On the Eve of Pivotal Supreme Court Rulings, All Scenarios Point to Turmoil

By: Ahmed Morsy

Photo Credit: AP

Egypt’s judiciary has emerged as a surprising new power-broker on the political scene, pushing the limits of its jurisdiction to rule on a number of polarizing and partisan disputes that have the potential to derail Egypt’s democratic transition just as it reaches the threshold of a transfer of power to civilian leadership. The judges - already struggling for their independence in the face of alleged interference from the executive branch -- have come under intense scrutiny after a controversial decision to suspendthe Constituent Assembly, then the trial against of NGO employees, and most recently the sentencing of former President Mubarak to a 25-year (life) prison term and acquitting his sons and six senior security officials. However, the most significant rulings that will impact Egypt’s democratic transition are still to come on June 14.  Just two days before the scheduled presidential runoff between Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak’s last prime minister, and Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, the Supreme Constitutional Court will review the constitutionality of both the Political Disenfranchisement and Parliament laws. The decisions of the court will have a tremendous effect on Egypt’s future and could prolong the rule of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

The SCAF as well as political factions have committed terrible mistakes that threaten to reverse the whole transitional process back to square one. The upcoming Supreme Court rulings are politically charged and raise difficult questions about the next steps. For instance, in the case of barring Ahmed Shafiq, will the entire presidential election be re-run from scratch, or will the race be limited to the 12 candidates who competed in the first round? On June 13, Hatem Bagato, the secretary general of the Presidential Election Commission (PEC), suggested that the latter would be the appropriate course of action, but the SCC has yet to decide. If the Parliament is deemed unconstitutional, how would Islamists react to losing control of the legislative branch? Parliamentary Speaker Saad al-Katatny has stated that Parliament will abide by the SCC’s ruling, yet he insists that Parliament cannot be dissolved until the next elected president takes office – if and when that happens. How would these rulings affect the already struggling Constituent Assembly tasked with writing the new Constitution? And finally how would the Egyptians react to the new changes, bearing in mind that it might lead to the extension of SCAF’s rule beyond the June 30 deadline?

Several scenarios have been argued by various constitutional and legal experts regarding the constitutionality of the discussed laws. Below I tried to offer a concise summary of these various possibilities based on some legal opinions.     

Constitutional Court Scenarios for the Disenfranchisement Law:

• The disenfranchisement law is found to be unconstitutional. Ahmed Shafiq will be allowed to participate in the presidential elections runoff on June 16-17 (Most Likely)
   
• The SCC declines to review the constitutionality of the law, finding that the Supreme Presidential Elections Commission (SPEC) did not have jurisdiction to refer it in the first place. The disenfranchisement law is allowed to stand.
   
• The law is upheld and Ahmed Shafiq is banned from the runoff; the election is suspended and restarted (least likely)

Constitutional Court Scenarios for the Parliament Law:

• Law is ruled unconstitutional and Parliament is dissolved (likely option)
   
• Removing party-based MPs from the individual candidates' seats they won, and re-running elections for those seats.  (another likely option that would minimize conflict with the Islamist majority)
   
• Law is ruled unconstitutional but Parliament is allowed to serve out the remainder of its term before new elections are called.
   
•  Law is upheld (least likely, in light of strong precedents for dissolving Parliament on constitutional grounds in 1984, 1987, and 1990)

The Four possible scenarios after the Constitutional Court rulings on June 14:

Scenario 1 

High possibility - Islamists weakened, and Parliament dissolved):

• Disenfranchisement Law is ruled unconstitutional. The elections continue and Ahmed Shafiq participates in the runoff on June 16-17.
   
• The Parliament Law found to be unconstitutional. Parliament will be dissolved and the electoral law changed, leading to a new round of parliamentary elections.

Scenario 2

(Least likely):

• Disenfranchisement Law is upheld (SCC declines to review the law because the electoral commission had no authority to refer it to the SCC in the first place). The Presidential election is halted; Ahmed Shafiq barred, and the election is restarted, probably including only the 12 candidates who participated in the first round.
   
•  Parliament Law is upheld and the legislature is not dissolved.

Scenario 3

(Compromise – Power sharing arrangement between SCAF & MB):

• Disenfranchisement Law ruled unconstitutional. The elections continue and Ahmed Shafiq participates in the runoff on June 16-17.
   
