Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
一整天都沒有見到軍方最高指揮官塞西(Abdel Fattah Al Sisi)的蹤影。埃及總理貝卜拉維(Adel Beblawi)按計劃出席了一個內閣會議，會上部長們譴責了最近針對埃及少數群體基督教徒的襲擊。據該機構在其Facebook頁面上發布的聲明，他們還討論了有關即將進行的農業收割和燃料短缺的問題。聲明中沒有跡象顯示會上討論了周三殺害抗議者的行為。埃及內政部長易卜拉欣(Mohammed Ibrahim)參加了數名警察的葬禮，但沒有公開發表講話。周三，有43名警察被殺。
埃及衛生部報告說，周三全國被殺人數升至638人，有3,994人受傷，這一天成為兩年多的暴力動蕩中死亡人數最多的一天。暴力動蕩一直伴隨著埃及的阿拉伯之春運動和步履蹣跚的政治過渡。衛生部發言人對美聯社(Associated Press)說，有288人是在兩個靜坐營地中較大的一個——開羅東部納賽爾城地區的拉比亞廣場(Rab'a al Adiwiya)被殺的。
Death Toll in Egypt Clashes Climbs to 525
3,700 Are Reported Injured as Islamists Urge New Protests
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and ALAN COWELL 7:23 AM ET
Muslim Brotherhood supporters of the deposed president, Mohamed Morsi, called for demonstrations on Thursday, a day after security forces stormed two protest camps in a bloody assault that set off a violent backlash across Egypt.
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
"I just can't stand all the blood I've seen."HAYAM HUSSEIN, a protester in Egypt, on the government's deadly attack on supporters of Mohamed Morsi.
News AnalysisArab Spring Countries Find Peace Is Harder Than Revolution
By BEN HUBBARD and RICK GLADSTONE
The violence in Egypt has underscored how the Arab Spring revolutions have devolved into bitter political power struggles among competing groups.
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
The scale and brutality of the attack on supporters of the ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, was the clearest sign yet that the old Egyptian police state was re-emerging in full force.
By KAREEM FAHIM and MAYY EL SHEIKH
The military-backed government in Egypt had hinted at a milder clearing operation that would last days. But when it came, protesters appeared stunned by its fury.
在今天的埃及，正在上演同樣的戲——自由派和威權派本色出 演，而伊斯蘭派則充當了當年的社會黨人。又一次，缺乏經驗和耐心的群眾運動在奪權之後因不自量力而失敗。又一次，自由派被他們曾經的夥伴的變革訴求嚇倒， 轉而乞求舊政權的保護。與1848年一樣，威權派也樂於重新掌權。
建立一個穩定的民主制度是個包含兩階段的過程。首先要推翻 舊政權，然後再代之以一個可持續的民主政權。由於第一階段相當激動人心，許多人認為，獨裁者下台就完事了。但第二階段才更加艱難。有許多例子顯示，廣泛的 聯盟團結在一起推翻了獨裁者，卻較少能夠繼續合作，並就新政權的面貌達成一致。反抗運動往往會偃旗息鼓，成為內鬥和舊政權捲土重來的犧牲品。
1848年是「民眾之春」的鼻祖，是有組織的工人運動首次 登上政治舞台，而他們的訴求嚇壞了自由派。中產階級期望經濟自由化；許多工人要求更劇烈的經濟和社會變革。自由派青睞有限開放的政治體制，而工人團體希望 能全盤民主化，並能掌握由此帶來的權力。當情況變得清晰，即工人和社會黨人可能會贏得勝利，自由黨人卻退卻了，回到了保王黨的懷抱之中，認為恢復威權體制 是兩害相權取其輕。
今天的埃及上演的幾乎是同樣的劇情。多年的威權統治意味 着，允許民眾和平地表達異議的政治和社會制度遭到了系統性壓制。政府還有意加深社會分歧。因此，當民主到來的時候，長期休眠的不信任和敵意以極端的言辭、 大規模抗議活動和暴力的形式噴薄而出。這些東西往往會嚇壞自由派，因為他們青睞秩序和溫和，厭惡極端的社會實驗。1789年和1848年的歐洲是這樣，今 天的埃及自由派也是這樣。
