Background:
Out of 60 million Egyptian people (statistics from 1995), there is not one person who could fulfil the position of vice-president, according to then-president Ḥusnī Mubārak, which has been the case for around 14 years. In 1995, Mubārak was the victim of an assassination attempt in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Militant Islamist terrorist group al-Jamāʿah al-Islāmiyya had claimed credit for the attempted attack. It is argued that the absence of a vice-president is irresponsible as a political crisis could be avoided but instead, it is procrastinated. Fahmī Huwaydī, a moderate Islamist and former Egyptian columnist for al-Ahrām newspaper, agrees that the presence of a vice president would allow clarity to the Egyptian people.
Side A:
According to Fahmī Huwaydī, Ḥusnī Mubārak thinks civilian participation is irrelevant in political discussion. In terms of the attempted assassination, the military and security forces are taking care of the incident and the civilians have no need to worry. Huwaydī believes that if there is no active political party, then the military will take control of the nation, not because it is stronger per se, but because it is very well organised and loyal to the regime. The absence of a vice-president in Egypt, has led to superstitions concluding that Mubārak is afraid of a recurrence of history. When Muḥammad Anwar al-Sādāt was assassinated in 1981, it was clear that Mubārak (then vice president) would succeed Sādāt. Some say that this might be the reason as to why Mubārak is reluctant of appointing a vice president, as this will give opposition groups the opportunity to remove Mubārak and have a successor ready.
It is not essential that the next president in line would have a military background. When Huwaydī is asked about the possibility of the Minister of Defense, Ṭanṭāwī as successor, he said that there are always rumours, and as the army is not politicised, it would never be divided over this issue. He doubts the involvement of al-Jamāʿah al-Islāmīyah even though they announced their responsibility for the attempt. He questions the motive of al-Jamāʿah al-Islāmīyah, and why they released a statement claiming credit regarding the incident a week later, failing to see the logic behind this. Huwaydī said that there are other groups such as Ṭalāʾiʿ al-Fatḥ who could have been involved instead. He adds that the government’s response to Islamic groups after this would be resorting to more security measures as the situation is deteriorating; no political solution would be implemented to solve the clash between the government and the Islamic groups.
Throughout the interview, Huwaydī noticeably did not take the tarnish seriously as he continuously argues that if Mubārak had indeed been assassinated, it would not be a major crisis for Egypt and believes that even now there is nothing to worry about. The perpetrators of the attack are said to be part of the al-Jamāʿah al-Islāmiyya group, but some question Sudan’s role in it all. Huwaydī believes that Ḥassan al-Turābī has other things on his mind than to interfere in Egyptian politics.
Moreover, the passing of Mubārak for Huwaydī would not mean a change in stability for Egypt. Huwaydī thinks Mubārak is aware of the security of the country after his departure and does not consider a sudden movement (i.e. demonstrations) to occur subsequently. There would not be a spontaneous revolution of any kind, says Huwaydī, although he recognises that such movements are usually not foreseen.
Raḍwā ʿAdawī‘s Comments:
The question of who would replace Mubārak revolved around the absence of the vice president who would become the successor as Mubārak was to Sādāt and Sādāt was to ʿAbd al-Nāṣir. The second thing that they mentioned is that the only way that Mubārak would be out of office is when he dies. This does not resemble any confusion as it basically reflects Huwaydī’s statement regarding the democratic crisis in the country during that period.