•  Parliament Law is upheld and the legislature is not dissolved.

Scenario 4

(Worst Case; Leads to the continuation of SCAF and wide array of havoc):

•  Disenfranchisement Law is ruled constitutional. The Presidential elections is halted; Ahmed Shafiq barred, and the elections are restarted.
   
•  Parliament Law is ruled unconstitutional. Parliament to be dissolved and the electoral law changed.

 

Ahmed Morsy is an Egyptian Researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews. This piece was originally published on the Atlantic Council's Egypt Source Blog.

Egypt's Transition in Danger of Regression

By: Ahmed Morsy 

Photo Credit: AP 

The word “transition” implies both an origin and a destination, yet Egypt’s transitional period is still circling around a dead-end.  The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has proven incompetent in leading the interim period, except in matters affecting the military. A bigger problem is that none of the other civil political forces in Egypt has yet managed to fill the power vacuum left by Mubarak. Meanwhile, a wave of legal turmoil is shaking up an already volatile political scene. The past weeks have witnessed several controversial decisions and court rulings on a wide range of issues from suspending the constituent assembly to banning 10 presidential candidates and approving a ‘Disenfranchisement Law’ That bars former Mubarak officials from public office.

In the midst of these recent legal developments, the Ministry of Insurance and Social Solidarity (MoISS) issued a contentious decision – on April 23 - denying registration requests for eight American civil society organizations. The Egyptian government claims that the “activities of these NGOs violate Egypt’s sovereignty.” Among these groups are the human rights and election monitoring Carter Center, the development group Coptic Orphans, and the youth-based conflict resolution organization Seeds of Peace. Despite claims made by the Egyptian government, these organizations assert they did not receive any official notices or charges to date. Most of these NGOs, including the ones put on trial last February, have been operating in Egypt for years and their activities were widely known and tracked by the Egyptian authorities. Among these well-established and legitimate organizations is the Carter Center, which was invited last year to “witness” Egypt’s Parliamentary elections. The Egyptian government’s decision to deny the application of an NGO that has been invited by the same government just a few months ago to observe the first post-Mubarak parliamentary elections is both inconsistent and irrational.

This unfortunate decision is reminiscent of the NGOs crackdown last December, which resulted in civil society groups being charged with operating and receiving money illegally in a politically motivated trial that has now been postponed until June 5. The MoISS decision issued one month ahead of the upcoming Presidential election is another blow to democracy, and signals to the international community that Egypt’s interim leaders are no more committed to transparency and human rights than their authoritarian predecessor.

On the same day that the eight American NGOs were denied registration, the Supreme Presidential Elections Committee (SPEC) issued the regulations for local as well as foreign NGOs planning to witness the Presidential elections. Unlike the regulations for the Parliamentary elections, foreign groups will now need to be registered in Egypt and file the names of their individual observers, which cannot include any Egyptian nationals, to a special committee comprised of representatives from the SPEC as well as the ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs, and National Security. This special committee will evaluate the applications and make recommendations to the SPEC, which will issue final decisions on the registration of international observers. However, the electoral commission also reserves the right to invite any organization it deems appropriate, even if it is not registered in Egypt, to observe the elections. It’s important to highlight that the SPEC’s decisions are immune against appeals according to article 28 of the 2011 Constitutional Declaration. This article defines the SPEC’s decisions as final and authoritative, which is an infringement on the constitutional right to due process.

The next couple of weeks will witness crucial decisions that will impact the duration of the transitional period and shape the character of Egypt’s next elected government. Rumors are circulating that the Presidential elections may even be postponed over legal challenges to certain electoral procedures. The Parliament’s vote to reject the Cabinet’s management plan and withdraw confidence from the government represents a challenge in the relationship between the SCAF and Parliament. Furthermore, we should not forget the much anticipated ruling on May 6 that will determine the constitutionality of the Parliamentary Law. If the legality of the parliamentary elections is successfully challenged, it could bring about dramatic consequences and possibly necessitate the dissolution of Parliament. A political shake-up of this magnitude could further  aggravate Egypt’s ailing economy and delay the military’s transfer of power to civilians beyond the June 30 deadline -- leading to a chaotic state of affairs that will not be favorable for any Egyptian whether in power or on the streets. 