問題是，面對這種恐懼，自由派應該作何反應。在東歐和南歐 國家於20世紀末期向民主轉型的過程中，極端主義和宗教不是主要的因素。因此，不同的集團能夠就遊戲規則達成一致。而且，這也不是大多數歐洲國家第一次嘗 試民主制度，更何況還有歐盟(European Union)在旁出手相助。然而，在埃及和其他一些阿拉伯國家，極端主義的威脅讓自由派恐懼，由於歷經多年威權統治，這些國家缺乏妥協文化，也沒有一個奉 行民主的強大鄰國來引導他們。
1848年的慘敗以溫和派消亡為代價，強化了社會主義運動 中的激進元素，在自由黨人和工人之間划下一道經久不愈的惡毒創痕。當自由黨人拋棄民主，溫和的社會黨人看上去就像是被耍弄的傻子，宣揚非民主策略的激進分 子變得越來越壯大。1850年，馬克斯和恩格斯(Engels)提醒倫敦的共產主義者同盟(London Communist League)，說他們已經預見到，一個代表自由派資產階級的德國政黨「很快就會執掌政權，並且立即就會利用他們剛剛贏得的政權來反對工人。你們已看到， 這個預言是證實了。」他們繼續警告說，「為了堅決而嚴厲地聲討這個從勝利的頭一個小時起就背叛工人的政黨，工人應該擁有武裝和嚴密的組織。」這可不是任何 人希望今天的伊斯蘭派吸取的教訓。
自由黨人在19世紀的歐洲犯下的錯誤是，他們把所有的社會 黨人都看成了極端分子。然而，雖然有部分社會黨人是極端分子，其他人依然是反對暴力、信奉民主的。那些人後來成為了歐洲的社會民主主義者，而不是共產主義 者，他們希望進行社會和經濟改革，但不是對資本主義或民主制度構成致命威脅的改革。然而，在極長的一段時期內，歐洲的自由派都不願意承認這種區別；他們反 對全盤民主化、積極地鎮壓整個運動。其結果是災難性的。
社會主義運動中的激進分子、暴力分子和非民主分子開始質 疑，為什麼工人們要加入一個不願對他們可能獲取的勝利予以認可的制度。當社會黨人成為歐洲規模最大的政治力量，自由黨人接受了和保皇黨之間骯髒的交易，把 左翼摒除在權力之外。結果就是，歐洲社會變得越來越分化，越來越矛盾重重。
今天，埃及的自由派正在重蹈覆轍。他們再一次把他們的對手 視作狂熱分子，認為這些人決意廢除自由派珍視的一切。然而，就像不是所有的社會主義者都是不折不扣的斯大林主義者，也不是所有的伊斯蘭派都想實施神權統 治。現在存在樂意按遊戲規則行事的溫和伊斯蘭派，他們應該受到鼓勵。
伊斯蘭派依然是埃及規模最龐大、組織最完善、最受支持的政 治力量，重要的一點是，埃及軍隊和自由派盟友要讓伊斯蘭派明白，在該地區民主化的未來中，伊斯蘭派擁有一席之地。如果所有的伊斯蘭派都被妖魔化了，埃及社 會的分歧會增大，溫和的伊斯蘭派會變得邊緣化，而埃及的政治前景會陷入泥沼。
Marx’s Lesson for the Muslim Brothers
August 14, 2013
KARL MARX wrote that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. He had in mind the Revolution of 1848, when a democratic uprising against the French monarchy collapsed into a Bonapartist dictatorship just as the French Revolution had six decades earlier.
In 1848, workers joined with liberals in a democratic revolt to overthrow the French monarchy. However, almost as soon as the old order collapsed, the opposition fell apart, as liberals grew increasingly alarmed by what they saw as “radical” working class demands. Conservatives were able to co-opt fearful liberals and reinstall new forms of dictatorship.
Those same patterns are playing out in Egypt today — with liberals and authoritarians playing themselves, and Islamists playing the role of socialists. Once again, an inexperienced and impatient mass movement has overreached after gaining power. Once again, liberals have been frightened by the changes their former partners want to enact and have come crawling back to the old regime for protection. And as in 1848, authoritarians have been happy to take back the reins of power.
If Egypt’s army continues its crackdown and liberals continue to support it, they will be playing right into the hands of Marx’s contemporary successors. “Islamists of the world, unite!” they might say; “you have nothing to lose but your chains.” And, unfortunately, they will be right.
