I have had endless discussions about the fate of the middle class ever since my friend, the late Ramzi Zaki, wrote his landmark bookFarewell to the Middle Class. At the time, the book was a scientific obituary of the middle class by one of its own who had witnessed the end of its glory days in modern Egyptian history. The economic transformations that took place in Egypt since the 1970s of Sadat were one side of the coin; the other side was the political evolution that moved from one era to the next, swapping one set of axioms for another. The regime that once raised the banner of socialism and social justice, exchanged the socialist dream for a capitalist one, championing socialist democracy ambitiously, along the lines of the prosperity of Sweden under the leader of the Social Democractic Party Olof Palme. This economic and political transformation was accompanied by other changes that distanced themselves from Nasserism and its catchphrases "freedom", "socialism" and "unity", in exchange for the axioms of "democracy", "freedom" and "capitalism". Investment of all kinds was encouraged, and a multi-party system began to take shape through the creation of three platforms. It is as if pluralism could be created by executive decision from above, rather than as an expression of the people through their activism on the political street. The ideology machine in the Sadatist state relentlessly campaigned for the new democratic system that would guarantee fairness after past injustices. It was obvious that this regime was determined to overturn and curtail the political and economic bases of the Nasserist regime. The signs were many and rapid. First, Muslim Brotherhood detainees were released and an alliance struck with them to target their enemies and those of the Sadatist state, namely Nasserists, nationalists and socialists. Second, choosing conciliation with the US — which became the sole provider of a resolution in the Middle East issue—over the former alliance with the USSR. Third, the gradual transformation to a capitalist system through economic openness, better known as "everything goes". Accordingly, the most influential issue in Egypt was the core transformation to open market economics, individual capitalist freedom in labour, mobility, influence, alliances with political power and eventually partnering in government. The declaration of 15 May confirmed the imminent elimination of the axes of power in the former (Nasserist) system, as part of radical changes in society. In parallel, democracy and pluralism publicly promoted the rotation of power but at heart maintained the core of authoritarian rule. Sadat remained in complete control and he mistakenly thought he would remain in power forever. Amid these political and economic changes the middle class was also transforming in its taut position between the lower working class and the upper capitalist class. The blissful era of Nasserism was over, when the middle class was protected by the 1952 revolutionaries who belonged to it and were aware of its problems and sought to resolve them as part of a comprehensive social structure of the Nasserist state. The rapid speed of counter-political and economic transformations had a contrary effect, which changed the status of the middle class: it became the victim of political and economic upheavals. The poor became poorer and the rich richer in such a manner that had not been witnessed even by those who lived under the rule of the royal family. King Farouk would become quite disturbed by the photographs published by the opposition press under the banner "These are your subjects, Your Majesty". We live in an era full of paradoxes where the Egyptian citizen is starving, without access to healthcare, humane living conditions, proper education, or social security. The feudal pashas became Nasserism's super-pashas — like the title of the book by the late Hussein Mo'nes. We entered a complex stage where the opposition can criticise within limits, while those who control wealth and authority can do as they please without a care, arguing that we live in an open economy. Anyone who has lived in a country with a free economy knows that a capitalist state is socially responsible for its citizens, providing them with education, healthcare and housing, hand-in-hand with economic freedom which is not void of social responsibility no matter how tyrannical and greedy capitalism becomes. Where did the middle class go? Some say it has eroded, others say it is extinct; it is mourned by some, while others note that the middle class is the reserve of society's virtues and its role is to produce an elite capable of leading society. Accordingly, its erosion leads to the corrosion of society as a whole, because no other class is aware of the malaise of society and works on its remedy. The middle class is positioned between a lower class living in misery and a gluttonous upper class that wants to greedily monopolise power and wealth. Some in the ranks of the middle class believe it is dead, its role no longer despite its rich revolutionary history, beginning with the French Revolution that raised the banner of "equality, liberty and fraternity" to the July Revolution that adopted the motto "Raise your head, brother, the era of tyranny is over." But this was all part of a blissful bygone era. I spent a memorable evening debating the issue with my good friend the late Osama Anwar Okasha, who insisted that the middle class was dead, its disappearance a disaster for society. Wealth and power have become the property of anyone who can pay the price.We hope that the day never comes when the manipulation of wealth and power by this group or thatis raised above the voice of reason and national interest. I responded to my dear friend Okasha that the middle class is still alive: look around you and you will find it everywhere; the artisans, professionals, small business owners, retailers, civil servants, doctors, engineers, teachers, and many others. Even the mid-level position of the middle class is the same, at the centre of the pyramid. On top are those with wealth, and on the bottom are the wretched who are victims of injustice, corruption, and capitalist greed that have made their lives worthless. Hundreds of them died on a ferry whose owner neglected to maintain it, or on the train that caught fire while officials responsible could not protect them. It appears that my friend Okasha enjoyed my infusion of Taha Hussein phrases in my argument, and so he asked me what I thought happened to the middle class? I responded it still exists, but its composition has changed and its national role has been replaced with a contrary one, which I cannot describe. The upper echelons in this class are occupied with gathering more capital, whether it's the bearded man of international fame and wealth, or the unbearded one who invests billions in every sector to buy more tools of power. They have both forgotten the patriotic role of a national capitalist. There are thousands and millions others in the middle class, among whom are some opportunists. This class can produce contradictions, such as revolutionaries and traitors, or opportunists as they are called in this day and age. Do you recall Mahgoub Abdel-Dayem and Sarhan El-Beheiri, the opportunists whom Naguib Mahfouz penned? The first one lived in the 1940s and the second in the 1960s, and you will find similar characters all around us, whether in the National Democratic Party, or even the opposition — including the Muslim Brotherhood whose beards should not fool you into ignoring their opportunist nature which is capable of claiming any creed. Okasha waited until I was finished, looked me straight in the eye and asked what then has changed in the middle class? On principle, I agree that their former role has changed and they have lost their leadership role and replaced it with one that is more attuned to the era we live in. But this is not enough to reject the notion that this class no longer exists as it did in the past. I agreed with him; the middle class in the age of Ahmed Ezz (with all due respect) no longer plays the role it did in the bygone era of Abboud Pasha. The genius Naguib Mahfouz, whom the late Abdel-Azim Anis called the novelist of the middle class, was very conscious of the transformations in this class. Mahfouz documented the changes in ideology among its generations, even those generations who believed — and still believe—that "Islam is the solution". Look at the differences between the characters of Ma'moun Radwan inModern Cairo(1945), Abdel-Moneim Shawkat inThe Trilogy(1954), Shukri Sameh inSecret Cell(1984) orThe Day the Leader was Killed(1985). I forgot to cite the character of the young terrorist in Layali Al-Hilmiya, who seems to be the modern equivalent of Selim El-Badri's son who suffered in Nasserist detention camps, although he is closer to its ideology than others. I wanted to tell my dear Okasha, who has left a sizeable vacuum in the heart of our cultural life, that the middle class still exists and it is important to first examine the changes that took place in its thought process; then second, to look at how this is reflected in its behaviour; and third, how it became apparent in its dress code.This is what needs calm examination to find out what happened to the mind of the middle class, causing it to change its ideas and abandon its former culture, covering its women with the head veil and then theniqab(face veil), as well as many other symptoms.