Ahmed Morsy is an Egyptian Researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews. This piece was originally published on the Atlantic Council's Egypt Source Blog.

    

Is Egypt "Change Blind"?

By: Ahmed Morsy 

     Photo Credit: Foreign Policy

Political analysis alone cannot adequately explain the troubled state of Egypt’s transition.  The current crisis is rooted as much in social psychology as it is in politics. As Egypt’s political forces engage are polarizing around the volatile debates over the new constitution and Egypt’s next president, it appears that the population is collectively suffering from a phenomenon known as change blindness. This condition is defined as “a phenomenon in visual perception in which very large changes occurring in full view in a visual scene are not noticed.” In other words, it explains how humans can fail to notice major changes occurring right in front of their eyes and respond only after a delay or not at all. Experiments have shown that brain often does not react to change, and instead tends to portray what the observer expects to see, even if it changes in reality.

Could “change blindness" be one explanation for what happened to Egyptians after the takeover of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) from Mubarak? Or is it “selective listening” to when then-Vice President Omar Sulieman announced the hand in power statement? Or is maybe a selective reading and understanding of the country’s history that has resulted in the public’s failure to anticipate or combat the damaging consequences of protracted military rule?

This is by no means an accusation against one single group or institution in Egypt. It is a collective failure to comprehend the dramatic change of 2011 from all parties involved, whether it is the SCAF, political parties, or general public. For 60 years, Egypt has been governed through military-backed regimes. When Egyptians took to the streets in January 2011 to demand change and toppling the regime, they only succeeded in removing the “civilian” mask that was running the country.

Fourteen months since the January uprisings, it is more evident that though Egypt’s dictator fell, the dictatorship remains. Though the transfer of power from Mubarak to SCAF was unconstitutional, the people welcomed it out of their wide respect for the military, helped along by the army’s neutral stance during the 18 days and claims to have been the only institution that “sided” with the people against the Mubarak regime. But since then, the SCAF has further consolidated the power of the regime, maintaining economic and political privileges behind the façade of supporting a transitional phase into democracy. The failure of the military junta to realize and consider the people’s aspirations over the past year has left the country in political stagnation and strife, a deepening economic crisis and social upheaval.

At the same time, the old and new political forces have also failed in maintaining momentum and unified support for the revolution’s demands. Some have played upon the religiosity of the people to promote certain ideologies while being co-opted by the ruling generals to provide a civilian cover-up to its rule, and others have disastrously failed to connect with the public and participate effectively in the transition. The distorted political process has left the political forces as well as the general public divided and fighting the wrong battles.

On the other hand, the general public – revolutionaries and the silent majority – have also contributed to the chaotic transitional process. The lack of unity and clear vision from the political elite and ruling generals created misunderstanding and confusion for the people. It left the Egyptians to create their own interpretation of the events and decisions taken, which by default increased the rift between certain segments of the society.

Despite all the events that have taken place in Egypt thus far, now is not the time for pessimism. However, Egypt is long overdue for a wake-up call. Egyptians need to realize their weaknesses to be able to overcome them. We need to understand that democracy isn’t created overnight, and it’s not only the rule of the majority but also the respect for the opinions of the minorities. Change blindness, selective reading or listening are human weaknesses; and we all have to admit our faults and differences to able to start building the "new" Egypt.     

Ahmed Morsy is an Egyptian Researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews. This piece was published originally on the Atlantic Council's Egypt Source Blog.

Egypt’s NGO Crisis: Political Theater Preventing Democratic Progress

By: Ahmed Morsy 

Photo Credit: Huffington Post

Hopes were high that the second session of the NGO trial, held on March 8, would yield a resolution to the worst crisis in US-Egypt relations since the 1967 war. Robert Becker, the only indicted American who did not choose to leave the country after the travel ban was lifted, said he stayed to stand trial along with the 14 accused Egyptians because he is convinced of his innocence and the fairness of the Egyptian judiciary. But after today’s discouraging hearing, a solution seems to be slipping even further out of reach. The presiding judge decided to postpone the case to April 10 and called on the General Prosecutor’s office to bring in all accused foreigners who fled the country last week.     

