning the Copts. The last 50 years in Egypt has witnessed no-end of failed strategies, including Egypt's 1967 defeat in the 6-Day war with Israel, to the rule of Mubarak, who wanted to hand down power to his son, Gamal. In the year 2012, as Egypt is on the verge of presidential elections, is there any role left for it to play in the region? Is Egypt capable of addressing its internal crises and the massive problems it creates? Some narrow-minded voices in Egypt are talking about the Camp David treaty. A treaty which former president Anwar al-Sadat signed, after he realised that his country's economy was on the brink of collapse. Is there anybody who can still remember that Sadat visited Jerusalem only a few months after a public uprising had broken out and was about to burn down the Egyptian capital? At the time, people were shouting in the streets that they couldn’t find bread. The state was unable to provide bread, tea, nor sugar, so Sadat was forced to seek an end to the conflict in the region, and he may have succeeded in that, but where he didn’t succeed – along with his successor Mubarak -- was to achieve long-term solutions for Egypt’s problems. Now, there is a new Egypt emerging, following the collapse of military rule, but the military are still around, trying to muscle in on their share of authority. There is also the Muslim Brotherhood who are unable to offer a solution for any of Egypt’s problems. Finally, there are those who can still remember Egypt’s glory days, the  Egypt of the thirties, forties, and fifties: an Egypt that produced Om Kolthoum, Abdel Wahab, Taha Hussein, and al-Aqqad, along with thousands of pioneers, whose  contributions  have been enjoyed well beyond the Egyptian borders. The Egypt we knew, which guaranteed some civilising features during the eras of Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak no more exists.  It is better then  to salvage what remains from Egypt's glory days, by finding a national figure who can convince both the military and the Brotherhood that getting rid of past failures is not easy, but also not impossible, especially if the two parties will admit that  they are voices from a bygone era.