Nominating General Omar Suleiman for the presidency had a huge feedback, some people have deprecated and others have welcomed. The Islamic movement rejected it as the nomination of the general will destroy their plans to control Egypt. New parties and movements have agreed with the Islamic movements as they think that if Omar wins, it would be an end for the revolution and a new start for the former regime.
The first to support Omar Suleiman were the ordinary people who suffered a lot from successive crises, for instance: lack of security, gas, bread, water crises, sit-ins to achieve factional banditry, kidnapping people to trade for ransoms, and etc. This made ordinary people as well as those who worry about their businesses like businessmen, those working in tourism industry and others to take the decision and support Major General Omar Suleiman.
For me, I do not prefer any one of the former regime to be the new president because all of them have somehow partaken in the corruption that was all over Egypt, and all of them took part in the crimes committed against Copts. Omar Suleiman as Intelligence chief must have known the details of these crimes, this is from on hand. From the other, I completely refuse any candidate from the Islamic movement as all of them have the same agenda which is applying the Islamic law that classifies people according to their religion.
I was going to vote for Dr. el-Baradei, but he left the presidential race. So, all we have left are judge Hisham al-Bastawisy, Abul Ezz al-Hariri, Hamdain Sabahi and Khalid Ali, however all of them are weak and have almost no chance, just like losing horses.
What is the solution then? Do we vote for the remnants of the corrupted regime? Or vote for the Islamists who are going to exclude the others? Or bet on losing horses? Is abstaining from voting (as a way of objection) and losing our right to vote, considered a solution?
For Copts and ordinary people, there is no place for losing horses or avoid voting. So, there are unfortunately two options available: either the remains of the former regime like Omar Suleiman, Moussa and Shafik, or the Islamists like al-Shater, Moursi, Abul Fotoh. Unfortunately, we have to choose between either those who participated in corruption and despotism, or those who are trading on religion. But before choosing between these two currents we should note that:
First, despite the corruption and despotism of the former regime, we could get rid of it, and thus it won’t be too hard to get rid of it agian if the Egyptians want so.
Second, peoples of countries like the Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan or Iran couldn’t get rid of their tyrants ruling in the name of religion. Those rulers who are willing to divide the country rather than to step down (look at the Sudan and Somalia).
Third, there is an idiom says: “A tree is known by its fruit”; when Abu Ismail, the Islamic candidate, was excluded for his mother was a US citizen which is against the law, his supporters are threatening by violence actions. This happens while there are four other Islamic candidates (al-Shater, Mursi, Abul Fotoh and al-Ashaal), so what if he was the only candidate and it happens to be excluded?
Imagine Abu Ismail or any other Islamic candidate is the president, and there is a revolution against him. I think the whole country will be burned, as his supporters are going to incite the poor and ordinary people to defend “Islam” against such revolution!
Finally, I know that both options are a bitter pill to swallow. We are going to choose the former regime candidates though too bitter choice it is. If a rational person has to choose between having cancer or stroke, he will choose having cancer. He can live with it for a while hoping to recover, but having stroke, he will perish.