The strained relationship between Egypt and the United States has been in the epicenter of local and international news for the past 2 months. All around the world, concerned observers have been riveted on the crackdown on Egyptian and foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that started suddenly on December 29, 2011. Early on, there were clear signs that this politically motivated investigation was not being conducted fairly or transparently. The investigators and the Egyptian government officials held press conferences and spoke to the media about sensitive information that should have been kept undisclosed due to the ongoing investigation. Egyptian officials, in particular Minister of International Cooperation Fayza Aboul Naga, have repeatedly insisted on upholding Egypt’s right to investigate irregularities and spurred a xenophobic media campaign against the United States and the targeted NGOs. The “Egypt wont kneel” video of Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri speaking at the People’s Assembly brought back memories of similar video of former President Gamal Abdel Nasser, in 1964, criticizing the U.S. and its aid policies.

Meanwhile, the United States has been in crisis-management mode. In response to the escalating investigation, the United States sent several delegations of senators and congressmen, diplomats and military officials in an attempt to negotiate with the Egyptian authorities, while threatening to withhold Egypt’s $1.3 billion military aid budget.

Shortly after the Egyptian government raided the offices of 17 NGOs in Cairo on December 29, I wrote an analysis questioning the motivations behind the investigation and criticizing the mismanagement of the process. It was apparent from the sudden escalation of the judicial inquiry that this case was politically driven from the start, and was anything but an independent or democratic process, as Egyptian officials tried to claim. And the abrupt and dramatic lifting of the travel ban last week confirms beyond a doubt that this case is a piece of political theater directed by Egypt’s leaders, who are manipulating the judiciary to advance their own strategic interests. On February 29, just three days after the first court session of the case, an Egyptian judge decided to lift the travel barring foreign NGO employees from leaving the country with a bail of 2 million Egyptian pounds (about $300,000). This mysterious decision, quickly attributed to a dodgy bilateral deal, and the departure of the foreigners the day after prompted a divide within the executive and judicial branches in Egypt, each blaming the other for betraying and selling out Egypt’s sovereignty and national dignity. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) failed to issue any explanatory statement, despite rising pressure from members of parliament who are demanding an inquiry into the government’s handling of the case.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Kamal Ganzouri’s cabinet has also come under fire from Parliament, as prominent members of the Brotherhood and other political forces accuse Ganzouri’s ministers of caving to American pressure. On March 8, Ahmed Fathi, head of the Brotherhood’s Shura Council, described the Cabinet as “weak and shaky” and warned that the People’s Assembly may call for a vote of no confidence within days. International Cooperation Minister Fayza Aboul Naga is struggling to defend the besieged cabinet – and her own job – andclaimed that only the SCAF has the authority to form a new government, according to the interim constitution. As the Parliament escalates its fierce attack on the executive branch, it’s clear that the SCAF’s biggest problem right now is not the United States, but its own legitimacy crisis.

Looking beyond the tense bilateral relationship, the NGO case is much bigger than a diplomatic hiccup in the US-Egypt relationship; it reflects a lack of accountability on the part of Egypt’s leaders and the chaos that has resulted from their mismanagement of the transition and failure to put forward a vision for the future. Since the SCAF took after Mubarak’s resignation last February, Egypt has been stumbling from one hurdle to the next with no clear vision or strategy for correcting failed policies. Starting with the dubious Constitutional Declarationdelegating all executive powers to the ruling generals, Egypt’s political transition has been further complicated by a chaotic electoral law and process and the deepening economic crisis.

The latest stumbling block, a xenophobic and politically motivated row with the United States over NGO funding, is another short-term distraction that prevents Egypt’s political forces from working collaboratively to develop a long-term vision for the country’s future. This self-destructive behavior was aptly described by Thomas Friedman as “Egypt’s Step Backward.” Some would argue that this view is overly pessimistic, but I believe it is a sorely needed reality check. You can’t fight an enemy you don’t know, and therefore it is imperative that Egyptians recognize that the greatest obstacles to a democratic transition are domestic not foreign.

Ahmed Morsy is an Egyptian Researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews. This piece was originally published on the Atlantic Council's Egypt Source Blog.

