The Civil Democratic Movement is witnessing a new dispute following the statement it issued last Tuesday on its opposition to the continuation of the war waged by the Israeli occupation forces on the Gaza Strip since 7 October, which has developed until its fire reached the Palestinian city of Rafah, adjacent to the Egyptian border. In its statement, the movement called on the Egyptian authorities to allow the public to demonstrate last Friday in designated places to express rejection of genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and rejection of American complicity.
It appears that the statement, in which the movement criticised Egypt’s official position on the brutal aggression against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, was not agreed on among the components of the Civil Movement, which includes 12 political parties and a number of public figures, even though it was published on the Civil Movement’s official page on the social media site Facebook. This sparked a new crisis among the movement’s components, threatening to worsen the state of disintegration it is witnessing, whose signs began with the presidential election and have not yet ended.
A source inside the Civil Movement, who preferred not to be named, confirmed that the Conservative Party, the Reform and Development Party and the Constitution Party objected to issuing the statement without consensus, explaining that the Reform and Development Party is the most hardline in its position on the statement, followed by the Conservative Party and then the Constitution Party, both of which objected to publishing the statement without taking their opinion or obtaining their approval.
An Organisational or a Political Crisis?
Akram Ismail, a leading member of the Bread and Freedom Party and a member of the Civil Movement, says that before it was issued, the statement was put to a WhatsApp group that includes members of the Civil Movement for eight hours, and there was no reply or objection to it, and on that basis the statement was published.
Ismail explained in his conversation with Zawia3 that the latest crisis is organisational, but it reflects the political divergence and disagreement the Civil Movement has come to in the recent period, which began with the presidential election and continues to this moment.
Disagreement crept into the Civil Movement during the presidential election, after nine parties within the movement issued a press statement confirming they would not take part in the election and denying that the movement had a presidential candidate, at a time when Farid Zahran, head of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, had begun his election tours. Things soon developed, ending with the Justice Party and the Egyptian Social Democratic Party deciding to freeze their membership in the movement from November until now.
But a source from the Civil Movement confirmed to Zawia3 that the disagreements within it are not only organisational but are political at their root. They began after the press statements made by the head of the Reform and Development Party, Mohamed Anwar Sadat, to the Israeli newspaper “Yedioth Ahronoth”, which was criticised by parties within the Civil Movement, specifically the Nasserist and leftist parties.
Mohamed Anwar Sadat, head of the Reform and Development Party, had spoken to Yedioth Ahronoth last January, indicating that he understood the “Israeli anger” over what happened on 7 October, explaining that he trusts the Egyptian state and that Cairo and Tel Aviv are not enemies, as there is a peace agreement between the two sides. This angered and upset some of the Civil Movement’s leaders.
The movement had witnessed a similar dispute in the past few months, following the meeting last August between Hamdeen Sabahi, a leading figure in the Civil Movement, and Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, who is accused of committing crimes against his people in connection with the Syrian revolution that broke out in 2011.
No Time for Protests
A source inside the Conservative Party revealed in his conversation with Zawia3 that the party rejects the statement published on the Civil Movement’s official page, and that the matter is not only organisational; rather, they believe the demands contained in the statement are not agreed upon within the movement.
He explained that the current situation does not call for demonstrations but for rallying behind the political leadership, especially as Egypt is going through critical circumstances, and that anyone who wants to protest and demonstrate should first apply for a permit as stipulated by the Protest Law.
For his part, Alaa Abdel Nabi, deputy head of the Reform and Development Party, says in his conversation with Zawia3 that the statement published by the Civil Movement was not presented to the party, pointing out that they reject the demands it contained and reject the call for demonstrations, because current circumstances require standing behind the political leadership and the army, and therefore “the current time is not suitable either for demonstrations or for issuing statements”.
On the protest the movement called for last October in front of the Mostafa Mahmoud Mosque, the deputy head of the Reform and Development Party said: “Times and circumstances have changed. Back then the political leadership allowed us to demonstrate, and we did express our opinion, and we believe the matter ended there. There are other paths besides demonstrating that can be taken at present, including providing aid”, explaining that the party’s executive office will meet within 15 days to discuss our position on the Civil Movement, either freezing or continuing.
Former MP Talaat Khalil, a leading member of the Conservative Party, declines to talk about the current crisis, pointing out that the disagreements taking place are natural, given the different political backgrounds of the parties in the Civil Movement, and explaining that it has many files it must engage with in the coming period, foremost among them the economic crisis.
On the other hand, Akram Ismail, a leading member of the Bread and Freedom Party, says the aim of the statement is not to cast doubt on Egypt’s role, and that the talk of impotence in the statement relates to the conduct of the Israeli occupation, which is indifferent to any Arab or Western state, as “we see that Netanyahu, the occupation’s prime minister, and the war cabinet show contempt for all parties in the world”.
