12/24/2016
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
What is Aleppo? with Ibrahim Hamidi Interviewed by Bassam Haddad
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟ Tweet
Dec 29 2011
Share 679 people like this. Be the first of your friends.
Like
ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﻋﺎﺩﻟﻲby Amr Adly ﺍَﺳﺗﻣ ُﻊ
1 ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺑﺩء ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺧﺭﺟﺕ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻳﺳﻣﺑﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺳﻧﺔ 1989 ﻓﻲ ﻛﺑﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻥ ﻫﺎﺗﻔﺔ ﺿﺩ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺩﺍﻋﻲ ﻧﻳﻘﻭﻻﻱ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺑﺿﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﻣﻧﺫ .1964 ﻭﺑﻌﺩ ﺣﻭﺍﻟﻲ ﺃﺳﺑﻭﻉ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻥ ﺑﻳﻥ ﻗﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻣﻥ ﻭﻋﺷﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻵﻻﻑ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﻳﻥ ﺃﺿﻁﺭ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻭﺯﻭﺟﺗﻪ ﺇﻟﻳﻧﺎ ﻟﻠﻬﺭﺏ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺗﻡ ﺇﻟﻘﺎء ﺍﻟﻘﺑﺽ ﻋﻠﻳﻬﻣﺎ ﻭﻣﺣﺎﻛﻣﺗﻬﻣﺎ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﺻﻭﺭﻱ ﺛﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻟﺑﺛﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻡ ﺇﻋﺩﺍﻣﻬﻣﺎ ﺿﺭﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺭﺻﺎﺹ .ﻭﺗﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻘﺑﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺅﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﻘﺭﺑﻳﻥ ﻟﻠﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺩﻭﻡ ﻭﺗﻘﺩﻳﻣﻬﻡ ﻟﻠﻣﺣﺎﻛﻣﺔ ﻭﺳﺟﻧﻬﻡ .ﺑﻳﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺿﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻭﺃﻋﻭﺍﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻣﻘﺭﺑﻳﻥ ﻟﻡ ﻳﻌﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻳﻖ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺑﺩﺍ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﻳﻥ ﻟﻼﻧﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﺭﺍﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺛﻳﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺷﺭﻕ ﻭﻭﺳﻁ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺗﺭﺓ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﺟﺩﺍﺭ ﺑﺭﻟﻳﻥ ،ﻭﻭﺻﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻟﻠﺣﻛﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﺍ ،ﻭﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻳﺔ ﻛﺄﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﺷﺟﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺧﺭﻳﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭ ﻭﺗﺷﻳﻛﻭﺳﻠﻭﻓﺎﻛﻳﺎ. ﺗﻣﺛﻝ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺷﺩﻳﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺭﺍﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻌﻘﻳﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻧﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻳﺔ ]ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺩﺭ ﻣﻭﻗﻊ ﺯﻣﺎﻟﻙ ﻓﻭﺭﻭﻡ[ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ،ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻣﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﺣﺩﺙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻗﻊ ﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺷﻌﺑﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﺭﻣﺔ ،ﺑﻝ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺍﻷﻋﻧﻑ ﺑﻳﻥ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﻧﺗﻔﺎﺿﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻛﺗﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻗﻳﺔ ﺁﻧﺫﺍﻙ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺑﻠﻎ ﻋﺩﺩ ﺿﺣﺎﻳﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻧﺎﻫﺯ ﺍﻷﻟﻑ ،ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﻣﺛﻝ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻭﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻣﻛﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻣﺻﺎﻟﺣﻪ ﻭﻣﺭﻛﺯ ﻗﻭﺍﻩ ﺑﺷﺧﻭﺻﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﺎﻟﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻅﻝ ﻟﻌﺑﺔ ﺗﺑﺩﻭ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺣﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﺭﺍﺋﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺑﻌﺩ ﻣﺿﻲ ﻋﻘﺩﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺗﺑﺩﻭ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻔﺎﺻﻳﻝ ﻧﻅﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻗﺭﺏ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﻛﺗﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻗﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻟﻡ ﺗﺷﻬﺩ ﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻁﻼﻕ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺛﻣﺎﻧﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ﻛﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﻠﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﻭﺃﻟﺑﺎﻧﻳﺎ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻧﺟﺢ ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻟﺙ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﻣﻭﺍﻗﻌﻬﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻅﻝ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻳﻘﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻌﺩﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺑﻳﺔ . ﻳﻐﻠﺏ ﻭﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﻛﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻭﺑﻠﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻘﻳﻡ ﺍﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺣﺭﺓ ﻧﺳﺑﻳﺎ ﻭﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺩﺩﻳﺔ ﺣﺯﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻛﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻥ ﺗﺭﻛﺯ ﺍﻟﺻﻼﺣﻳﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻳﺩ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻔﻳﺫﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺗﻔﺗﻘﺭ ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻟﺳﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺣﻘﻳﻘﻳﺔ ﺗﻣﻛﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻥ ﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺭﺍﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﺔ ،ﻭﻳﻔﺗﻘﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺿﺎء ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﻟﻼﺳﺗﻘﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻔﻳﺫﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻳﺿﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺿﻌﻑ ﺷﺩﻳﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺳﻭﺍء ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺗﺩﻧﻲ ﻣﻌﺩﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﻗﺑﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺗﻔﺗﺎءﺍﺕ ،ﺃﻭ ﻋﺩﻡ ﻗﺩﺭﺓ 1/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
12/24/2016
ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﻁﻧﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﻳﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺣﻘﻭﻗﻬﻡ ﻭﺣﺭﻳﺎﺗﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻛﻔﻭﻟﺔ ﺩﺳﺗﻭﺭﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺟﻣﺎﻋﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺿﻐﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺟﻝ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻣﻁﺎﻟﺑﻬﻡ ﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺑﻠﺩﺍﻧﺎ ﻛﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻭﺑﻠﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﻭﺃﻟﺑﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺗﻘﺗﺭﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺭﻭﺳﻳﺎ ﻭﺃﻭﻛﺭﺍﻧﻳﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺍﻓﺗﻘﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﻧﺷﻁ ﻭﻗﻭﻱ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻌﺑﺋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺿﻐﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﺔ ﺑﻝ ﻏﺎﻟﺑﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻧﺣﺻﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺭﻳﺣﺔ ﺩﻗﻳﻘﺔ ﺭﻗﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﺎﺕ ﻏﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻌﺗﻣﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻝ ﺗﻣﻭﻳﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺎﻧﺣﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺭﺑﻳﻳﻥ ،ﻭﻻ ﺗﻣﻠﻙ ﺗﻭﺍﺻﻼ ﻓﻌﻠﻳﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺛﻳﻔﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﻁﻧﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻔﺗﺭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺗﺑﻧﻰ ﻗﺿﺎﻳﺎﻫﻡ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺗﻔﺎﻋﻝ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺻﺎﻟﺣﻬﻡ ،ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﻘﺎﺑﻝ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﻁﻧﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﻭﻥ ﻣﻥ ﻋﻣﺎﻝ ﻭﻓﻘﺭﺍء ﻣﺩﻥ ﻭﺳﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﻳﻑ ﻭﺍﻷﻁﺭﺍﻑ ﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﻧﻅﻣﻳﻥ ﻭﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﺷﺎﺭﻛﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺑﺷﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺳﻊ. ﻓﻛﻳﻑ ﺍﻧﺗﻬﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺿﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺷﻌﺑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺃﻁﺎﺣﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ1989 ؟ ﺑﺩﺃﺕ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﻔﺎﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﻌﺑﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻳﺳﻣﺑﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺫﻛﻭﺭﺓ ﺑﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺣﺩﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻧﺩﻟﻌﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺩﻳﻧﺔ ﺗﻳﻣﺷﻭﺍﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻋﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻷﺣﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺳﺎﻭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻭﺗﺳﺗﻧﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺗﻣﻳﻥ ﻟﻸﻗﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭﻳﺔ .ﻭﺳﺭﻋﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻧﺗﻘﻠﺕ ﻋﺩﻭﻯ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﺟﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺩﻥ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﺳﻬﺎ ﺁﺭﺍﺩ ﺛﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺻﻣﺔ ﺑﻭﺧﺎﺭﺳﺕ ﻧﻔﺳﻬﺎ ﺣﻳﺙ ﻧﺯﻝ ﻋﺷﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻵﻻﻑ ﻟﻠﺷﻭﺍﺭﻉ ﻣﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﻳﻥ ﺿﺩ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﺍﻟﺷﻣﻭﻟﻲ .ﺃﺗﺕ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﺟﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺧﺿﻡ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺭﻕ ﻭﻭﺳﻁ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﺑﺩءﺍ ﺑﻔﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻣﺛﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺿﺎﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺑﺄﻭﻝ ﺍﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺣﺭﺓ ﺟﺯﺋﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﺍ ﺛﻡ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﺟﺩﺍﺭ ﺑﺭﻟﻳﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺃﻋﻘﺑﻪ ﻣﺑﺎﺷﺭﺓ ﺧﺭﻭﺝ ﻣﺋﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﻻﻑ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻗﻳﻳﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺷﻭﺍﺭﻉ ﻣﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﻳﻥ ﺿﺩ ﺍﺳﺗﻣﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻭﺗﺯﺍﻣﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺷﻳﻛﻭﺳﻠﻭﻓﺎﻛﻳﺎ ﺇﺛﺭ ﺍﺣﺗﺟﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺷﻌﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﻣﺎﺛﻠﺔ ﺛﻡ ﻟﻡ ﺗﻠﺑﺙ ﺃﻥ ﺑﺩﺃﺕ ﻣﻔﺎﻭﺿﺎﺕ ﺗﺳﻠﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺟﻧﺎﺡ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺣﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻛﻡ ﺁﻧﺫﺍﻙ .ﻭﻗﺩ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻭﻧﻅﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﻷﻣﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺗﻳﺩ ﻗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﻅﺎﻫﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻧﻑ ،ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﺍﺳﺗﻣﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﺟﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﻟﻌﺩﺓ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻅﻬﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﺗﻛﻠﻔﺔ ﺧﻳﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻣﻊ ﻓﺗﺧﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺟﻳﺵ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻥ ﻋﻥ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻭﺯﻭﺟﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﻘﺭﺑﻳﻥ ﻣﻧﻬﻣﺎ ،ﻭﺃﺿﻁﺭ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭ ﻭﺯﻭﺟﺗﻪ ﺇﻳﻠﻳﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻬﺭﻭﺏ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺻﻣﺔ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺗﻡ ﺍﺣﺗﺟﺎﺯﻫﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺣﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺳﻛﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺗﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﺟﻳﺵ ،ﻭﻋﻧﺩﺋﺫ ﻅﻬﺭ ﻓﺻﻳﻝ ﻣﻧﺷﻖ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﺣﺕ ﺍﺳﻡ ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻳﺿﻡ ﻣﺳﺋﻭﻟﻳﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺑﻳﺭﻭﻗﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺻﻔﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﺎﻟﺙ ﺃﻋﻠﻧﻭﺍ ﺍﻧﺷﻘﺎﻗﻬﻡ ﻭﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻬﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ .ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﺃﻋﺿﺎء ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﺑﺎﻋﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭ ﻭﺯﻭﺟﺗﻪ ﻛﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺩﻡ ﺛﻡ ﻣﺣﺎﻛﻣﺗﻬﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺣﻭ ﺍﺳﺗﺛﻧﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﻣﺗﻌﺟﻝ ﻛﻣﺎ ﻳﻅﻬﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻳﺩﻳﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺗﻡ ﺗﺻﻭﻳﺭﻩ ﻭﺇﺫﺍﻋﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﺗﺫﺍﻙ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﺍﺗﺧﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺑﺈﻋﺩﺍﻣﻬﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻡ ﺗﻧﻔﻳﺫﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻭﺭ ،ﻭﺗﻡ ﺗﺻﻭﻳﺭ ﻣﺷﻬﺩ ﺍﻹﻋﺩﺍﻡ ﻭﺇﺫﺍﻋﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺎﻫﺩﻳﻥ. ﻗﺑﺿﺕ ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻣﻭﺭ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﻣﺅﻗﺕ ،ﻭﺃﺗﺧﺫﺕ ﺧﻁﻭﺍﺕ ﺇﺯﺍء ﺣﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﺣﺗﻛﺭ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻣﻧﺫ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻣﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺗﻌﺩﺩﻱ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ،ﻭﺗﻭﻟﻰ ﺇﻳﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻳﺳﻛﻭﺃﺣﺩ ﺭﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺑﺻﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﺅﻗﺗﺔ ﻟﺣﻳﻥ ﺍﻹﻋﺩﺍﺩ ﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﺭﺋﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺗﻧﻘﻝ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ .ﻛﻣﺎ ﺍﺿﻁﻠﻌﺕ ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﺑﻣﺣﺎﻛﻣﺔ ﻭﺳﺟﻥ ﺑﻌﺽ ﺭﻣﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻡ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻘﺭﺑﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ .ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﻋﻠﻥ ﺇﻟﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺑﺩﺍﻳﺔ ﻋﺩﻡ ﻭﺟﻭﺩ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺟﺎﻧﺏ ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﻟﺧﻭﺽ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺯﻣﻌﺎ ﻋﻘﺩﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ،1990 ﻭﺷﺩﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﻧﻔﺳﻬﺎ ﺣﺯﺑﺎ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺎ ،ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺩﺙ ﻫﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻓﻭﺭ ﺍﻗﺗﺭﺍﺏ ﻣﻭﻋﺩ ﻋﻘﺩ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ،ﻭﺇﺻﺩﺍﺭ ﻣﺭﺍﺳﻳﻡ ﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﺃﻟﻑ ﺃﻋﺿﺎء ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﺣﺯﺑﺎ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺎ ،ﻭﺃﻋﻠﻧﻭﺍ ﻋﻥ ﻧﻳﺗﻬﻡ ﺧﻭﺽ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ .ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﻣﻛﺛﻑ ﻟﻭﺳﺎﺋﻝ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺯﺍﻝ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﺣﻳﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﺟﻣﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﻳﻥ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﺗﻌﺑﺋﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺧﺑﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﺑﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﻳﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺩﻳﻧﺔ ﺗﻣﻛﻧﺕ ﺍﻟﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺣﺳﻡ ﺃﻏﻠﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻟﺻﺎﻟﺣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻘﻼﻝﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻭﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺗﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺩﺳﺗﻭﺭ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﻟﻠﺑﻼﺩ .ﻭﺃﺗﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﺳﺗﻭﺭ ﻣﻳﺎﻻ ﻹﻁﻼﻕ ﺻﻼﺣﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻔﻳﺫﻳﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﺋﻳﺱ .ﻭﻓﻲ 1992 ﻋﻘﺩﺕ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺭﺋﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﺿﻬﺎ ﺇﻳﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﺭﺋﻳﺱ ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﻛﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺩﻡ ،ﻭﺃﺳﻔﺭﺕ ﻋﻥ ﻓﻭﺯﻩ ﺑﺄﻏﻠﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻗﺎﺭﺑﺕ %70 ﻣﻥ ﺃﺻﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﻳﻥ .ﻭﺑﺎﺗﺕ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﺎ ﻭﺭﺋﺎﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻳﺩ ﻛﻭﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻣﻛﻧﺕ ﻣﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﺳﻠﻁﺗﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺗﺧﻠﺹ ﻣﻥ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ. ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﺗﺄﻛﺩﺕ ﺳﻳﻁﺭﺓ ﺭﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻟﺣﻅﺔ ﺻﻳﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺟﺩﻳﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﺭﺋﻳﺳﻲ ﻣﻥ ﻭﺭﺍء ﻋﻣﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﻫﻭ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻣﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻛﻭﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺟﺩﻳﺩ .ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻅﻬﺭ ﺑﻭﺿﻭﺡ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺭﻛﺯ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻳﺩ ﺍﻟﺟﻧﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻔﻳﺫﻱ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﺋﻳﺱ ،ﻭﺿﻌﻑ ﺻﻼﺣﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﺗﺧﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺧﻁﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺟﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﺿﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺗﻘﻼﻟﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺿﺎء ﻭﻓﺻﻝ ﺍﻟﺛﺭﻭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺑﺩء ﻋﻣﻠﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺧﺻﺧﺻﺔ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻧﺟﺢ ﻣﺩﻳﺭﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻣﻥ ﻋﺻﺭ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻅﻝ ﻏﻳﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺭﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺷﻔﺎﻓﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺳﻁﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺻﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﻧﻘﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻌﻠﻳﺎ ﻟﻣﻠﻛﻳﺗﻬﻡ .ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻣﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺟﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻡ ﻳﺑﻘﻭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻣﻧﻔﺭﺩﻳﻥ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻧﺗﺻﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺗﺳﻌﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ،ﺇﺫ ﻓﺎﺯ ﻣﺭﺷﺢ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻛﻭﻧﺳﺗﺎﻧﺗﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﺋﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ،1996 ﻭﺍﻧﻘﺳﻡ ﺣﺯﺏ ﺟﺑﻬﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻭﺗﺿﺎءﻟﺕ ﺳﻳﻁﺭﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ،ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻐﻳﻳﺭ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺳﺕ ﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﻣﻥ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﺳﻳﻛﻭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﻌﺑﺎ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺭﺗﻳﺏ ﺍﻟﺟﺩﻳﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺗﻠﻰ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺩ ﻭﻟﺩ ﻣﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻌﻳﻧﺔ ،ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻟﻡ ﺗﻔﺭﺯ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺃﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻡ ﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺣﺯﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﺗﻣﺎﺳﻛﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻣﺭﻳﺭ ﻣﺯﻳﺩ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻹﺻﻼﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺑﻳﻝ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ .ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻧﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺑﺎﺷﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺗﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﻔﺻﻠﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺣﺳﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻳﺱ ﻓﻳﻣﺎ ﺳﻭﺍﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺣﺩﻳﺩ ﻭﻫﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻳﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺩﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺭﻯ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻭﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻏﺎﺏ ﺑﺑﺳﺎﻁﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻣﻛﻧﺕ ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺗﻣﺛﻝ ﻁﺭﻓﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺑﻘﺎء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﺑﻌﺩ 1989/1990 ﻛﻣﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻭﺑﻠﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﻭﺃﻭﻛﺭﺍﻧﻳﺎ ﻭﺭﻭﺳﻳﺎ ﻭﻣﻠﺩﻭﻓﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺩﻳﺙ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺑﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻟﻡ ﺗﺷﻬﺩ ﺃﻱ ﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺗﻡ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﻔﺎﻅ ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﺑﺑﻧﻰ ﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺗﺭﺟﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺫﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻳﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺣﻘﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻭﻓﻳﺗﻳﺔ ﻛﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﻳﻼﺭﻭﺳﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﺫﺭﺑﻳﺟﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﺎﺯﺍﺧﺳﺗﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﻭﺯﺑﻛﺳﺗﺎﻥ ﻭﺗﺭﻛﻣﺎﻧﺳﺗﺎﻥ . ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺭﺗﻳﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺳﺳﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺑﻛﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻳﺔ ﻣﺑﺎﺷﺭﺓ ﺗﺩﻭﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺑﺻﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺭﺹ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﻘﺑﻠﻳﺔ ﺇﻳﺟﺎﺑﺎ ﻭﺳﻠﺑﺎً ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺟﻌﻝ ﺍﻟﺷﻬﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻳﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺎﺿﻳﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺧﻁﺭ ﻛﺑﻳﺭ ﺑﺎﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺗﻡ ﺳﺑﻛﻪ ﻣﻥ ﺗﺭﺗﻳﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﺅﺳﺳﻳﺔ ﺳﺗﻔﺭﺯ ﻣﺭﺍﻛﺯ ﻗﻭﺓ ﻭﻣﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺟﻣﻬﻭﺭ ﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﻐﻳﻳﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻳﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺟﻌﻝ ﺍﻟﺗﻐﻳﻳﺭ ﺑﺗﻛﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻫﻅﺔ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻟﻭ ﺛﺑﺕ ﻓﺳﺎﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻓﺷﻝ ﺍﻟﺗﺭﺗﻳﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺳﺳﻳﺔ .ﻭﻟﻌﻝ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺻﻁﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺳﻣﻳﺗﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺳﺳﻲ ﺑﻠﺯﻭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺳﺳﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺗﻐﻳﻳﺭ ﺑﺳﺭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻐﻳﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺭﺋﺔ ﻋﻠﻳﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺑﻳﺋﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻌﻝ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺳﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺗﺎﺭﻳﺧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻌﺩﺩﺓ ﻻﺳﺗﻣﺭﺍﺭ ﻣﺅﺳﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺭﻏﻡ ﻓﺷﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺟﺯﻫﺎ ﻋﻥ ﺃﺩﺍء ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺃﺳﺳﺕ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺟﻠﻬﺎ. ﺃﻳﻥ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻣﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ؟2
2/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
12/24/2016
ﻓﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺷﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺗﻼﻑ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻭﻣﺻﺭ؟ ﻓﻠﻌﻝ ﺗﺷﺎﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺿﺣﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻛﺗﺎﺗﻭﺭ ﻟﻡ ﻳﻌﻥ ﺍﻧﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻟﻠﺛﻭﺍﺭ ﺑﻝ ﺍﻧﺗﻘﻠﺕ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺷﺑﻪ ﺍﻻﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺩﺍﺧﻝ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ .ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺍﺳﺗﻭﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺻﻔﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﺎﻟﺙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺗﺭﺓ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﻘﺎﻟﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺻﻣﻡ ﻫﺅﻻء ﺗﺭﺗﻳﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﺣﻠﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﻳﺿﻣﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺟﻬﻡ ﻣﺭﺍﻛﺯﻫﻡ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﻲ ﻓﻳﻪ ﺑﻌﺽ ﺍﻟﺗﻌﺩﺩﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺍﺳﺗﻐﻠﻭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺑﻳﻝ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺷﺑﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺯﺑﻭﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺗﺷﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﻳﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺩﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺭﻭﺛﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺣﻝ ،ﻭﺍﻹﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺯﺍﻝ ﺣﻛﻭﻣﻳﺎ ﺑﺎﻣﺗﻳﺎﺯ .ﻭﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﺁﻟﺕ ﺍﻷﻣﻭﺭ ﻟﻠﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﻘﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﺣﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻳﺭﺃﺳﻪ ﻭﺯﻳﺭ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻟﻣﺩﺓ ﻋﻘﺩﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺯﻣﻥ .ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻳﺛﻭﺭ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻫﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﺣﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﺅﺳﺳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻣﺅﺳﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻣﻛﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻣﻸ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻳﻖ ﺇﻧﺷﺎء ﺣﺯﺏ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻝ ﺗﻛﺭﺍﺭﺍ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻣﺗﺩﺍﺩﺍ ﻟﻠﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﻭﻁﻧﻲ ،ﻭﻣﻌﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺃﻣﻧﻲ ﻳﻘﻭﻡ ﺑﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻧﻔﺱ ﻗﺩﺭ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺋﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺻﺭ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ،ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻳﺑﺩﻭ ﺑﻭﺿﻭﺡ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻋﺿﺎء ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﻸﻋﺿﺎء ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺑﻘﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﺭﺍﺭ ﺇﻟﻳﺳﻛﻭﻳﻔﺗﻘﺩﻭﻥ ﻟﻠﺧﺑﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺑﺣﻛﻡ ﻋﻘﻭﺩ ﻣﻥ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺗﺳﻳﻳﺱ ﺍﻟﺟﻳﺵ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ،ﻭﻳﺿﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺷﻛﻼﺕ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﺣﺗﻰ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﻘﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺗﻔﻭﻕ ﻗﺩﺭﺗﻬﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻭﻟﻲ ﺯﻣﺎﻡ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺣﺗﻭﺍء ﺍﻟﺻﺭﺍﻉ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻔﺟﺭ ﺳﻭﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺷﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻷﺟﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻳﻘﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺋﻔﻲ ،ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻝ ﺿﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻳﺔ ﻛﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﻐﻳﻳﺭ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺎﺿﺭﺍ ﺑﺟﻼء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺟﻧﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ،ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻟﻳﺱ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺻﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻵﺧﺫ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺗﺎﺡ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﺃﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ،ﻭﺇﻧﻣﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺣﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻗﺭﺍﺭ ﻭﺿﻌﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻠﺟﻳﺵ ﺗﻌﺯﻟﻪ ﺑﻣﻭﺍﺯﻧﺗﻪ ﻭﻫﻳﻛﻠﻪ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺳﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻗﺩ ﺗﻧﺷﺄ ﻭﻗﺩ ﺗﻣﺎﺭﺱ ﻋﻠﻳﻪ ﺭﻗﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺁﻟﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺭﺟﻳﺔ ﻛﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﻗﻭﻣﻲ ﻳﺿﻣﻥ ﻟﻠﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺏ ﺭﺋﻳﺱ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻧﺗﺧﺑﻳﻥ .ﻭﺍﻟﺣﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻛﻣﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺑﺣﺯﺏ ﻭﻁﻧﻲ ﻳﺯﻭﺭ ﻭﻳﻣﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﺑﻠﻁﺟﺔ ﻟﻧﻳﻝ ﺃﻏﻠﺑﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺻﻧﻭﻋﺔ ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺃﻣﻧﻲ ﻣﻁﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻳﺩ ﻗﺩ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺃﻣﺭﺍ ﻣﺳﺗﺣﻳﻼ ﺑﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻧﺗﺷﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻥ ﺟﺎﻧﺏ ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﺋﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﺣﺎﻭﻟﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺭﺟﻭﻉ ﻟﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻣﻬﺎﻣﻪ ﻛﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ،ﻭﻳﻧﺑﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺫ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭ ﻛﺫﻟﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻟﻡ ﻳﺄﺕ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻠﻔﻳﺔ ﺗﻔﺎﻗﻡ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺣﻭ ﻟﻡ ﺗﺗﻣﻛﻥ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻣﺅﺳﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﻔﺎﻋﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺗﻣﺛﻳﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﺩﻳﻡ ﺣﻠﻭﻝ ﻓﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻣﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻭﺭﺑﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺫﻛﺎء ﺃﻥ ﻳﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﺑﻠﻬﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻓﺿﻝ ﺻﻭﺭﻩ ﺳﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺑﻣﺷﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺣﺯﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﻧﺗﺧﺑﺔ ﺭﺋﺎﺳﻳﺎ ﻭﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ. ﻭﻳﺿﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺑﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻱ ﻗﺩ ﺗﻠﻘﻑ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻋﺟﺯﻩ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺻﻣﻭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻳﻧﺎﻳﺭ ﺑﺎﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺁﺧﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺑﻘﻰ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻧﺎﺣﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻗﻠﺏ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻳﻭﻟﻳﻭ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﺑﺩ ﻣﻥ ﻧﺎﺣﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ،ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻟﻡ ﻳﺄﺕ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻠﻔﻳﺔ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺩﺍﺧﻝ ﺍﻟﺟﻳﺵ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺑﻐﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺗﺧﻠﺹ ﻣﻧﻪ ﻭﻣﻥ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺗﻪ ﻭﻣﺷﺭﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺗﻭﺭﻳﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺳﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺃﺣﺎﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻭﺳﻳﻠﺔ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺳﻠﻁ ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﺑﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺟﺩﻳﺩﺓ ﺃﻗﻝ ﻓﺳﺎﺩﺍ ،ﻭﺃﻛﺑﺭ ﺩﻟﻳﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻱ ﻟﻡ ﻳﺿﺢ ﺑﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻣﺧﺗﺎﺭﺍ ﺭﻏﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻳﻌﺩ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻳﺎ ﻟﻣﻥ ﻳﺭﻏﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺣﻭﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻭﻧﻳﻝ ﺭﺿﺎء ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ﺑﺎﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺟﻳﺵ ﻳﻁﻬﺭ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ،ﻭﺇﻧﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺩﺙ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﻭﺍﺻﻝ ﺍﻟﺿﻐﻁ ﺍﻟﺷﻌﺑﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﻟﺗﺻﻔﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻡ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺗﺢ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺎﻛﻣﺎﺕ ﻟﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻭﻋﺎﺋﻠﺗﻪ ﻭﺃﺭﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﻅﺎﻣﻪ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻡ ﺑﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺿﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻘﺎء ﺍﻟﻛﺛﻳﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺷﻙ ﺣﻭﻝ ﺟﺩﻳﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺎﻛﻣﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻳﺛﻭﺭ ﺍﻷﻣﺭ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺩﻡ ﻣﺳﺎﺭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﻳﻛﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺧﻠﻳﺔ :ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻘﻣﻌﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ،ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﺳﺗﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻓﻠﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﻭﻁﻧﻲ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺎﻓﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔﺭﻏﻡ ﺳﻘﻭﻁﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻭﻉ ﻓﻳﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ،ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻟﻳﻝ ﺍﻷﺑﻠﻎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻭﻗﻑ ﺍﻟﺟﻳﺵ ﻣﻥ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻫﻭ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﻳﺭ ﻁﻧﻁﺎﻭﻱ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺭﻓﺽ ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﺗﻭﺭﻳﻁ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺗﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﻳﻥ ،ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻱ ﻟﻡ ﻳﻛﻥ ﻳﺧﻁﻁ ﻟﺗﺣﻭﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ،ﻭﻳﻘﻑ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﻠﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺃﻗﺩﻣﺕ ﻓﻳﻬﺎ ﺃﻁﺭﺍﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺻﻔﻳﺔ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻭﺯﻭﺟﺗﻪ ﺟﺳﺩﻳﺎ ،ﻭﻧﺟﺣﻭﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺣﻭﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺷﻌﺑﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻋﺳﻛﺭﻱ ﺗﻣﺧﺽ ﻋﻥ ﻗﺑﺿﻬﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻣﻭﺭ . ﺑﻳﺩ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺟﺏ ﺇﻏﻔﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻗﺩ ﺃﺻﺑﺢ ﻫﻭ ﻣﺭﻛﺯ" ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﺿﺎﺩﺓ" ﺑﺗﺻﺩﻳﻪ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﻳﻛﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺧﻠﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﻔﻭﻳﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺻﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺯﻝ ﺃﻋﺿﺎء ﺍﻟﻭﻁﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻳﻥ ،ﻭﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﺟﺯﺋﻳﺔ ﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ،ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺍﻟﺳﻣﺎﺡ ﻟﻣﺳﺗﻘﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻁﻧﻲ ﺑﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ ﺷﺑﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺯﺑﻭﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺳﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺻﺑﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﻳﻑ ﻭﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺛﻠﺙ ﺍﻟﻣﻘﺎﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺟﻭﺯﺓ ﻟﻠﺗﻧﺎﻓﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻱ .ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻟﻥ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﻭﻁﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻟﻡ ﻳﻛﻥ ﺣﺯﺑﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺻﻝ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺗﻔﻛﻛﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺳﻌﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ،ﻭﺗﻛﻭﻧﻪ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺻﺣﺎﺏ ﺭﺅﻭﺱ ﺃﻣﻭﺍﻝ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﺯﻋﻣﺎء ﻋﺷﺎﺋﺭ ﻭﻋﺎﺋﻼﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺻﻌﻳﺩ ﻳﺗﺳﺎﺑﻘﻭﻥ ﻭﻳﺗﻧﺎﻓﺳﻭﻥ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻓﻳﻣﺎ ﺑﻳﻧﻬﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺻﻭﻝ ﻟﻠﺣﺻﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻣﺗﻳﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﺭﻑ ﺗﻁﺑﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻭﻥ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﻣﺗﺳﺎﻭ .ﻭﺇﻧﻣﺎ ﺩﺧﻭﻝ ﻫﺅﻻء ﻟﻠﺣﻳﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻳﻌﻧﻲ ﺑﻘﺎء ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻏﻳﺭ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺗﻘﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺻﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺷﻭﺓ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﺎﺋﻔﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﺟﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻭﺟﺩ ﻭﺗﻌﻳﺵ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻠﺩ ﻓﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺭ ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻳﺔ ﻛﻣﺻﺭ ﺗﻣﺎﻣﺎ ﻛﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﻓﻘﻳﺭﺓ ﺗﺣﻅﻰ ﺑﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺇﺟﺭﺍﺋﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻬﻧﺩ ﻭﺑﻧﻐﻼﺩﺵ ﻭﺇﻧﺩﻭﻧﻳﺳﻳﺎ .ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻭﺿﻌﻳﺔ ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ﺗﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺧﺗﻼﻑ ﻋﻥ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻋﻧﺩﻣﺎ ﺗﻣﻛﻥ ﺟﺯء ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲﻣﺭﻛﺯ ﺍﻟﺛﻘﻝ ﻧﺳﺑﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻬﺩ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻣﺭﺍﻛﺯﻩ ﻭﺻﻼﺣﻳﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺷﺑﻪ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﻓﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﺩﺩﻳﺔ . ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ3 3/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
12/24/2016
]ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺩﺭ[ alnwaihi.maktoobblog ﻭﺑﻌﻳﺩﺍ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺟﻭﺍﻧﺏ ﺍﻹﺟﺭﺍﺋﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻟﺏ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﻳﻅﻝ ﻭﺟﻭﺩ ﻭﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﻣﺩﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﺗﻌﺑﻳﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻧﺷﺭ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻣﻳﺯ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﻗﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﺗﺟﺫﺭﺓ ﻭﺣﻳﺔ .ﻭﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻧﻣﻭﺫﺝ ﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ ﻛﻣﺎ ﺳﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﺫﻛﺭ ﺑﺣﻛﻡ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺗﺟﺫﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻳﺔ ﻟﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺷﻙ ﻓﻳﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺫﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﺗﺎﺟﺎ ﻻﺳﺗﻳﻼء ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ" ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺟﺩﻳﺩ" ،ﻭﺍﻟﺧﻼﺻﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﻅﺎﻫﺭﺓ ﺣﺿﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻡ ﺗﻣﺗﺩ ﻟﻠﺭﻳﻑ ﺣﻳﺙ ﻳﺳﻛﻥ ﻧﺣﻭ ﻧﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺳﻛﺎﻥ ،ﻭﻣﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻣﻥ ﻣﻌﺩﻻﺕ ﺗﻬﻣﻳﺵ ﺍﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﻣﺭﺗﻔﻌﺔ ﻟﻅﺭﻭﻑ ﻋﺩﻳﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺯﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﺩﻭﻝ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﻛﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺷﻳﻙ ،ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﻳﺿﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻛﺎﻥ ﻅﻠﺕ ﺑﻣﻌﺯﻝ ﻋﻥ ﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﻭﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻔﺗﺭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺳﺗﻭﺭ ﻗﺩ ﻛﻔﻠﻬﺎ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺿﻣﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺗﺟﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺣﺗﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺅﺷﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺫﺕ ﺗﻧﺧﻔﺽ ﻣﻧﺫ ﻣﻧﺗﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺗﺳﻌﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﻣﻧﺗﻅﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺣﻭ ﻳﺩﻝ ﺑﻭﺿﻭﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺗﺟﺫﺭ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻛﻝ ﻣﻛﻣﻝ ﻟﺑﻘﺎء ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺗﺣﻛﻡ ﺇﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻳﺔ .ﻭﺍﻟﺣﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻣﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﺍﺟﻌﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺿﻌﻑ ﺷﺩﻳﺩ ﻟﻠﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﺑﻣﻌﻧﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺳﻊ ،ﻭﻫﺎﻫﻧﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺻﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﻌﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻫﻠﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺷﻁﺎء ﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺳﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺭﺃﺓ ،ﺑﻝ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺷﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻌﻛﺱ ﻗﺩﺭﺍ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﻲ ،ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻣﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﻋﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻧﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻛﺑﻳﺭ ﺃﻟﻳﻛﺳﻲ ﺩﻭ ﺗﻭﻛﻔﻳﻝ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﻧﻅﻳﻣﺎﺕ ﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻭﻧﻳﺎﺕ ﺭﻳﻔﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﺭﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﺣﺗﺟﺎﺝ ﺟﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺭﻭﺍﺑﻁ ﻁﻼﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﻠﺔ ﻭﺣﺗﻰ ﻛﻧﻳﺳﺔ ﻗﻭﻳﺔ ،ﻛﻝ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻣﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﻧﻅﺭﺍ ﻟﻌﻣﻖ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﺗﺎﻟﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺯﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﻧﺫ ﺍﻟﺧﻣﺳﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ،ﻭﺇﻣﻌﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺁﻧﺫﺍﻙ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻔﻛﻳﻙ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ،ﻭﻧﺯﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﻘﻝ ،ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺻﻝ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻫﻧﺎ ﻋﻥ ﺑﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺛﺑﺕ ﻧﺟﺎﺣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﻛﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺷﻳﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺑﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﻗﺩ ﻓﺎﺭﻗﺕ ﺍﻟﺳﺗﺎﻟﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻣﻧﺫ ﺍﻟﺧﻣﺳﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻅﻬﺭ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺗﻧﻅﻳﻣﺎﺕ ﺟﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻋﺭﻳﺿﺔ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻅﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻭﻛﻳﻑ ﻻ ﻭﻗﺩ ﺷﻬﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭ ﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻭﻓﻳﺗﻲ ﻓﻲ ،1956 ﻭﺷﻬﺩﺕ ﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺷﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ 1953 ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﻋﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﺿﺧﻡ ﻭﻣﺳﺗﻘﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺭﻭﻑ ﺑﺎﺳﻡ" ﺍﻟﺗﺿﺎﻣﻥ"ﻭﺇﻥ ﻅﻝ ﻏﻳﺭ ﺭﺳﻣﻲ ﻗﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺿﺩ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﻧﺫ ﻣﻁﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺛﻣﺎﻧﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ﺣﺗﻰ ﺗﻭﻟﻰ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺻﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ،ﻭﻳﻧﻁﺑﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺭ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻳﻙ .ﺃﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻓﻘﺩ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﻣﻔﻛﻛﺎ ﻭﻣﺟﺯءﺍ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻣﻌﻧﻰ ﺁﺧﺭ ﻣﻧﺑﻁﺣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻭﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻛﻥ ﻓﺻﻳﻼ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﺩﺉ ﺫﻱ ﺑﺩء ﻣﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻳﻼء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻭﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﻘﺎﻟﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺃﺳﻬﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺿﻌﻑ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺗﺟﺫﺭﻫﺎ . ﻭﻟﻌﻝ ﻗﺎﺭﺋﺎ ﻳﺭﻯ ﺃﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺷﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺑﻘﺕ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺗﻪ ﻓﻣﺻﺭ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﺿﻌﻳﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﻣﻌﻧﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻱ ﻣﻧﺫ ﻋﻬﺩ ﻋﺑﺩ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺻﺭ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺃﺩﻯ ﻟﺗﺩﻣﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﻘﻠﺔ ﺑﺩﻣﺟﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺑﻳﺭﻭﻗﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺃﺧﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﻬﻧﻳﺔ ﻟﺳﻁﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻥ ،ﻭﺻﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻁﻼﺑﻳﺔ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﻣﻧﺗﻅﻡ ﺑﻣﻘﺗﺿﻰ ﻻﺋﺣﺔ،1979 ﻭﺃﻟﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﻭﺿﻡ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺗﺫﺓ ﻭﺃﻋﺿﺎء ﻫﻳﺋﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺩﺭﻳﺱ ﻟﺷﺑﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﻔﻳﺩﻳﻥ ﻣﻧﻪ ،ﻭﻳﺿﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺇﻟﺣﺎﻕ ﻋﺑﺩ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺻﺭ ﻟﻸﺯﻫﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻁﺑﻘﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻭﻥ ،1960ﻭﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺟﻣﻌﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻫﻠﻳﺔ ﻣﺣﺩﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ﻧﺳﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺳﻛﺎﻥ ،ﻭﺗﻌﺗﻣﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻣﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﻣﻭﻳﻝ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺭﺝ ،ﻭﻟﻳﺱ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﺑﻝ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺣﺻﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻧﺎﺷﻁﻭﻫﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺗﻣﻳﻥ ﻟﻠﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺳﻁﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺣﺿﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺑﻌﻳﺩﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺟﺫﻭﺭ .ﻗﺩ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺻﺣﻳﺣﺎ ،ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﺑﺻﻭﺭﺗﻪ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺿﻌﻳﻑ ﻭﻣﺟﺯﺃ، ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻟﻡ ﺗﻣﺭ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺷﻣﻭﻟﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﺳﺗﺎﻟﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻛﺗﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻗﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺻﻳﻥ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺛﻣﺔ ﻣﺳﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﻧﺷﺎﻁ ﺟﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﻝ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻗﺩ ﺗﻌﺎﻳﺵ ﻣﺩﺓ ﻋﻘﻭﺩ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺎﻣﺵ ﻗﺎﺋﻡ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﻘﻠﺔ ﻟﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﻛﺎﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻣﻳﻥ،ﻭﻟﺗﻐﻠﻐﻝ ﻭﺍﻧﺗﺷﺎﺭ ﺷﺑﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻋﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻔﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻠﻌﺏ ﺍﻟﻛﻧﻳﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺑﻁﻳﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ،ﺛﻡ ﺷﻬﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻱ ﺧﺭﻭﺝ ﺣﺭﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﺣﺗﺟﺎﺟﻳﺔﻭﺇﻥ ﻅﻠﺕ ﻣﺣﺩﻭﺩﺓ ﻋﺩﺩﺍ ﻣﻧﺫ 2004 ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﺭﺍﺭ ﻛﻔﺎﻳﺔ ﻭ 6ﺇﺑﺭﻳﻝ ﻭ 9ﻣﺎﺭﺱ ،ﻭﻻ ﻳﻧﺑﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺗﻧﺎﺳﻰ ﻭﺟﻭﺩ ﺇﻋﻼﻡ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻣﺭﺋﻲ ﻭﻣﻘﺭﻭء ﻁﻳﻠﺔ ﺁﺧﺭ ﻋﻘﺩ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻛﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻺﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﻋﺑﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺿﺎء ﺍﻻﻓﺗﺭﺍﺿﻲ ،ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻭﺩ ﻗﺩﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻭﺍﺓ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻳﺑﺩﻭ ﺗﺟﻠﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﺛﺭ ﻭﺿﻭﺣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ–ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺳﻳﺣﻲ ﻟﺩﻯ ﺍﻷﻗﺑﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻳﺑﺩﻭ ﻣﻥ ﺛﻧﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﻛﺎﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻣﻳﻥ ﺗﻣﻸ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺍﻍ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ،ﻭﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺑﺻﻭﺭﺗﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻟﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻗﻣﻊ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﺍﻟﻧﻁﺎﻕ ﺭﺑﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﺳﻊ ﻧﻁﺎﻗﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺣﺩﻳﺙ . 4ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ؟ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ
4/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
12/24/2016
]ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺩﺭ ﻣﻭﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺟﺭ[ ﻭﻳﺑﻘﻰ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺗﻣﻝ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺭ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺷﺭﻕ ﻭﻭﺳﻁ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺩﻯ ﺍﺭﺗﺑﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺗﻐﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ .ﻓﻔﻲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺷﺭﻕ ﻭﻭﺳﻁ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺣﺎﻣﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﺩﻱ ﺑﺗﻐﻳﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﺈﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻅﻡ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻟﻳﺑﺭﺍﻟﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺣﻭﻻﺕ ﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺟﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺳﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺣﺭ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺑﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻣﺭﺗﺑﻁﺎ ﺑﺗﺑﻧﻲ ﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﻣﻠﻛﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺻﺔ ،ﻭﻗﺩ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﺷﻛﻼﺕ ﻋﺩﻳﺩﺓ ﻟﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻝ ،ﻭﺣﻣﻝ ﻣﺧﺎﻁﺭ ﺟﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺗﺣﻭﻝ ،ﻓﻧﺟﺣﺕ ﺑﻼﺩ ﻛﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺷﻳﻙ ﻭﺳﻠﻭﻓﻳﻧﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺑﻧﻲ ﻧﻭﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻌﺿﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺗﺣﺎﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻲ ﺃﺛﺭ ﻛﺑﻳﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺑﻳﻧﻣﺎ ﻓﺷﻠﺕ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﻛﺎﻣﻝ ﻛﺭﻭﺳﻳﺎ ﻭﺃﻭﻛﺭﺍﻧﻳﺎ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺍﺳﺗﻭﻟﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺻﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺟﻣﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﺣﺩﻭﺩﺓ ﻣﻥ ﺃﻋﺿﺎء ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻭﻣﻥ ﻣﺩﻳﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ،ﻭﻣﺎ ﻟﺑﺙ ﺃﻥ ﺳﻳﻁﺭ ﻫﺅﻻء ﺍﻟﻘﻼﺋﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﺑﺎﺩﺋﻳﻥ ﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺳﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﺧﺗﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻟﻳﻥ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ،ﻭﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﺗﻭﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﺭﻭﺓ ﻣﻌﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻟﻣﺟﻣﻭﻋﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻳﺟﺎﺭﻛﻳﻳﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺳﺎﺏ ﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﺿﻌﻳﻑ ﻭﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﻧﻅﻡ ﺗﺣﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﺗﻛﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺑﺎﻫﻅﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺎ ﻟﻌﺩﻡ ﻗﺩﺭﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﻁﺎﻟﺑﺔ ﺑﺣﻘﻭﻗﻪ .ﻭﻗﺩ ﺗﻛﺭﺭ ﺍﻷﻣﺭ ﺟﺯﺋﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺗﺗﻣﻳﺯ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻟﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺑﻛﺛﻳﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺳﺎﺩ ،ﻭﺛﻣﺔ ﺗﺩﺍﺧﻝ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﺭﻭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ . ﻳﺧﺗﻠﻑ ﺍﻷﻣﺭ ﻛﺛﻳﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺷﺭﻕ ﻭﻭﺳﻁ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻗﺩ ﺟﺎء ﺑﻌﺩ ﻋﻘﺩﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻻﺕ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻳﻭﻟﻳﺑﺭﺍﻟﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻟﻡ ﺗﺷﻬﺩ ﺃﺑﺩﺍ ﺳﻳﻁﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺯ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺻﺭﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻻ ﺭﻳﺏ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﻳﻛﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﺟﺫﺭﻱ ﻳﻘﻠﻝ ﻣﻥ ﻣﻘﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺗﻐﻳﺭ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺗﻅﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ،ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻳﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﺣﻅ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﺟﺩﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺷﺭﻳﻥ ﺳﻧﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﻳﻭﻟﻳﺑﺭﺍﻟﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻬﺩ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻟﻡ ﺗﺅﺳﺱ ﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ ﺳﻭﻕ ﺣﺭ ﺑﻘﺩﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻠﻘﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺎﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺟﻣﻊ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﺭﻭﺓ ﻭﺗﻘﺗﺭﺏ ﺑﺎﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻱ ﻛﺛﻳﺭﺍ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺯ ﺭﺃﺳﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺎﺳﻳﺏ ﻣﻥ ﻋﻳﻧﺔ ﺃﺣﻣﺩ ﻋﺯ ﻭﻫﺷﺎﻡ ﻁﻠﻌﺕ ﻣﺻﻁﻔﻰ ﻭﻣﺣﻣﺩ ﺃﺑﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻳﻧﻳﻥ ﻭﺯﻫﻳﺭ ﺟﺭﺍﻧﺔ ﻭﻣﺣﻣﺩ ﺇﺑﺭﺍﻫﻳﻡ ﺳﻠﻳﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﻏﻳﺭﻫﻡ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺗﻅﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺗﻣﻛﻥ ﺷﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺎﺱ ﺑﻣﻁﺎﻟﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻳﺩ ﺻﻳﺎﻏﺔ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺳﺎﺋﻝ ﻛﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﻭﺯﻳﻊ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺿﺭﺍﺋﺏ ﻭﺗﻘﺩﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﺧﺩﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ،ﻭﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻭﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺣﻭ ﻳﻛﺳﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﻛﺎﺭ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻭﻣﺧﺎﻁﺭ ﺧﺻﺧﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻓﺋﺔ ﻳﺳﻳﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﻔﻳﺩﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺭﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻋﻣﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺑﻳﺭﻭﻗﺭﺍﻁﻳﻳﻥ . ﻭﻣﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺷﻙ ﻓﻳﻪ ﻛﺫﻟﻙ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺷﺭﻳﻥ ﺳﻧﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻗﺩ ﻧﻘﻠﺕ ﺟﺯءﺍ ﻻ ﺑﺄﺱ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺷﻐﻳﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻳﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺗﺛﻣﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺹ، ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺣﻳﻭﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﺳﻳﺎﺣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺻﻧﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺗﺻﺎﻻﺕ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻠﻝ ﻣﻥ ﻗﺩﺭﺓ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺳﺗﺑﺩ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﺑﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﻣﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺟﻝ ﺑﻧﺎء ﺗﺣﺎﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﺗﻭﺯﻳﻌﻳﺔﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺻﺭﻳﺔﺗﺿﻡ ﻁﺑﻘﺎﺕ ﻭﺳﻁﻰ ﺃﻭ ﺷﻌﺑﻳﺔ ﺗﺗﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﻋﻥ ﺣﻘﻭﻗﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﺻﻭﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ،ﻓﻠﻳﺱ ﺑﺧﺎﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺣﺩﻫﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﺑﻌﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺯﻣﺎﺕ ﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺃﻋﻘﺑﺕ ﺗﺑﻧﻳﻪ ﻟﻺﺻﻼﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﻳﻭﻟﻳﺑﺭﺍﻟﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻗﻠﻠﺕ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﺟﺩﻱ ﻣﻥ ﺳﻳﻁﺭﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻣﺔ ﻟﺻﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺷﺑﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺯﺑﻭﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻁﺎﻟﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺗﻧﺩ ﺇﻟﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﺑﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻣﻧﺫ ﺗﺄﺳﻳﺱ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺻﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺧﻣﺳﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ .ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻣﻥ ﻏﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺗﻅﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻧﺟﺢ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻳﺧﻠﻑ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙﺳﻭﺍء ﺃﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻧﺻﻳﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻳﻳﻥﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻧﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻌﺑﻳﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺃﻱ ﻣﻥ ﻓﺋﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻣﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﺑﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﺳﻁﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻝ ﺭﺷﻰ .ﻓﺎﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻼﺳﺗﺑﺩﺍﺩ ﻗﺩ ﺗﻐﻳﺭ ﻛﺛﻳﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ،ﻭﺗﺻﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺣﻭﻻﺕ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺩﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺎﺿﻳﻳﻥ ﻗﺩ ﻗﻠﻠﺕ ﻣﻥ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻣﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻛﻠﻲ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺩ ﻋﺎﺋﻘﺎ ﺑﻧﻳﻭﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺑﻳﻝ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻧﺎء ﺍﻻﺳﺗﺑﺩﺍﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﻌﺑﻭﻳﺔ . ﺑﻳﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻠﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺹ ﻟﻳﺳﺕ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻭﺍﺋﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻧﺳﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺯﻣﻥ ﺍﻧﻬﻳﺎﺭ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻳﻁﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻛﺎﻣﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺻﻳﻎ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﻛﺯﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﺳﻬﻡ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻳﻖ ﺍﺳﺗﺧﺩﺍﻡ ﻣﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻹﺭﺿﺎء ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺣﻝ ﻛﻣﺎ ﺳﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﺫﻛﺭ ،ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺣﻼ ﻟﻘﻭﻯ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻛﺑﻳﺭﺓ ﻭﻣﻧﻅﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺭﻛﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺿﺧﻣﺔ، ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺳﺭ ﺍﻧﻁﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺑﻘﻭﺓ ﻭﺯﺧﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺗﻔﻛﻙ ﺍﺗﺣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺳﻳﻁﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻳﻪ ﻣﻥ ﻗﺑﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺯﻣﻥ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ. ﻭﺍﻟﺣﻖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻣﻧﺫ ﺍﻟﺗﺳﻌﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ﻟﻡ ﺗﻛﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻥ ﻧﻘﺹ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻘﻼﻟﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﺑﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺑﻘﺩﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻋﺎﻧﺕ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺯﺍﺋﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺷﻅﻲ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺗﺞ ﻋﻥ ﺇﻁﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﺑﺣﻳﺙ ﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻝ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﺗﺣﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﺑﺭﻯ ﻳﺿﻡ ﻛﻝ ﻣﻧﻬﺎ ﻋﺷﺭﺍﺕ ﺑﻝ ﻣﺋﺎﺕ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺷﺭﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺻﺎﻧﻊ. ﻭﺍﻟﻧﺎﻅﺭ ﻟﻠﺣﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻳﺭﻯ ﺃﻥ ﺿﻌﻑ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﻘﻠﺔ ﻧﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﻥ ﻋﺩﺓ ﻋﻭﺍﻣﻝ ﺃﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻁﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﻣﻧﻲ ﻭﺗﻔﻛﻳﻙ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻡ ﻷﻱ ﺟﻬﺩ ﻋﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﻝ ﻣﻧﺫ ﺑﺩﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺧﻣﺳﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻳﻭﻡ ﻭﺑﻌﺩ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻻ ﻳﺯﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭ ﻣﺗﻣﺳﻛﻳﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺑﻧﺎء ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺻﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻱ ﻟﻠﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺭﺍﻓﺿﻳﻥ ﺇﺻﺩﺍﺭ ﻗﺎﻧﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺟﺩﻳﺩ ﺭﻏﻡ 5/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
12/24/2016
ﺗﺑﻧﻲ ﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻭﺯﺭﺍء ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻪ ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﻳﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﻧﻳﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻥ ﻋﺷﺭﻳﻥ ﺳﻧﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﻧﺣﻭ ﻗﻁﺎﻉ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺗﻐﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﺔ ﻏﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﺔ ﻭﻏﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺿﻣﺔ ﻷﻱ ﺗﻧﻅﻳﻣﺎﺕ ﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻳﻥ ﻳﻘﺗﺻﺭ ﺍﻟﺑﻧﺎء ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﺳﻣﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻳﻥ ﺗﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻧﺻﻳﺑﻬﻡ ﻛﺛﻳﺭﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺟﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺗﻳﺟﺔ ﺗﻭﻗﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﻌﻳﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺋﻡ ﻣﻧﺫ ﺍﻟﺛﻣﺎﻧﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺟﻡ ﻋﻧﻪ ﺗﻘﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺭ ﺑﻣﺗﻭﺳﻁ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﻏﻠﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﻭﺿﻌﻑ ﺍﻟﻧﺷﺎﻁ ﻋﻠﻳﻬﻡ .ﻭﻣﻥ ﻫﻧﺎ ﺧﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﻧﻅﻡ ﻣﻧﺫ 2004 ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻳﺋﺔ ﺇﺿﺭﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻋﺗﺻﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﻧﻊ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺑﻠﺩﺓﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻛﺑﺭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺑﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺛﺎﻝ ،ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻟﻡ ﻳﺗﻁﻭﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺍﻙ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺣﻳﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻧﻅﻳﻡ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻧﻅﻳﻣﺎﺕ ﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﻠﺔ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﺄﺛﻳﺭ ﺑﻔﻌﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻁﺑﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ . 5ﻟﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻅﻠﺕ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﻛﺗﻣﻠﺔ؟
] ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺩﺭ ﻣﻭﻗﻊ ﻣﺎﺭﺍ ﻣﻳﺩﻳﺎ[ ﺛﻣﺔ ﻋﻭﺍﻣﻝ ﻋﺩﺓ ﺃﺩﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺣﺎﺻﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﺇﺟﻬﺎﺿﻬﺎ ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻣﺎﺡ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺗﺟﺫﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻐﻳﻳﺭ ﺃﻧﻣﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺕ ﺳﺎﺋﺩﺓ ﺣﺗﻰ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻳﺔ، ﺃﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻏﻳﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺑﺩﻳﻠﺔ ،ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺗﻣﺛﻳﻠﻳﺔ ﺗﻘﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺣﺯﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻔﺗﺭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺗﻭﺍﺻﻝ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ﻭﺗﺣﻳﻝ ﺧﻳﺎﺭﺍﺗﻬﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ،ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻁﺑﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺗﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﺋﺔ ﻣﻐﻠﻘﺔ ﻧﺳﺑﻳﺎ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺭﺃﺱ ﻣﺎﻝ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺭﺑﻣﺎ ﺍﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﻳﻣﻛﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻣﺭﺍﻛﺯﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻧﻔﺻﺎﻝ ﻛﺑﻳﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺧﻳﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺻﺑﺢ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻏﻳﺭ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﺄﺛﻳﺭ ﺣﻘﻳﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺭﻏﻡ ﺗﻣﺗﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺣﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺻﻭﻳﺕ ﻛﻝ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﺃﻭ ﺧﻣﺱ ﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ،ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻟﻡ ﻳﻛﻥ ﻫﻧﺎﻙ ﺳﺎﺳﺔ ﻳﺣﻠﻭﻥ ﻣﺣﻝ ﺍﻻﻧﻘﻼﺑﻳﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺩﺍﺧﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻳﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﺧﺑﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻛﺑﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺑﻳﺭﻭﻗﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ،ﻓﻔﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻟﻡ ﻳﺗﺳﻥ ﻟﻠﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ﺑﻠﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻁﺎﻟﺑﻬﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺛﻘﻔﻳﻥ) ﻛﺣﺎﻝ ﺗﺷﻳﻛﻭﺳﻠﻭﻓﺎﻛﻳﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺑﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺛﺎﻝ ﻣﻊ ﻓﺎﺗﺳﻼﻑ ﻫﺎﻓﻳﻝ ﻭﻣﺟﻣﻭﻋﺔ ﺃﺳﺎﺗﺫﺓ ﺍﻟﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻛﺗﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺫﻳﻥ ﺗﺯﻋﻣﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ( ،ﻭﻻ ﻁﺑﻘﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﻳﻥ) ﻛﺣﺎﻝ ﻟﻳﺦ ﻓﺎﻭﻧﺳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻭﻟﻧﺩﺍ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺗﺯﻋﻡ ﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺿﺎﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻟﻔﻭﻧﺳﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺟﻧﺗﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﺗﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺛﻣﺎﻧﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ( ،ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﻛﻧﻳﺳﺔ) ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﺍﺯﻳﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺑﻳﻥ( .ﻭﺗﺭﻙ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﻣﻔﺗﻭﺣﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺏ ﺍﻷﻛﺛﺭ ﺗﻧﻅﻳﻣﺎ ﻋﻧﺩ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺷﺎﺭﻉ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺗﻔﺗﺎءﺍﺕ ،ﺣﻳﺙ ﺗﺗﺟﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻛﺗﻝ ﺍﻟﻧﺷﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺷﺎﺭﻙ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﺟﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ﺑﻣﻌﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻗﺩ ﻻ ﺗﻛﻭﻥ ﻣﺳﻳﺳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺍﻟﻭﻋﻲ، ﻭﻟﻌﻝ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺳﺭ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺧﺎﺏ ﻛﻭﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻭﺑﻠﻐﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﻣﺑﺎﺷﺭﺓ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻋﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺣﻛﻡ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻋﺩﺓ ﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﺳﻳﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻭﺗﻳﻥ . ﻭﺛﺎﻧﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻧﻘﺳﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻁﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺑﻛﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﻋﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﻭﺗﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﻗﻲ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻷﻗﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻏﻠﺑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺩﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺳﻌﻳﻧﻳﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺗﻭﺣﺩ ﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﺳﺑﻭﻕ ﺃﺛﻧﺎء ﺍﻻﻧﺗﻔﺎﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﻌﺑﻳﺔ ﻹﺳﻘﺎﻁ ﺗﺷﺎﻭﺗﺷﻳﺳﻛﻭ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺗﺟﺩﺭ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﺟﺎﺝ ﺿﺩ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﻗﺩ ﺑﺩﺃ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻧﻁﻘﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﻏﻠﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﺟﺭﻳﺔ ﺟﺭﺍء ﺍﻋﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﻗﺱ ﺑﺭﻭﺗﺳﺗﻧﺗﻲ ﻣﺟﺭﻱﺃﻱ ﺃﻗﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﻠﻳﺔ، ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﺍﻟﻅﺭﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﻗﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺑﻠﻘﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻠﻔﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺏ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻭﻏﻭﺳﻼﻓﻳﺎ ﻭﺗﻔﻛﻙ ﺗﺷﻳﻭﺳﻠﻭﻓﺎﻛﻳﺎ ﻭﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﻣﻁﺎﻟﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﻔﺻﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻗﻠﻳﻡ ﺗﺭﺍﻧﺳﻠﻔﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺷﻣﺎﻝ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺟﺎﻧﺏ ﺍﻷﻗﻠﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﺳﻬﻣﺕ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﻭﺗﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﻗﻲ ﻣﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ،ﻭﻳﻧﻁﺑﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺭ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻣﻬﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻠﺩﻭﻓﺎ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻭﺭﺓ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺷﻬﺩﺕ ﺻﺭﺍﻋﺎ ﻋﺭﻗﻳﺎ ﻣﺳﻠﺣﺎ ﻓﻲ 19951994 ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺣﺩﺭﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺻﻭﻝ ﺭﻭﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ .ﻭﻳﺿﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺷﻛﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﻭﺟﻭﺩ ﺃﻗﻠﻳﺎﺕ ﻋﺭﻗﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﻧﺩﻣﺟﺔ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺂﺧﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺟﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺫﻳﻥ ﻳﻣﺛﻠﻭﻥ ﻧﺣﻭ %5 ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺳﻛﺎﻥ ،ﻭﻗﺩ ﻋﺎﻧﻰ ﻫﺅﻻء ﻣﻥ ﻣﺯﻳﺩ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﻬﻣﻳﺵ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺷﻳﻭﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﺭﺍﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﺗﻌﻠﻳﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺻﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻟﻬﻡ .ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﻭﺗﻳﺭﺓ ﺍﻻﻧﻘﺳﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻭﺗﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻓﺗﺢ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻳﻣﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻣﻲ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺃﺛﺭﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﺳﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺧﻁﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻁﻳﻑ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺑﻲ ﺑﺭﻣﺗﻪ ﻣﻠﻘﻳﺔ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺣﻭ ﺍﻟﻳﻣﻳﻥ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﻓﺄﻛﺛﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺯﺍﻳﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻭﺍﻗﻔﻪ ،ﻭﺃﻓﺿﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺣﺗﻼﻝ ﺃﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﻫﻭﻳﺎﺗﻳﺔ ﻭﺷﻭﻓﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻟﻣﺳﺎﺣﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺷﻣﻭﻟﻳﺔ . ﻭﺍﻟﺷﻲء ﺑﺎﻟﺷﻲء ﻳﺫﻛﺭ ﻓﺎﻟﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺷﻬﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﺑﺎﺷﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻟﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﺷﻬﺩﺕ ﻋﻭﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﻭﺗﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺋﻔﻳﺔ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻣﻳﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺳﻳﺣﻳﻳﻥ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﺃﺷﺩ ﻣﻊ ﻏﻳﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺟﻬﺯﺓ ﺍﻷﻣﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻣﻌﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻛﺭﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺣﺩﺍﺙ ﺍﻻﻋﺗﺩﺍء ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻳﺣﻳﻳﻥ ﻭﻫﺩﻡ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﺩﺩ ﻣﻥ ﻣﺣﺎﻓﻅﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺻﻌﻳﺩ ﺛﻡ ﺍﻟﺻﺩﺍﻡ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻣﺛﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﺣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﻳﻥ ﺍﻷﻗﺑﺎﻁ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎﺳﺑﻳﺭﻭ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺃﺳﻔﺭﺕ ﻋﻥ ﻣﺻﺭﻉ ﺣﻭﺍﻟﻲ 27 ﺷﺧﺻﺎ ﺟﻠﻬﻡ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﻳﻥ ﺍﻷﻗﺑﺎﻁ .ﻭﻣﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺷﻙ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺻﻌﻭﺩ ﺍﻹﺷﻛﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺋﻔﻲ ،ﻭﻓﺭﺽ ﻧﻔﺳﻪ ﻣﻥ ﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺑﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻵﺧﺫ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺗﺎﺡ ﻳﺻﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺧﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺧﻭﺽ ﺻﺭﺍﻋﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﻠﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﻳﺗﺑﻌﻪ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻣﻥ ﺍﺧﺗﺻﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻟﻐﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻣﻳﻥ ﻭﺍﻧﺗﻘﺎﺹ ﻣﻥ ﻭﺿﻌﻳﺗﻬﻡﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻝ ﻓﻌﻠﻳﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻡ ﻳﻛﻥ ﻗﺎﻧﻭﻧﻳﺎ ﻛﻣﻭﺍﻁﻧﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺻﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ،ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﺧﺫ 6/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
12/24/2016
ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻘﻁﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻣﺎﻧﻲﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩﺍ ﻁﺎﺋﻔﻳﺔ ﻏﻳﺭ ﻣﺭﺓ ﻋﻧﺩ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻔﺗﺎء ﻓﻲ ﻣﺎﺭﺱ ،ﻭﺗﻛﺭﺭ ﺍﻷﻣﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﺳﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﻛﺎﺭﻳﻛﺎﺗﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺭﺟﻝ ﺍﻷﻋﻣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺑﻁﻲ ﻧﺟﻳﺏ ﺳﺎﻭﻳﺭﺱ .ﻭﻣﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺩﻋﻭ ﻟﻠﺷﻙ ﻓﺎﻟﺻﺭﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺋﻔﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺭﺍﺣﻝ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺑﻛﺭﺓ ﻳﻌﺩ ﺧﺻﻣﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺭﺻﻳﺩ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻁﻧﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺗﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﻧﻲ ﺑﺷﻛﻝ ﺃﻋﻡ ﻭﺃﺷﻣﻝ، ﻭﻟﻳﺱ ﻣﻥ ﺗﺄﺛﻳﺭﻩ ﺳﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺎﻫﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻳﻣﻳﻧﺎ ،ﻭﺗﻣﻛﻳﻥ ﺃﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻳﻣﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻧﻲ ﻭﺭﺑﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻣﻲ ﻣﻥ ﺗﺻﻌﻳﺩ ﺍﻟﺿﻐﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻭﺳﻁ ﻟﺗﺻﺑﺢ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﻳﻣﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺧﻁﺎﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﺳﻳﺎﺳﺎﺗﻬﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺷﻬﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻔﻳﻳﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻣﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻔﻲ ﺍﻷﻗﺑﺎﻁ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺭﺃﺓ . ﺑﻳﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺻﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺗﺷﻛﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻏﻳﺭ ﺩﻗﻳﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻣﺭﺓ ﻟﻌﺩﺓ ﺃﺳﺑﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﺳﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﺩﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻛﺑﻳﺭﺓ ﺑﻣﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺣﻭﻝ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﺳﺗﻣﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻘﻁﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻁﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﺩﻫﺎ ﻟﻣﺩﺓ ﻁﻭﻳﻠﺔ ،ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺳﺑﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺛﺎﻝ ﺃﻅﻬﺭ ﺍﺳﺗﻁﻼﻉ ﺭﺃﻱ ﻣﺅﺧﺭﺍ ﺃﺟﺭﺍﻩ ﻣﺭﻛﺯ ﺍﻷﻫﺭﺍﻡ ﻟﻠﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺗﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻌﻬﺩ ﺩﺍﻧﻣﺭﻛﻲ ﻟﻺﺣﺻﺎء ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﻣﻥ %80 ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺧﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺣﺗﻣﻠﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﻳﻬﺗﻣﻭﻥ ﺑﻘﺿﺎﻳﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻁﺎﺑﻊ ﻳﻭﻣﻲ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﺳﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻣﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺑﻁﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻌﺎﺭ ،ﻭﺭﻏﻡ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻻﻫﺗﻣﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻡ ﺗﻧﻌﻛﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺷﻬﺩ ﺍﺳﺗﻘﻁﺎﺑﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻫﻭﻳﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻳﻳﻥ ﻭﻋﻠﻣﺎﻧﻳﻳﻥ) ﻭﻣﺳﻠﻣﻳﻥ ﻭﻣﺳﻳﺣﻳﻳﻥ( .