“We’d be outraged if we weren’t so exhausted.’’

...Hossam Baghat, head of the well-known NGO Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, tweeted on Thursday, commenting on the most recent turn in Egypt's transition. Washington Post article by Leila Fadel describes the situation in Cairo yesterday, one day after the court ruling to dissolve parliament and one day before the presidential run-off:

"Only a few bedraggled demonstrators turned out to protest the latest turn in Egypt’s turbulent journey — the court-ordered dissolution of parliament. Honking cars inched past symbolic tombs honoring protesters slain by security forces. With presidential balloting to begin Saturday, people on the sweltering streets looked fatigue and numb.

Even Friday’s shuttering of the Islamist-dominated parliament by Egypt’s ruling military generals, who were carrying out the court ruling, did not stir much in the way of condemnation. Many of those who fought hardest for the toppling of Hosni Mubarak now appear resigned to see the old guard come back to power."

"Fatigue and numb" seems an appropriate description to me. And it appears that the revolutionaries where wrong when they claimed, in face of the military coup on February 11, 2011 and throughout the entire transitional period: "now the future is ours and they cannot really take the revolution from us'. And each time we feel this, then again we go to the streets" (from an interview conducted in December 2011, with a 23-old student here in Cairo). The idea that "Tahrir is always there" and any step of the ruling powers could be met by another large protest rested on the wrong assumption that the events of January 2011 were nothing but a spontaneous expression of people's will. In fact however, the large-scale processes had been preceded by a long phase of preparation and mobilization. They did not come out of the blue - and so today a mass protest won't come out of the blue, especially not if people are tired and worn out by last years developments.

So if massive protests are not likely now, is there no way to prevent Ahmed Shafiq from becoming Egypt's next president? (Note: A president with completely unchecked power now that parliament has been dissolved, no constitution is in place, and the judiciary is no longer deemed independent.) Well, there is a simple option to at least prevent a smooth takeover by Shafiq and keep the political game open for another round: more than 50% of those polling vote for Morsi.

To me, that seems a viable option, in particular in face of the daunting alternative. Yet, this might only be so because I am not worried about the geopolitical consequences of an MB-led Egypt, and because I don't find the idea of Islamic standards of behaviour enforced in the public sphere too threatening. Already being in Egypt means that I can not behave the way I am used to, that a high degree of adaptation is enforced on me and that questions of morality are constantly on my mind. And, to be fair, the fact that other than Egypt's religious minorities, staunch liberals and Westernized youth, I can simply leave and settle elsewhere if it pleases me.

For many Egyptians however things look different (quoting again from WP): "'The revolution is dead,' said Omnia Nabil, 24, holding an Egyptian flag among protesters in the square outnumbered by vendors peddling revolutionary paraphernalia. Still, she added: 'I will vote for the devil before I vote for the Muslim Brotherhood.'"

Ok, wait: "I will vote for the devil" rather than for Morsi? Either I completely underestimate the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood, or the old regime's propaganda has been extremely successful. For years, Mubarak and his aides cultivated the storyline: "It's either us or the Islamists." The West and many Egyptians bought in this narrative and supported the regime no matter what, out of fear of ... well, of what exactly? One of Leila Fadel's interview partners has a response, "he will vote for Shafiq, because Islamists cannot be trusted to make good on the demands of the revolution: 'If they win, this will be Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran'".

If I had the chance to argue with this desperate (former?) revolutionary, I would like to point out that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran might not be quite the same. For understanding their form of Political Islam and their current situation, the countries' history, as well as past and current influences of (neo)imperialist powers need to be taken into consideration. I would side with those who say "Egypt will never be Iran". Yet, of course, this is arguable. In any case, however, it is remarkable that in Egypt the alternative to a military regime and police state, "the Islamists" has never been "tried". (This was by the way an argument of some for voting for the MB in the parliamentary elections.)

It seems that at the given time, the Egyptian society is too divided to unite behind Morsi in order to prevent Shafiq. Shafiq has already announced that he would crush any further protests after being elected. Other than that, two recent state advertisements might give a taste of what's to be expected from his presidency (first one with subtitles, second one only in Arabic)

Advertisement warning Egyptians to speak to foreigners about "sensitive" issues.

Advertisement warning Egyptians not to spread exaggerated news about the protests 
(in Arabic only)