He added that the role of the Egyptian opposition, as we understand it, is to raise the ceiling of demands, apply forms of pressure and express public opinion and the great anger the Egyptian people feel at the genocide the people of Gaza have been subjected to since last October, and that this is supposed to give the Egyptian regime room to manoeuvre by having an opposition that demands the cancellation of the Camp David Accords and the expulsion of the Israeli occupation’s ambassador. If the opposition does not do this, it means it has not played its role.
The statement published on the Civil Movement’s page, which caused the current crisis, had called for the cancellation of the Camp David Accords and the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador from Egypt.
Liquidating the Civil Movement
Commenting, Medhat El-Zahed, head of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, says the Civil Movement did not call for demonstrations in its latest statement, but rather called on the state to allow the expression of popular anger and to designate places for demonstrating on Friday; therefore this statement did not target the state and contained nothing against it, contrary to what was rumoured. At the same time, the statement was attacked by multiple parties because it called for allowing citizens to exercise their natural right to demonstrate, which happens daily all over the world.
El-Zahed continued in his conversation with Zawia3: “The Socialist Popular Alliance Party issued a statement following the controversy caused by the Civil Movement’s statement mentioned above, and in its statement it called for performing the funeral prayer in absentia in mosques, to calm the situation and focus on the main purpose of the first statement, namely condemning the Israeli aggression on Gaza and Rafah. Prayer takes place in mosques, not in the streets, and the statement supports the official Egyptian position announced in rejecting displacement and aggression against the Palestinian people and rejecting the occupation’s control over the Salah al-Din Corridor; therefore, the statement was clear in its text that it is directed exclusively against the aggression”.
The head of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party adds that the demand to cancel or suspend the Camp David Accords is a natural and very conceivable demand given the occupation’s violations on the Egyptian border in the city of Rafah, which contradict the provisions of the agreement stating that no unilateral action is taken in this area and that the size of forces and troops is predetermined; therefore, “if Tel Aviv infringes on this right, the agreement must inevitably be cancelled or suspended, and this is a matter related to Egypt’s standing”.
El-Zahed stresses that these demands are not pressure on the state but pressure alongside the state, adding: “If we assume they are pressure on the state, all democratic societies are based on the idea of pressure groups to achieve certain interests, and basically the opposition is considered part of the state according to Article 5 of the constitution, which stipulates that the political system is based on party pluralism; therefore, we consider ourselves parties in the state discussing together the best means for our people’s progress and the protection of its national security”.
He goes on: “When do we say it is not the time for opposition? If Egypt is subjected to a direct invasion; in that case the opposition must reformulate its demands appropriately. But at the current stage, supporting the state means affirming the demands related to Egypt’s sovereignty over all its borders, by land, sea and air, and this is the disciplined position befitting the Egyptian opposition”, stressing that when peoples are subjected to a siege, under international law neighbouring states must come to their aid, and Gaza now has not only been subjected to a siege but to genocide and ethnic cleansing; therefore, it is necessary to demand the withdrawal from the Camp David Accords as a means of pressure on the state.
He explained that any aggression on the city of Rafah amounts to a declaration of war on Egypt that requires taking practical steps, and in all cases the decisions of the International Court of Justice must be implemented, which spoke of precautionary measures to prevent the occupation from committing genocide, and which immediately raise the opening of the crossing and defending the need for aid to reach the Palestinian territories, and also mean not being bound to an entity carrying out the systematic liquidation of the Palestinian people in any political or economic relations. “But the latest statement was used to liquidate the Civil Movement and confiscate any independent action”.
Restructuring on the Ruins of Disagreements
In an attempt to gather the scattered Civil Movement, which started strong with its return to the political arena after the Egyptian Family Iftar in 2022, resulting in the reconstitution of the pardon committee and the call for the national dialogue, whose sessions have not yet ended, the movement put forward an initiative calling for its restructuring, to overcome the crises and restore its cohesion.
According to information obtained by Zawia3, the movement has not yet finished drawing up the final vision for the restructuring, while the future of the initiative is not yet clear, especially as Mohamed Anwar Sadat, head of the Reform and Development Party and a prominent leader in the Civil Democratic Movement, was part of the team working on the restructuring before the latest crisis found its way into the movement.
On this, Medhat El-Zahed says that “the movement needs to put forward a treatment of certain matters, otherwise it will end up in division and dissolution, including the nature of the movement’s discourse in the coming stage, as well as the nature of its slogans, because the movement has two currents: the first sees joining the political system, even by tagging along and partnering with the loyalist parties in the coming parliamentary elections, as happened in the 2020 parliamentary elections, while the second current sees that it must be independent, and that participating in elections or in the political sphere in general should not be conditional on cooperating with the loyalist parties, which in past years have deliberately enacted legislation restricting political life and harming the people and the economy”.