ﻭﻟﻌﻝ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﻼﺣﻅﺔ ﺗﻔﻳﺩ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻵﺧﺫ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻛﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻛﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻏﺎﻟﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﺗﻣﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺧﺏ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻭﺳﻁ ﻓﻛﻳﻑ ﻳﻣﻛﻧﻧﺎ ﺗﻔﺳﻳﺭ ﺫﻟﻙ؟ ﺃﻋﺗﻘﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺛﻣﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻭﻣﻳﻥ ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﻳﻥ ﻟﻠﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﻳﻣﻛﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﻔﺭﻳﻖ ﺑﻳﻧﻬﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻝ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺻﺎﻝ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺧﺑﻳﻥ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ :ﻓﺄﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻣﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻓﻭﺟﻭﺩﻱ ﻳﻘﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺗﻔﺭﻗﺔ ﺑﻳﻥ" ﻧﺣﻥ" ﻭ"ﻫﻡ" ،ﻭﻳﺗﻡ ﺍﺳﺗﺩﻋﺎء ﺍﻟﺭﻣﺯﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻧﺻﺭ ﺍﻷﻛﺛﺭ ﺭﺳﻭﺧﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﺗﺧﺭﺝ ﻣﻣﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻟﺣﻅﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﻛﺛﻔﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻘﻁﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻌﺑﺋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺣﺭﻳﻙ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﺳﻡ ﻗﺿﺎﻳﺎ ﻣﺟﺭﺩﺓ ﻛﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ .ﻭﻫﻧﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﻗﺭﻳﺑﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺗﻌﺭﻳﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﻳﻠﺳﻭﻑ ﺍﻷﻟﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﺎﺭﻝ ﺷﻣﻳﺕ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺭﻯ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺻﺭﺍﻋﺎ ﻭﺟﻭﺩﻳﺎ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺟﻣﺎﻋﺗﻳﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻳﺔ .ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻋﻘﺏ ﻟﺣﻅﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﻓﺗﺩﻭﺭ ﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺿﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻳﻭﻣﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻷﻣﻥ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩ ،ﻭﻳﺻﺑﺢ ﻣﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺃﻗﺭﺏ ﻟﺗﻌﺭﻳﻑ ﺃﺭﺳﻁﻭ ﻟﻠﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺑﺣﺙ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺻﺎﻟﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﺣﻘﻖ ﺃﻓﺿﻝ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻣﻣﻛﻧﺔ ﻟﺗﺣﻘﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺳﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻷﻓﺭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ .ﻭﻟﻥ ﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻠﺣﻅﺗﻳﻥ ﻣﻌﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺗﺣﻘﻖ ﻗﺩﺭ ﻛﺑﻳﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺑﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺻﺎﻟﺣﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﻳﻭﻣﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﻳﻔﻳﺔ ﺗﺣﻘﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﻛﻝ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺗﻭﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺻﻳﺎﻏﺗﻬﻡ ﻟﻣﺻﺎﻟﺣﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻭﻳﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻛﻣﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻊ ﺃﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺣﻳﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺿﺟﺔ . ﻭﻣﻥ ﺳﻭء ﺍﻟﺣﻅ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﻔﺗﺎﺡ ﺍﻷﺳﻭﺍﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺑﻳﺔ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻣﺎﻟﺗﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻣﺩﺭﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺧﻳﺻﺔ ﻗﺩ ﺍﺳﺗﻭﻋﺏ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺭﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺭﺑﻊ ﺇﺟﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻧﺳﺑﺔ ﻛﺑﻳﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺩﻯ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﺧﻔﻳﻑ ﺍﻟﺿﻐﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻌﺎﻗﺑﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﻳﺟﺎﺩ ﻣﺧﺭﺝ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺑﻁﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺭﺑﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻧﺎﺣﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﺳﺗﻘﺑﺎﻝ ﺗﺣﻭﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻛﺑﻳﺭﺓ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻣﻥ ﻧﺎﺣﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ،ﻭﻓﻲ ﻛﻠﺗﺎ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻟﺗﻳﻥ ﺗﺧﻔﻑ ﻭﻁﺄﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﺩﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻳﻔﺳﺢ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﻓﺄﻛﺛﺭ ﻟﻼﺳﺗﻘﻁﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻳﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﻗﻲ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﺎﺱ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﺃﻣﺭ ﻻ ﺗﻣﻠﻛﻪ ﻣﺻﺭ ﺇﻁﻼﻗﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻳﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺎﺿﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻳﻧﺎﻳﺭ ﻗﺩ ﺣﻣﻠﺕ ﺍﻟﻛﺛﻳﺭ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻻﺣﺑﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻳﻠﻑ ﻓﺋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺷﺑﺎﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺧﺭﻳﺟﻳﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﺗﻌﻠﻣﻳﻥ ،ﻭﺳﻳﻅﻝ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺗﻣﺛﻳﻝ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﻁﺎﻟﺏ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻋﺑﺋﺎ ﻳﻬﺩﺩ ﺑﺎﻧﻔﺟﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺗﺗﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻋﺗﺻﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺿﺭﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻋﻣﺎﻝ ﺷﻐﺏ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻧﻁﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﺳﻣﻲ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺅﻣﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺏ ﻛﻝ ﻋﺩﺓ ﺳﻧﻭﺍﺕ ،ﻭﻳﺻﺑﺢ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺏ ﻣﺟﺭﺩ ﻣﻧﺎﺳﺑﺔ ﻟﺗﺩﻭﻳﺭ ﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﻁﻠﻌﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﻭﻣﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻣﻧﻔﺻﻠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩﻫﺎ ،ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ ﻏﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺟﺫﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﻟﺗﻲ ﻧﺟﺩﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻳﺩ ﻣﻥ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﻣﻲ ،ﻭﻣﺻﺭ ﻣﺭﺷﺣﺔ ﻟﻼﻧﺿﻣﺎﻡ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺋﺔ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻧﺟﺎﺣﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺑﻧﻲ ﺍﻹﺟﺭﺍءﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﺳﻣﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺣﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺭﺷﺢ ،ﻭﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﻋﻅﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺷﻛﻠﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻭﺏ ﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﺟﺩﻳﺩ ﻛﻣﺎ ﺳﺑﻘﺕ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﺟﺯ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺗﻌﺑﻳﺭ ﻋﻥ ﻋﻣﻖ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺑﻠﺩ ،ﻭﻣﻥ ﺛﻡ ﻟﻡ ﻳﻁﻭﺭ ﺃﻁﺭﺍ ﻣﺅﺳﺳﻳﺔ ﻳﻣﻛﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻧﺎﺩ ﺇﻟﻳﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻣﺛﻳﻝ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺿﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﻭﺗﺑﻧﻲ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﺞ ﻣﺷﺎﻛﻠﻬﺎ ،ﻓﺷﻬﺩﺕ ﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺎ ﺇﺿﺭﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﻋﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ﻭﺃﻋﻣﺎﻝ ﺷﻐﺏ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﻁﺎﻕ ﻓﻲ 1990 ﻭ 1994ﻭ،1999 ﻭﺗﻛﺭﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﺟﺭﺩ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻓﺷﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ" ﺍﻟﺩﻳﻣﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ" ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺗﻳﻌﺎﺑﻪ . ﻭﻟﻌﻝ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﺩﻱ ﺍﻷﻛﺑﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻳﻭﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻧﺟﺢ ﺍﻟﻧﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﻣﺛﻝ ﺍﻟﻳﻭﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻣﺻﺎﻟﺣﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺃﻛﺛﺭ ﺗﻌﺩﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺻﺔ ﻟﻣﺷﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻷﺧﺹ ﺍﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻳﺋﺔ" ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻛﺎء ﺍﻟﺻﻐﺎﺭ" junior partners ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﺑﺭﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﻣﺭﻳﻛﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺗﺣﻭﻝ ﺑﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺻﻳﻐﺔ ،ﻓﻳﺗﺭﻙ ﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺧﺎﺭﺟﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺟﻳﺵ ﻟﻠﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻝ ﺇﻁﻼﻕ ﻳﺩ ﺍﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺳﻠﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺻﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﺭﻳﻌﺎﺕ ،ﻭﺳﻳﺗﻁﻠﺏ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻧﺎء ﺟﺯﺋﻳﺔ ﻟﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺃﻣﻧﻲ ﻳﺩﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻳﺿﻣﻥ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺣﺩﻭﺙ ﺗﻁﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺣﻠﻳﺔ ﻗﺩ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﺑﻅﻼﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﺻﺭ ﺍﻟﺟﻳﻭﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺣﺎﻟﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻭﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺗﺣﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﺯﺍﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﻛﺎﻣﺏ ﺩﻳﻔﻳﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺇﺳﺭﺍﺋﻳﻝ ﻭﺩﻋﻣﻬﺎ ﻷﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺧﻠﻳﺞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻭﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺇﻳﺭﺍﻥ ،ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﺗﺭﻛﻳﺑﺔ ﺿﻌﻳﻔﺔ ﻭﻣﻠﻳﺋﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺗﻧﺎﻗﺿﺎﺕ ،ﻭﻻ ﻳﻣﻛﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺅﺩﻱ ﺇﻻ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺻﻳﻐﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺑﺎﻛﺳﺗﺎﻥ. ﻭﺍﻷﺩﻫﻰ ﻣﻥ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻭﺃﻣﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻝ ﺃﺧﺫ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺷﻛﻝ ﻭﻣﻸﺗﻪ ﻗﻭﻯ ﻣﻥ ﻋﺻﺭ ﻣﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻻﻣﺗﻼﻛﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻣﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻛﺎﻓﻳﺔ ﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﺑﺩءﺍ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﻓﺩ ﻭﻣﺭﻭﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻋﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻔﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻧﺗﻬﺎءﺍ ﺑﺄﻭﺭﺍﺳﻛﻭﻡ ،ﻫﻲ ﺟﻣﻳﻌﺎ ﻗﻭﻯ ﻳﻣﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻣﺣﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﺳﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺗﻣﻠﻛﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﻥ ﺃﺟﻝ ﺣﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺟﺎﻧﺏ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻘﻪ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻲ .ﻭﻗﺩ ﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﻳﻭﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻝ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺻﺭ ﺇﻁﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺣﺗﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺟﺎﻧﺏ ﺍﻟﺣﺯﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻳﻣﺱ ﺇﻧﺗﺎﺝ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻧﺧﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻳﻛﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺳﻛﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﺑﻝ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺇﺭﺟﺎء ﻭﺭﺑﻣﺎ ﻟﻸﺑﺩ ﺇﻁﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺳﺗﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺩﺓ ،ﻓﺗﻌﻁﻝ ﺇﺻﺩﺍﺭ ﻗﺎﻧﻭﻥ ﺟﺩﻳﺩ ﻟﻠﺣﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﺎﻟﻳﺔ ،ﻭﺃﺗﺕ ﻻﺋﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﻁﻼﺑﻲ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﻌﺩﻳﻝ ﻟﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﺳﻳﻁﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺭﺑﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻣﻥ ،ﻭﻛﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﻌﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻫﻠﻳﺔ ﻭﺟﻣﻌﻳﺎﺕ ﺣﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻹﻧﺳﺎﻥ ،ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺟﻥ ﻭﺍﻋﺗﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺷﻁﻳﻥ ﻣﻊ ﻏﻳﺎﺏ ﻣﺳﺎﺋﻝ ﻣﺎﺳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺣﻳﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻳﻭﻣﻳﺔ ﻟﻣﻼﻳﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﻛﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﻳﻛﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻷﻣﻧﻲ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻳﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ . ﺗﻔﻳﺞ ﻧﺗﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻣﺭﺣﻠﺗﻳﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻳﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﺳﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻳﺎ ﺑﺎﻣﺗﻳﺎﺯ ﺑﺣﻳﺎﺯﺓ ﺍﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﻟﻧﺣﻭ %4035 ﻣﻥ ﺍﻷﺻﻭﺍﺕ ﻳﻠﻳﻬﻡ ﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﻧﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻔﻲ ﺛﻡ ﺍﻟﻛﺗﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻭﻓﺩ .ﻭﻟﻌﻝ ﺍﻟﺗﻛﻭﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺫﻛﻭﺭ ﻳﻌﻛﺱ ﺍﻻﺳﺗﻘﻁﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻳﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲﺍﻟﻌﻠﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﻧﻭﺭ ﺍﻷﻛﺛﺭ ﻳﻣﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻧﺎﺣﻳﺔ ﺩﻋﻭﺗﻪ ﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺩﻳﻧﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺳﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻣﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﻳﻥ ﻻ ﺗﺯﺍﻝ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺩﻳﻥ ﻣﻠﺗﺑﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺩﺑﻳﺎﺗﻬﻡ ﻭﺑﺭﺍﻣﺟﻬﻡ ،ﻭﻓﻲ ﻳﺳﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺳﻁ ﻳﻘﻑ ﺍﻟﻭﻓﺩ ﻭﻳﻛﻭﻥ ﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﺍﻷﺣﺭﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻗﺻﻰ ﺍﻟﻳﺳﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻷﻛﺛﺭ ﻋﻠﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ! ﺗﺧﻳﻠﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﺍﻷﺣﺭﺍﺭﺍﻟﺣﺯﺏ ﺍﻟﻣﻣﻭﻝ ﻣﻥ ﺷﺭﻛﺔ ﺃﻭﺭﺍﺳﻛﻭﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﻘﺭﺏ ﻣﻥ ﻧﺟﻳﺏ ﺳﺎﻭﻳﺭﺱ ﺭﺟﻝ ﺍﻷﻋﻣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺷﻬﻳﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻳﺳﺎﺭ! ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻟﺏ ﺍﻹﺷﻛﺎﻝ ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻛﺑﺭﻯ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺗﻅﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺭﺯﻫﺎ ﺍﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻡ ﺗﻘﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻳﻣﻳﻥ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺣﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﻏﻳﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻭﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺩﺧﻝ ﻋﻥ ﺑﺭﺍﻣﺟﻬﺎ ،ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﻣﺭﺍﺟﻌﺗﻬﺎ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺳﻭﻕ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺑﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻣﻳﺔ .ﻓﺎﻟﻣﺟﺩ ﻟﻠﻳﻣﻳﻥ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻁﺎﻟﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺗﻣﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻣﻳﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻣﻁﺎﻟﺏ ﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻲ ﺗﻐﻠﺏ ﻛﻣﺎ ﺳﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﺫﻛﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻫﺗﻣﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺧﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﻳﻥ .ﻭﺑﺗﻁﺑﻳﻖ ﻣﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻳﺩﻭﺭ ﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻳﺔ ﻳﻣﻛﻥ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻷﺣﺯﺍﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺻﻝ ﻟﻠﺣﻛﻡ ﻭﺗﺳﻳﻁﺭ ﻟﻔﺗﺭﺓ، ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺳﺭﻋﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺻﻝ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﻭﻥ ﻟﻠﻣﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﺳﻳﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻳﺩﻭﺭ ﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﺍﻟﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﺛﻠﻰ ﻟﻣﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻁﻧﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻋﻧﺩﻫﺎ ﺳﻳﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻡ ﺭﻏﻡ ﻛﻭﻧﻪ ﻣﻧﺗﺧﺑﺎ ﺑﻧﺯﺍﻫﺔ ﻭﺣﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻋﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺔ ﻛﻭﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺑﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﻁﺎﻟﺏ ﺍﻻﺟﺗﻣﺎﻋﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺗﺻﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻸﻏﻠﺑﻳﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺩ ﻳﻔﺗﺢ ﺍﻟﺑﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﺳﺗﻣﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﺿﻁﺭﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻻﺿﺭﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﻋﺗﺻﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻣﺎﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺋﻭﻳﺔ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻅﻝ ﺑﺭﻟﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻧﺗﺧﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻳﻐﺔ ﺃﻗﺭﺏ ﻟﻠﺛﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻧﺧﻔﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺩﺓ .low intensity revolution ﻭﺍﻧﺩﻻﻉ ﺗﻅﺎﻫﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺗﺣﺭﻳﺭ ﺍﻷﺧﻳﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ 19 ﻧﻭﻓﻣﺑﺭ ﻭﺍﺷﺗﺑﺎﻛﺎﺕ ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ﻣﺣﻣﺩ ﻣﺣﻣﻭﺩ ﺑﻭﺳﻁ ﺍﻟﺑﻠﺩ ،ﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﺍﻛﺑﻬﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺍﺿﻁﺭﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﺷﺎﺑﻬﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻁﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺑﻼﺩ ﻭﻋﺭﺿﻬﺎ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻛﻧﺩﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﻁﺭﻭﺡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺩﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻧﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﻧﺻﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﻁﻧﻁﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺩﻟﺗﺎ ﻭﻗﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻣﻧﻳﺎ ﻭﺃﺳﻳﻭﻁ ﻭﺃﺳﻭﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻷﻗﺻﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺻﻌﻳﺩ ،ﻭﻗﺩﺭ ﺍﻹﺣﺑﺎﻁ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺿﺏ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻋﺑﺭ ﻋﻧﻪ ﻣﺋﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﻻﻑ ﻣﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻭﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺳﻛﺭﻱ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺣﺷﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺿﺧﻣﺔ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻅﻝ ﻏﻳﺎﺏ ﻣﺷﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻗﺑﻝ ﺍﻹﺧﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﻠﻣﻳﻥ ،ﻫﺫﻩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻭﻗﻳﺕ ﺣﺩﻭﺛﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻧﺗﺧﺎﺑﺎﺕ 7/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
12/24/2016
ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟
ﺑﻌﺩﺓ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﻳﻅﻬﺭ ﻛﻳﻑ ﺗﻧﻅﺭ ﺍﻟﻛﺗﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﺷﻁﺔ ﺳﻳﺎﺳﻳﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺣﺗﺟﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻋﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻣﻠﻳﺔ ﻧﻘﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﺔ ،ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻧﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻋﺗﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﺣﻼ ﻟﻠﺗﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﻳﻥ ﻧﺧﺏ ﻣﻧﻔﺻﻠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ﺗﺳﻳﺳﺕ ﺃﺛﻧﺎء ﻭﺑﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺛﻭﺭﺓ ،ﻭﻻ ﺗﺟﺩ ﻣﻥ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺑﺭ ﻋﻧﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺗﺎﻟﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻘﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺳﻠﻁﻭﻳﺔ .ﺇﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺟﻣﺎﻫﻳﺭ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻣﻥ ﻋﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻣﻝ ﺍﻟﺳﻳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻻ ﻧﺫﻳﺭ ﺑﺎﺳﺗﻣﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﺿﻁﺭﺍﺏ ﻣﺳﺗﻘﺑﻼ ﺣﺗﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻅﻝ ﺣﻛﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﻣﻧﺗﺧﺑﺔ ﻭﻟﻛﻥ ﻟﻠﻌﺟﺏ ﻓﺎﻗﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺷﺭﻋﻳﺔ! Latest posts in Arabic:
ﺭﺅﻳﺔ
ﺳﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﺣﻛﺎﻳﺗﻧﺎ
"ﻫﻝ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺻﺭ؟"2 comments for This is an article compairing the algerian experience in the 1990' and the egytian situation today (sorry it's in french !) : http://www.article11.info/?Strategiescontrerevolutionnaires#pagination_page NACIRI wrote on January 02, 2012 at 12:55 PM
ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺛﻨﺎﻳﺎ ﻭﺧﻼﻳﺎ ﺍﻻﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻳﺤﻤﻞ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺗﺘﺮﻭﺍﺡ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ%85 ﻭ %90 ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻘﻒ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ ، ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺭﺗﻀﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻌﻠﻪ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ، ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺗﻀﻮﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻈﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺮﻱ ، ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻗﻔﺖ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻧﻘﻄﺘﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﻭﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺏ ﻓﻈﻴﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺁﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺮﻱ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ ، ﻭﻻ ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺮﻱ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﻧﺘﻤﻨﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺜﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ insan wrote on March 12, 2012 at 05:06 AM If you prefer, email your comments to info@jadaliyya.com.
3 Comments
Sort by Oldest
Add a comment...
ﺍﻟﻣﺟﻠﺱ ﺍﻻﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ at ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﻠﻭﻣﺎﺕSherif Osman · ﺍﻟﺷﺎﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻰ ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻑ ﺗﻣﺎﻣﺎً ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺷﺎﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻯ .. ﻣﻥ ﺣﻳﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻳﺩﺓ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻣﺑﺎﺩﺉ .. ﻭ ﻻ ﻳﻭﺟﺩ ﺗﺷﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﻳﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﻭ ﺃﻯ ﺷﻌﺏ ﻣﻥ ﺷﻌﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ .. ﺃﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺃﻗﻭﻝ ﺃﻧﻧﺎ ﺍﻷﻓﺿﻝ ﻭ ﻟﻛﻥ ﺃﻗﻭﻝ ﻣﺧﺗﻠﻔﻳﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻧﺎﻙ ﻣﻥ ﻫﻡ ﺃﻓﺿﻝ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﺭﻳﻳﻥ ﻓﻰ ﺃﻣﻭﺭ ﻭ ﺃﺳﻭء ﻓﻰ ﺃﻣﻭﺭ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ .. ﻫﺫﺍ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻛﻝ ﺷﻌﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ... ﻧﺩﻋﻭ ﷲ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﺻﻠﺢ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻥ ﻳﺗﻭﻟﻰ ﺯﻣﺎﻡ .ﺍﻷﻣﻭﺭ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺻﺭ 1 · Apr 21, 2014 2:08pm
Like · Reply ·
Na'Gat N'asr ﻟﺳﻪ ﻗﺩﺍﻣﻬﻡ ﻛﺗﻳﺭ ﻋﺷﺎﻥ ﻳﺑﻘﻭﺍ ﻋﻧﺩﻫﻡ ﺍﻟﻭﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﻧﻭﻳﺭﻳﺔ 5 · Jul 17, 2014 11:45am
Like · Reply ·
Adham Eid !!!!... 1 · Aug 30, 2014 4:50pm
Like · Reply ·
Facebook Comments Plugin
Jadaliyya About Jadaliyya Jadaliyya Team Contributors Contact Information
Contributions Submission Guidelines Release Form Privacy Policy Terms of Service 8/9
…http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8
12/24/2016
ﻣﺻﺭ؟ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻳﺣﺩﺙ ﺑﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﻣﺎﻧﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺗﺟﺭﺑﺔ ﺗﺧﺑﺭﻧﺎ ﻫﻝ
Pages/Sections Culture Reports Reviews Interviews Jad Navigation O.I.L.
Features Roundtables Essential Readings Photo Essays
Pedagogy Section Pedagogy Homepage
ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺳﻡ Arabic Section ArabicCulture ArabicPolitics ArabicEconomics ArabicHistory ©20102016 by the Arab Studies Institute. All Rights Reserved. info@jadaliyya.com site by concepcion design
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3834/%D9%87%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8…
9/9