Tuesday, February 18, 2014

And This lady can be our first Lady in two months

And at last Egyptians met Mrs. Intasar El Sisi , the wife of Field Marshal/Potential Presidential candidate/Egypt's upcoming President as it seems.
Intasar El Sisi besides her husband 
There has been a lot of speculations about how she looked like especially that there were rumours that she was wearing a Niqab. "A Thing that no can believe , since when a commander's wife in the Egyptian army wears Niqab and he reaches to become the head of the military intelligence !!?" 
Mrs. Intasar wears the veil in the style of Upper Middle Class lady. I think many Middle Class ladies will feel related to her.

 Here is also the photo of the SCAF ladies. 
The ladies of SCAF 
Interestingly I do not recall seeing the wives of the army commanders like that in any celebration. I only recall the scene of Tantawy's wife sitting besides Susan Mubarak in the usual boring October operettas chatting all the time.
The SCAF ladies appeared as allegedly a protocol thing "I have not heard about it before" in the ceremony 
to honour the retired commanders at Armed Forces' owned hotel "Al Massa" in Cairo.
Personally I believe that Mrs. El Sisi is being introduced to the public is the main goal of that gala party after all not to honor the retired commanders. 
By the way Mrs. Intasar is the cousin of Abdel Fatah El Sisi , they got 4 children "3 boys and a girl". Two of her sons work in the armed forces as I read once.
Of course the Field Marshal said a word in this ceremony where he did not honour only the retired commanders but he also paid respect to the army's wives in yet another emotional speech.
I am waiting for real presidential debate between Sabbahi and El Sisi , without doubt it would be over sensational cheesy debate. 

12 comments:

  1. How ironic, Sisi has more jewellery on his uniform, his wife restricted to a neck chain!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you recall what happened in the Iranian presidential election of 2009, there are some echoes of something similar happening now in the Egyptian presidential election of 2014. There were four main candidates in the Iranian election, a number that seems possibly to be the same as the quantity of Egyptian candidates that will run (if Khaled Ali, Hamdeen Sabahi, Sisi, and Sami Anan all participate).

    There four candidates included two reformists, one clerical, the other lay, an incumbent backed by much of the political establishment and security forces, and an independent candidate with a military background. Ultimately, the contest came to be viewed as primarily being between Mir-Hussein Mousavi (the Green movement reformist) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent favored by the Rahbar Khamenei.

    The state proclaimed that Ahmadinejad had gained the presidency, but this was heavily challenged by others who argued that Mousavi was cheated out of the office. The Green movement organized protests for many days afterwards and eventually the two reformist candidates were placed under house arrest. The split that this election engendered has partially been mitigated by the 2013 election of the seemingly pro-Green movement Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani

    The 2009 crackdown resulted as the outcome of disputed election results. The crackdown was considerably less extreme or brutal than what has happened in Egypt recently, yet it created controversy about Ahmadinejad's presidency and Khamenei. The Egyptian election could produce a similar problem. Even if the outcome is not disputed, savage violence against Sabahi's supporters or against opposition candidates could provoke an extreme backlash against Sisi cultists and other supporters and permanently taint his own supposedly legitimacy and claim to the presidential throne.

    If Sisi the politician proves not to be as popular as Sisi the general, the elites backing him might resort to more desperate measures. Or say Sami Anan does somehow draw off a decent portion of the felul votes from Sisi. Sisi's handlers want to an election that appears democratic, but they do not want real competition and open speech or free campaigning. If someone with radically democratic ideas starting to gain momentum, such as Khaled Ali, they might start to engage in a crackdown during the election.

    Furthermore, the election could deepen the rift between revolutionaries and authoritarians. Having more candidates actually makes this more likely to happen. The line between democracy and dictatorship is not something that can incessantly be crossed without producing dangerous consequences for those seeking to sustain what is essentially a despotism through pseudo-democratic means. If the box is opened and closed too many times, eventually the lock breaks.

    Those who are against holding a presidential debate should note that Iran actually had one in 2009 and also in 2013. Rouhani's debate performance was widely judged to be more capable and compelling than that of the harder line candidates.

    The fact that this presidential election in Egypt will have some many fewer candidates than in 2012 is partially a result of Egypt having a de facto version of Iran's Guardian Council. The Egyptian version is less formal but very real and prevalent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally different status as Iran is FULLY controlled by Ayatollah & his aids, they are holding all the strings In & Out.
      Egypt simulation should be with a nation in which the army has the predominant role.
      Regards,

      Delete
    2. I'd say its pretty apt. The elected officials in Iran do have real power and authority. Actually the Iranian religious officials have shown more flexibility than the Egyptian so far as they have allowed the election of 'reformers' like Rouhani and Rafsanjani they would have preferred not to see elected. Of course, they have had a lot more election cycles, but even in the most 'revolutionary' election, that of 2012, nobody dared seriously challenge the economic and political role of the military. the control of Iran's council of guardians is more explicitly spelled out than that of Egypt's generals, but I tend to prefer that anyway as it leads to less room for corrupt deals and less chance of fighting over who has the right to do what when things get hairy.

      Delete
    3. It is true that the military is not as politicized in Iran or as important for sustaining the political order. However, the security and intelligence bodies are pretty important in Iranian domestic politics, though they are associated with the Rahbar's centers of power.

      Countries in which militaries dominate the political scene end up with considerable functional similarities to a system controlled by clerics; the flavor is different but the mindset is still power. It has not quite reached this point in Egypt, but Egypt is perilously heading the way of Myanmar and what countless other countries have experienced.