Egypt’s Paradox: Foreign-Funded Military attacks Foreign Funded NGOs

By: Ahmed Morsy 

Photo Credit: Nahar Net

Just one day before the end of the historic 2011, the Egyptian authorities could not bring themselves to end the year without undertaking actions that, yet again, have provoked domestic and international criticism. On December 29, several democracy and human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were stormed by combined police and army forces, accompanied by investigators from the General Prosecutor’s office. The raid targeted 17 offices of 10 NGOs on the grounds that they were illegally operating and accepting international assistance without the required registration permits, according to the Egyptian Middle East News Agency (MENA). This is part of a broader investigation launched by the government earlier this year into foreign funding and alleged violations of Egypt’s highly restrictive law regulating NGOs, Law No. 84/2002.  Of the 10 organizations targeted in the raid, six have officially confirmed break-ins: The Arab Center for Independence of the Judiciary ‎and the Legal Profession (ACIJLP); the Budgetary and Human ‎Rights Observatory; the German Konrad Adenauer –Stiftung (KAS), and the American National ‎Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and ‎Freedom House. These NGOs reported that their offices were raided and sealed by military and police personnel, who confiscated documents and computers.

In a collective response, over 31 groups led by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) expressed their concern and outrage in a statement condemning the break-ins. They appealed to the international community and accused the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) of spearheading a campaign since July to defame human rights activists and organizations committed to democracy development. Another Cairo-based group, The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information ‎‎(ANHRI) issued a statement describing the security crackdown as an ‎attempt to intimidate and silence activists with an iron-fisted brazenness that even Mubarak’s regime never dared to exercise. 

Although the international community has for the most part continued to express qualified support for the Egyptian military’s handling of the transition, the December 30 crackdown exposed the generals’ true intentions and mishandling of the transitional period. The United States through its Departments of State and Defense expressed deep concern over the attacks and called on the Egyptian government to end the raids and return all confiscated property. Germany summoned the Egyptian Ambassador and demanded an immediate investigation into the incident, while the European Union described the police raids as “an open demonstration of force” and urged Egyptian officials to support the work of civil society groups for the duration of the transitional period.

Although the latest raids indicate a sharp escalation in the government's crackdown on civil society, Egyptian NGOs have long faced difficulties operating in a hostile environment governed by the restrictive NGO law. The roots of the latest crackdown can be traced back to the aftershocks of Mubarak’s resignation in February of last year, when the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated $65 million under the new Egyptian Economic and Transition Support programs for grants available to any Egyptian, American and international organizations working in Egypt. But the Egyptian government soon became concerned that American support for civil society would lead to intervention in domestic political affairs, and in July, Fayza Aboul Naga, Egypt’s Minister of International Cooperation, publicly announced that cases of illegal foreign funding to unregistered local and ‎international NGOs in Egypt would be investigated. The government of former Prime Minister Essam Sharaf promptly formed fact-finding committee to launch a probe into the charges. By October, the Ministry of Justice stepped up its investigation by commissioning two judges to explore the allegations, while the interim government increasingly portrayed foreign funding as one of the primary causes of continued political unrest and protests.

By late November, preliminary findings of the commission’s investigations were leaked to the press. The investigation, according to Al-Shorouk newspaper, involved questioning around 400 organizations that received foreign funding over the past 6 years. 

Although Fayza Aboul Naga had clearly intended for the investigation to incriminate US-funded groups promoting democratization, the commission's evidence supported a very different conclusion: Salafi Islamist organizations were actually the biggest beneficiaries of international assistance, much of it originating from the conservative Gulf monarchies. According to the report, Egyptian Salafis received at least $48.9 million in funding from Gulf donors.  The Egyptian Salafi organization Ansar al-Sunna, which received almost $19 million from a single Kuwaiti Islamic association, was the biggest recipient of foreign funding, not any of the human rights groups or youth movements that had been so maligned and defamed by the Egyptian government. 

