NewsBreakingOnline

The machinations of the Mubarak regime could yet see much more blood spilt in Cairo Blood is not the ideal lubricant for the orderly transition which all political forces in Egypt claim to want. Nor is deceit. Yet there is a clear danger of more of both as the regime in Cairo wriggles and manoeuvres for advantage. They may understand on one level that things cannot go on as they did before, but on another, some of them at least are acting as if outflanking their opponents is the main objective. There is also evidence, in the shape of a worsening of the conditions under which foreign journalists have to work, that they want to do it without the international press at their elbow. Much of this manoeuvring centres on the physical possession of Tahrir Square. The passionate advocates of immediate change in Egypt have already been pushed out of part of the square by violent pro-Mubarak demonstrators. Now, in addition, they face the more insidious prospect of being “persuaded” out of this symbolic place by the argument that what they are doing will lead to dire consequences for the livelihood of ordinary Egyptians. The new prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, yesterday apologised for the violence in the square on Wednesday and said it would not be repeated. But he did so in a way which not so subtly equated the two sets of demonstrators, while laying on the anti-Mubarak side the responsibility for the deterioration in the country’s economy. Vice-president Omar Suleiman did the same in an interview in which he recounted his attempts to conduct a dialogue with political parties and spoke of the length of time needed to make constitutional changes. The game here is an obvious one: paint the country as more or less equally divided and in need of arbitration and reconciliation, make economic normalisation the immediate priority, and draw out the political process. One does not have to believe that every pro-Mubarak demonstrator is a thug or a plainclothes policeman to understand that equating the two sides in this way distorts reality. And, while arguments about Egypt’s economic plight or the need to observe legalities cannot be dismissed, they are no substitute for creating the trust necessary if there are to be real negotiations about the country’s future. You cannot create that trust if you seek to strip the democracy movement of its singular achievement, the capture of the city’s most central place, without giving anything in return. President Mubarak could still wreck the chances of compromise. He, or diehards in his entourage, could initiate more violence in Tahrir. Or his government can hope, as the prime minister seems to do, that the demonstrators can be isolated by being portrayed as economic wreckers, or that opposition leaders can be caught in the sticky web of the complicated constitutional discussions that Omar Suleiman talks about. Lenin said of revolutions that they demonstrate two things. The first is that the people cannot go on being ruled in the old way. The second is that the rulers cannot go on ruling in the old way. Both must alter. The virtue of what came to be called “negotiated revolutions” after the transfers of power in South Africa and eastern Europe, is that a society obtains most of the benefits of radical change with few of the costs. For this you need a regime that knows its time is over. Equally, the classes who have most benefited from that regime have to be ready to give up much of what they have enjoyed in order to keep what remains. Those who have challenged the regime, on the other hand, will have to accept that elements of the old order will persist. Today in Tahrir Square, after Friday prayers, the Egyptian regime will face a test of its good intentions. It can and should curb the pro-Mubarak forces. It can and should ensure that the press can operate freely. And it can stop the dangerous games it has begun to play in its attempts to undermine the opposition. Protest Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East guardian.co.uk