      It remains to be seen how much freedom will be tolerated in the Egyptian presidential election. Any attempt to establish some kind of "controlled democracy," "managed democracy," or other pseudo-democratic façade will run into the continuing problem of power transitions and successions. This could reach beyond the presidency and into cabinet ministries. It is difficult to imagine the state not doing everything possible to ensure a Sisi win at any cost.

      Delete
    4. I agree with what David Walker said (the one post was a response to Egyptian Engineer). Although Mubarak has been overthrown, the military elite in Egypt still forms a closed order above the state that weakens and works against non-minion elected officials at every turn. The SCAF filtering of the candidates in 2012 was much like a murkier version of the Council of Guardians vetting process. Some candidates were excluded from the contest on literally asinine reasons because the elite did not like them. The fact that the impending election is so often regarded as simply a coronation for Sisi actually contrasts unfavorably with many of the less cherogaphed elections in Iran, flawed as they were.

      People often claim that militarist dictators do not suppress social freedom much, yet they are forced to ignore the evidence in order to believe in this assertion. Most hardcore military juntas are less prosperous and more social restrictive than is Iran. Furthermore, Iranian laws against social behaviors are not as rigorously enforced as in most military dominated systems. This is not to do say that the Arab countries should embark on the same course as Iran, but the selective vilification does not make sense. The obsessive concern about Iran's political scene when compared to the Gulf Arabs or Arab military dictatorships is the result of geo-political games, not genuine ideological convictions. A lot of the hatred undoubtedly is disguised opposition to the fact that Iran is primarily Shia rather than Sunni. Some of the Arab monarchies have higher per capita GDPs than Iran due to lower population totals and easier spread of oil money but most of them are more scientifically backward or more backward in other ways.

      One could argue that Iran has massive amounts oil while Egypt has very little, but then it would be equally necessary to observe that Iran receives no foreign bailouts and has had to deal with sanctions for quite a while. Nevertheless, especially with the recent détente with the west, the prospects for Iran economically moving forward are much better than the vast majority of military dominated societies.

      Hubristic militaries very often are attracted to creating various forms of mind control. There is nothing special about religion in that regard.

      Delete
    5. Enough of your twice daily rants. It's becoming boring.

      Delete
    6. Dear Orange Ketchup:
      "...Hubristic militaries very often are attracted to creating various forms of mind control. There is nothing special about religion in that regard..." You surely don't know anything about fanatic Ayatolahs. They control the way you eat, walk, speak. It is worse than militaries mind control, at least you still have a mind that you (might) use one day but the others have a succeeded to remove some of their followers CPUs.

      Still from an experience of living here & there in the middle east, the religious autocrats are far more dangerous than militaries;

      Regards to all,

      Delete
    7. It partly depends on what we are talking about here and whether it is limited to the Middle East/Iran.

      What you described is more fitting of the early stages of Khomeini's rule, Taliban, Saudi Arabia, or what al-Qaeda wants to create. Iran has many restrictive traits, but it is not on the same level as those countries/movements. We have to note that, despite its problems, Iran is less misogynistic than a large number of the Arab countries. It is not the same place it was while Khomeini was alive.

      Also, if we are comparing religious-political systems to military forms of mind control, it is necessary to look outside the Middle East as well. Can the Ayatollahs compare to the insanity of North Korea's mixture of a deified Dear Leader, Juche, and Songun (military first policy)? Or Myanmar? Even the Khmer Rouge could be said to count as a militaristic form of totalitarianism, although it that case a special form of communism was heavily predominate.

      In some, but not all, cases, militaristic mental constructs intended to shape perception are applied in less widely recogized fashions that religious ones.

      If you count Saudi Arabia and certain other states/movements, then it could be argued that the Middle Eastern military dictatorships have difficulty matching that. But if you are only talking about Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, or other Shia influenced areas, or if you include non-Middle Eastern military autocracies, then the picture is quite different.

      In the end, any system of thought can be made as manipulative and controlling as power worshipping individual or collective wants it to be. The differences between the systems are less salient than the similarities.

      Delete
    8. Orange Ketchup,

      We are totally lost here going through various mind control systems & autocratic regimes comparison & Shia ....!!!

      I simply wanted to state in my first comment on the fact that Iran could not be compared to Egypt ... And that Ayatollahs are still in control & that they are far more dangerous ( In my opinion) than Egyptian Generals...

      Just as simple as this,

      Thanks & nice day to all,

      Delete
  3. If Mrs. El Sisi is related by blood to an El Sisi, doesn't this mean the marriage is an incestuous one? Are they cousins or related in any way?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Green revolution was the 1st in a series of confrontations between a very dissatisfied and abused populace and a dictatorship. The latest one just occurred in Kiev but seems to have achieved its goals. The Egyptian one has only partially achieved its goals.
    The hardliners in Iran were preparing to use massive violence and 5 years later are still a heavy weight on the country. Executions for "spying" and other bogus crimes have been taking place at a steady rate. Intelligence goons have the power of life and death over political prisoners and the old man is still hanging on.
    Whats changed is hope for economic improvment? But I wonder if the hardline religious conservatives in the US and Israel will do any favour for the hardline,religous conservatives in Iran. Doubtful. Its a funny thing about hardline conservatives they don't often like each other for some reason.

    ReplyDelete

Thank You for your comment
Please keep it civilized here , I will not tolerate any insult in my blog or any racist or hateful comment
The Comments in this blog with exclusion of the blog's owner do not represent the views of the blog's owner