Since the December 29 raids, growing international criticism and outright condemnations have significantly increased pressure on the ruling generals. Field Marshal Tantawi assured Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in a phone conversation on December 31 - that the government will cease its crackdown and return the confiscated material. However, SCAF’s empty promises have not translated into action. In fact, the issue has escalated into a full-blown media war as the SCAF scrambles to deny responsibility for the raids. The Egyptian Defense Attaché to the United States, General Mohamed al-Keshki, said that the NGO investigation is under the jurisdiction of the judiciary and public prosecutor, denying any involvement by the SCAF. On January 1, the Ministers of International Cooperation and Justice held a press conference in which they defended the measures independently taken by the judiciary while insisting that the SCAF and interim government were not interfering or influencing the investigation. Meanwhile, NDI and IRI have issued updated statements describing the attacks on their offices and clarifying the nature of their activities to try to counter to the latest media attacks.

Why is the Egyptian government pursuing this campaign against civil society, and why now? An analysis of SCAF’s official statements sheds light on the situation and exposes the severity of the harassment faced by NGOs. Since July, the military council has been accusing opposition groups like April 6 and Kefaya of advancing foreign agendas by illegally accepting foreign funding. In the SCAF’s 69^th communiqué, posted to its Facebook page on July 22, the military blamed personal interests and foreign agendas for rising tensions between the military forces and the people. This was further emphasized on December 20 in statements 91 and 92, which claimed that intelligence information pointed to a foreign-led plan to destabilize Egypt through mass protests and sit-ins. The government’s conspiracy theories have created a climate of fear and mistrust among the people, and the recent pattern of events – violent clashes in December followed by the latest raids – suggests that the SCAF is deliberately enflaming anxiety and panic to assert control over the transition.

The SCAF’s latest actions serve the purpose of consolidating the military’s power by sending several different messages to domestic as well as international actors including:

• Reminding human rights groups, NGOs, and revolutionary forces that the SCAF is still in control.

• To the Egyptian public - countering critics of the military by claiming that the SCAF is protecting Egypt’s sovereignty and national interests by securing the country against the “foreign agendas and third party” represented by some NGOs and outside forces.

• A message reminding the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist forces that the SCAF is still in charge of the transition, even though Islamist candidates won a clear parliamentary majority.

• To the West and the U.S. in particular—we have the power. Much of the old system survived the fall of Mubarak; the military is still your best option when compared to rising Islamists, the only clear alternative. We just want you to keep writing us a $1.3 billion check each year that we decide how to spend without interference.

By continuing its own propaganda campaign while allowing contradictory reports from different officials and ministries, the SCAF is trying to deflect blame for the crackdown by portraying the government as a decentralized network of independent institutions that operate beyond the SCAF’s oversight.  

The Egyptian government’s increasingly defensive and often contradictory messages to US officials are evidence of unprecedented tension in the bilateral relationship since the fall of Mubarak. Many Egyptian NGOs rely heavily on foreign funding. Yet the Egyptian government has used the international aid issue as a bargaining chip when dealing with Washington, and has deliberately obstructed American organizations from opening branch offices in Cairo. Both IRI and NDI applied for registration with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in 2005 and have yet to receive official permits. However, both organizations maintain offices and staff in Egypt. According to the Wikileaks cables, an MFA official in 2006 said that resolving the pending registration could best be resolved by high level talks between the two governments. Over the next few years, Mubarak’s regime used this bargaining chip to try to fend off the democratizing agenda of the Bush administration.

Today, Egypt's military leaders – who are starting to behave a lot like Mubarak – appear to be acting out against the prospect of new conditions linking Egypt's 1.3 billion dollar military aid package to progress on democratization. The U.S. Congress approved a new spending bill on December 16 that imposes tough conditions on military aid to Egypt for 2012. The new restrictions require the State Department to certify that Egypt’s government is supporting the transition to civilian leadership and respecting “freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law.” Will the military leadership risk $1.3 billion in aid by refusing to cease its crackdown? The answer will become increasingly clear in the coming days.

With the 1-year anniversary of the January 25 uprising fast approaching and a new Parliament scheduled to convene at the end of the month, the SCAF is facing many challenges and growing pressure to fulfill the revolution’s democratic demands. Between transferring power to civilians and overseeing the drafting of a new constitution, the SCAF has its hands full and the last thing Egypt's military leaders should be looking for is trouble with Washington.

Let us not forget that the ultimate irony here: The party guilty of receiving the most foreign funding is the Egyptian military, not NGOs, and generals in glass houses should not throw stones.

Ahmed Morsy is an Egyptian researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews. This piece was originally published on the Atlantic Council's Egypt Source Blog.