It should come as no surprise that Egyptian liberals would implore the military to begin a coup to end the country’s first experiment with democracy just two years after they joined hands with Islamists to oust an authoritarian regime. In the early stages of a country’s political development, liberals and democrats often don’t agree on anything other than the desirability of getting rid of the ancien régime.
Establishing a stable democracy is a two-stage process. First you get rid of the old regime, then you build a durable democratic replacement. Because the first stage is dramatic, many people think the game is over when the dictator has gone. But the second stage is more difficult. There are many examples of broad coalitions coming together to oust dictators but relatively few of them stayed together and agreed on what the new regime should look like. Opposition movements tend to lose steam, falling prey to internal squabbles and the resurgent forces of the old regime.
The year 1848, the original “springtime of the peoples,” was the first time that an organized workers’ movement had appeared on the political scene, and its demands frightened liberals. The middle class wanted economic liberalization; many workers demanded more radical economic and social change. Liberals favored a limited opening of the political system, while workers’ groups wanted full democratization and the power that came with it. When it became clear that workers and socialists might win, liberals balked, and many of them turned back to the conservatives, seeing the restoration of authoritarianism as the lesser of two evils.
This is almost exactly what is playing out in Egypt now. Years of authoritarian rule meant that political and social institutions allowing the peaceful articulation of popular dissent were systematically suppressed. And the state deliberately deepened social divisions. So when democratization came, long-dormant distrust and animosity exploded in extremist rhetoric, mass protests and violence. These things always frighten liberals, who favor order and moderation and dislike radical social experiments. This was true in Europe in 1789 and 1848, and it’s true of Egyptian liberals today.
The problem is how liberals react to such fears. During the late 20th-century transitions to democracy in Southern and Eastern Europe, extremism and religion weren’t major factors. Different groups were thus able to agree on the rules of the game. Also, it was not the first try at democracy in most European countries, and the European Union was there to help. But in Egypt and other parts of the Arab world, the threat of extremism terrifies liberals, and thanks to years of authoritarianism, there isn’t a culture of compromise, nor is there a strong democratic neighbor to guide them.
The 1848 fiasco strengthened the radical elements of the socialist movement at the expense of the moderates and created a poisonous and enduring rift between liberals and workers. After liberals abandoned democracy, moderate socialists looked like suckers and radicals advocating a nondemocratic strategy grew stronger. In 1850, Marx and Engels reminded the London Communist League that they had predicted that a party representing the German liberal bourgeoisie “would soon come to power and would immediately turn its newly won power against the workers. You have seen how this forecast came true.” They went on to warn, “To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized.” This is not the lesson anybody wants Islamists to learn now.
The mistake that liberals made in 19th-century Europe was to see all socialists as fanatics. But while some socialists were extremists, others were opposed to violence and dedicated to democracy. Those socialists — who later became Europe’s social democrats rather than communists — wanted social and economic reforms, but not ones that were mortal threats to capitalism or democracy. Yet, for too long, European liberals were unwilling to recognize those differences; they opposed full democratization and worked actively to repress the entire movement. The results were disastrous.
Radical, violent and nondemocratic elements within the socialist movement began to ask why workers should participate in a system unwilling to accept the possibility of their victory. And when socialists became the largest political force across Europe, liberals accepted unsavory bargains with conservatives to keep the Left out of power. As a result, European societies became increasingly divided and conflict ridden.
Egypt’s liberals are repeating those mistakes today. Once again, they see their opponents as zealots determined to abolish everything liberals value. But just as not all socialists were proto-Stalinists, not all Islamists want to implement a theocratic regime. There are moderate Islamists today who are willing to play by the rules of the game, and they should be encouraged to do so.
Islamism is still the largest and best-organized popular political force in Egypt, and it is vital that the Egyptian Army and its liberal allies let Islamists know there is a place for them in the region’s democratic future. If all Islamists are demonized, the divisions within Egyptian society will grow, the moderate Islamists will become marginalized, and Egypt’s political future will be troubled.
A century after 1848, social democrats, liberals and even moderate conservatives finally came together to create robust democracies across Western Europe — an outcome that could and should have happened earlier and with less violence. Middle Eastern liberals must learn from Europe’s turbulent history instead of blindly repeating it.