Conspiracy theories abound about what actually happened during the game between Al Ahly, Egypt’s most famous team, and Al Masry. Al Masry won the game, 3-1, and that didn’t sit well with Egypt’s “ultras,’’ energetic and sometimes violent soccer fans who invaded the pitch and threatened the winning players. As security forces stood by, spectators stampeded out of the stadium, causing a crush of death.
The tragedy was no surprise to Egyptian soccer players, nor to soccer players around the world. It can be a very violent sport for spectators. Riots are an unfortunate part of its legacy from Europe to Africa to South America. But this wasn’t just a game. It was played against the backdrop of a much more pressing debate in Egypt: the end of emergency rule.
The failure of basic public order plays into a narrative that helps Egypt’s military rulers. The military continues to hold onto the exceptional powers it enjoyed after former President Hosni Mubarak was removed from office. Meant initially as a placeholder, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) essentially became the local police, enforcing emergency law and then fighting democratic protests. Their incapacity to maintain law and order became a self-justification for continuing their powers.
When, finally, SCAF ended emergency law this month after a year of protests and international complaints, they did so with one major caveat: they would give up their powers granted under an emergency law that existed through much of Mubarak’s tenure but for one exception: “thuggery.’’
What SCAF meant by thuggery is anyone’s guess, even at the US State Department. Mindful not to get too involved with Egypt’s internal affairs, the United States sought clarification of what SCAF meant by “thuggery’’ and just how it would be applied as Egypt picks a president later this year. “It was just one word,’’ a senior State Department official told me, “but after last week, it was a very important one.’’
