埃及一波暴力事件的死亡人數攀升，達到至少638人，在這個阿拉伯世界人口最多的國家引發憤怒并加劇了政治分裂。
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
週四，埃及民眾在開羅一個停放著許多屍體的清真寺為死者哀悼。
此外，還有跡象顯示埃及安全部隊尚未成功控制住該國的局勢，盡管政府發布了嚴苛的活動限制措施。
周四下午，襲擊者點燃了吉薩省政府辦公樓。吉薩省是開羅附近的一個行政區，軍方清理的兩個抗議營地中有一個就位于吉薩。國有電視台指責襲擊存在“穆斯林兄弟因素”，但沒有提供證據。
在埃及其他地區，第二大城市亞歷山大支持穆爾西的示威者走上街頭，強烈抗議周三的流血事件。據安全部隊說，在西奈地區的al Arish市附近，七名埃及士兵被不明身份的持槍分子槍殺。
盡管埃及局勢極其動蕩，但埃及軍方領導人及其任命的過渡政府中的文職領導人都未向民眾解釋其引導埃及走出政治泥淖的戰略。
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。
MARGARET COKER
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 RevolutionBy 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.
|
Top News
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.
|
Raw Video: Egypt Cracks Down on Sit-Ins
武力鎮壓致近三百人喪生，埃及進入緊急狀態
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
暴力清場後的拉巴清真寺營地。
-
開羅，槍林彈雨中傳來痛苦的尖叫
, 14:37
支持穆爾西的靜坐抗議者遭到埃及軍方武力驅逐。催淚瓦斯罐從天而降，警號聲宣布了裝甲車的到來，政府軍似乎專朝人頭部胸部開槍。開羅街頭到處都是恐慌與痛苦的尖叫聲。
觀點
埃及應吸取馬克思的教訓
謝里·伯曼 2013年08月14日
卡爾·馬克思(Karl Marx)曾經寫道，歷史總是在重複自己，第一次是悲劇，第二次是鬧劇。他想到的是1848年的法國二月革命，當時，反對王朝的民主起義分崩離析，一切以拿破崙黨建立獨裁統治而告終，與60年前的法國大革命別無二致。
1848年，法國工人與自由黨人攜手進行民主反抗活動，推翻了王朝。不過，舊秩序剛一覆滅，反對派幾乎立即就四分五裂，自由黨人認為工人階級的要求「激進」，並對此越來越警惕。於是保王黨招安了心懷恐懼的自由黨人，建立了新型專制統治。
- 檢視大圖
Lincoln Agnew
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。
如果埃及軍方將鎮壓繼續下去，而自由派又繼續予以支持，那麼他們就會正中馬克思當代後繼者的下懷。「全世界伊斯蘭派，聯合起來！」他們可能會呼喊道，「你們失去的只是鎖鏈。」而且不幸的是，他們將是正確的。
埃及自由派曾與伊斯蘭派攜手推翻了威權政權，短短兩年之後，自由派卻懇求軍方發動政變來終結該國的首次民主嘗試，但這並不是什麼意外。一國政治進程的前期，除了推翻舊制度的渴望，自由派和民主派往往沒有其他共識。
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。
1848年過去一個世紀後，社會民主黨人、自由黨人、乃至溫和的保王黨最終聯合起來，在西歐創建了穩健的民主制度，這個制度本應建立得更早，並且經歷更少的暴力衝擊。中東的自由派必須從歐洲的動亂歷史中吸取教訓，而不是盲目地重蹈覆轍。
翻譯：黃錚、張薇
Opinion
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.
- 查看大图
Lincoln Agnew
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.
沒有留言:
張貼留言