The popularity of President Sisi!

Is it true that the President is not concerned about his popularity? Or that the decisions he takes affect his popularity in the first place? Is it true that he does not care about popularity, as he says? Is it true that “nothing will happen” as he said concerning the decrease in his popularity? Then what is it that concerns the president exactly?

I tell you out of certainty that the President doesn’t fear for his popularity, because he is between two things, either to keep the homeland before his eyes, or to go for popularity and elections, and make the populist decisions!

It’s rather decent that the President realizes the seriousness of the economic decisions he is making. It’s rather good that he knows its immediate impact on the people. But the point is that if he hadn’t made these decisions, it would’ve been the homeland that pays the price, and Egypt might have declared bankruptcy.

Many agree on the importance of economic decisions, but disagree on the means of implementation. We all know that the state has not actually taken any proactive measures to attract investment and increase production!

Let us admit for a minute that the economic decisions only satisfied a very small segment of society, the only ones enriched by the currency devaluation after the flotation. But in the end, it’s the poor who paid the price.

Let us also admit that the recent decisions to recover the state lands satisfied the poor, but the rich will pay the price. For your information, the President knows that the recent decisions pour into the balance of his popularity, but it does not serve the country nor the economic investments!

I think that after the economic decisions the President lost the simple people, but after the announcement of measures to recover state property, he lost the business sharks.

This is simply a question of popularity. We wanted the policies (of the President) to be “moderate” and not to satisfy one class at the expense of another. We wished for the decisions to be studied first, whether they were economic or political, or whether they related to state property. There is something incomprehensible: is for the purpose of legalizing the situation of seized state properties or bringing it down to earth?!

Yesterday, the President renewed his demand for governors, security directors and army commanders to submit statements at the end of this month on the progress of recovering state lands.

Some people will most certainly be subjected to injustice, and their homes will be demolished or their crops destroyed. This is the point that the president should have made clear: Do not demolish homes or cut trees; rather, offer people the means to settle their situation. We are never pleased to see bulldozers destroy the crops and buildings, we want construction not sabotage!

From the President’s talk, one phrase drew my attention: “We wouldn’t be [honorable] men with pride if we let someone stretch out his hand to grab our country’s land.” With his populist phrases, the president declares war, and excites the men’s mettle (the officials).

And of course preserving the land of Egypt and its soil is very important, but it’s more important, Mr. President, not to turn the cultivated land into dust. What is more important is that the governors, commanders of the army, and the security directors investigate the “productive” land to discern it from the land that is being turned into dirt for business purposes!

The President could have announced the opening of the door for settlements and the legalization of the situation before the security forces and army moved in. The President could have reaffirmed: “No one is above the law!” The state could have reached the same result without fear or intimidation, but the president seems to be up to his limits.

And still, we disagree every time on the method itself!


Related Articles

Back to top button