The state is the property of the people

The Egyptian regime was the original target of revolutionaries, but now the state itself must be reformed to better meet the demands of the people

Revolution occurs in the mind before it is accomplished by hand. Man is a rational being; instinct could make him angry but he never revolts without using his head. In order for a revolution to deserve this description and become more than a gift, it must have a brain. The revolution in Egypt had a brain, a collective mind which rose up in January 2011, with a central slogan: "The people demand the fall of the regime."
The word "regime" here was carefully chosen as an accumulative result in the consciousness of politicians and activists who triggered the revolution and played a key role in synchronising it, by making a distinction between the regime and the state.
The peaceful nature of the Egyptian revolution was actual proof of its civilised nature, as noted by its supporters, friends, and foes around the world. There was no burning of public buses, fire engines or ambulances during the revolution, as was the case in many popular uprisings – including the 1977 riots.
Civilised behaviour goes hand in hand with reason and reflection. The collective mind of the people during the glorious January revolution decided that the regime, not the state, was the enemy. This is why revolutionaries were able to protect state institutions, and formed human chains to defend the Egyptian Museum, one of the institutions that is the property of the Egyptian people.
The people also formed "popular committees" as an alternative to the state's, once the state security agencies disintegrated. They even celebrated military soldiers and officers who took to the streets as part of the state that they came out to save from the grip of the corrupt.
One of the best documented images of the January revolution, which I will always cherish, is that of a simple woman in her 50s walking with a bag of oranges, passing them out to the soldiers in army tanks one after another. She offered an orange to each soldier, with a prayer and a request: "Take an orange from your mother, my dear. Be sure not to fight your brothers, and don't let those in charge make you beat your brothers." The woman repeated this again and again.
It is the genius of collective consciousness of this people that convinced them that the problem is not the soldiers, officers and tanks, but "those in charge." The defeat of Mubarak and his entourage was possible because there was no confusion between the regime and the state, as propagated by regime advocates and devotees, in that those who want to destroy the regime are seeking to destroy the state.
Revolutionary awareness was born when the people decided to distinguish the regime from the state, and also when the people decided that the number one enemy of the Egyptian state is the ruling regime, because it is sabotaging it and bleeding it dry for the benefit of a small clique of corruptors and criminals.
The key question now is, where does the regime end and the state begin? In January and February of 2011, the regime was Hosni Mubarak, his family, his clique, the oppressive police apparatus (especially the State Security Investigations), and the National Democratic Party. Mubarak, his family and his clique went to prison; SSI and many police stations were burnt down; the NDP was dissolved and many of its buildings set on fire. But as time passed and oppressive practices returned, the people began to doubt that the regime was overthrown, concerned that only parts of it have been torn down.
Finally, everything came to light: the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the Intelligence Agency are the most powerful players in the regime and its last refuge. When the visible "civilian" part of the regime – embodied in the NDP under the control of SSI – fell, the hidden portion of the regime was exposed and came under fire.
Hence, today, the slogan of the revolution is: "Down, down with military rule." This is the second phase of the Egyptians' revolution of consciousness.
But the trouble is not only the military; today, they are the visible part. The real problem is the state that the people need to repossess is controlled by resisting groups who want to hoard their gains. More sinister is the fact that they have allies outside state institutions.
Today, the people want to reform and rebuild various state agencies on new foundations. In response, the ruling elite launched a counter-intellectual attack. This time, not to smear the line between the regime and state but to blur the distinction between state and society; between the state of Egypt and Egypt; between the definition of state in international law (land, people, government) and its political definition in the country today.
Modern statehood is a group of public institutions owned by the people (at least theoretically) that are supposed to monopolise the acts of carrying arms, creating military forces, constructing prisons and courts. The ordinary citizen, political parties and civil society are not part of the state, but owners of it or partners in it if the country is under democratic rule. They are its disciples and subjects if the country is a dictatorship. Proclaiming that the state is formed by us or that the state is you or me is fallacious. It either aims to conceal those in power in state institutions and relieve them of their responsibilities, or incite some elements in society to usurp the authority of the state.
Without the distinction between state and society, the country will descend into chaos. The most recent evidence of this is the sectarian conflict in Al-Amerya two weeks ago. It is rumoured that competition between traders resulted in one of them fabricating a story about a relationship between a Christian trader and a Muslim woman. The other camp claims that the man did in fact have a relationship with the woman.
Irrespective of the truth, this small dispute resulted in assaults against Christians there which caused some elders, Muslim clerics and priests to intervene and create a "private sector court," or a customary meeting, which decided to exact collective punishment on Christians there. They also decided to evict several families from their homes and confiscate their property, in a blatant violation of all human, legal and Islamic customs that reject collective punishment ("no bearer of burden bears the burden of another"). It is a punishment that perhaps only the occupation army of Israel still practices today.
The cause of this kind of disaster is the lack of distinction between state and society, causing some elements to play the role of the state, creating private courts and forming armed groups to carry out sentences.
After Mubarak's regime collapsed, state institutions came under fire. Therefore they hide, deceive, manoeuvre and claim that the state of Egypt is the same as Egypt, and anyone who attacks the state is attacking all of Egypt, or that critics are seeking to partition the country into four states, and other such nonsense that does not aim to convince but confuse and frighten.
Someone who demands the overthrow of the state and the building of a new one is either rational and knows how to topple the state and build a better one in its place, and therefore we should listen and have a dialogue with him, or he is a fool or an adventurer who wants to topple the state without knowing how to go about rebuilding it, and therefore must be ignored.
In all cases, overthrowing the state does not necessarily mean partitioning the country. Egypt is probably the last country in the world that could be dissected, since it has remained a united entity within nearly the same borders since it was established as one country under King Mena some 5,200 years ago.
Egypt is home to a society and state, and a distinction must be made between the two because each one has a different role to play and boundaries. Criticism of the state of Egypt, and even irrational and fanatic attacks on it is not an attack on Egypt the country. The state is not a sacred entity or red line that cannot be crossed; the state is the property of the people who pay for it in sweat and taxes, and give it a workforce. Where would the army be without soldiers from the people?
The people demand a new state, a genuine Egyptian state. A state that has shed the condescending heritage of colonialism, a state capable of carrying out its duties efficiently, starting with keeping streets and pavements clean and well-maintained and protecting citizens from criminals, as well as leading an economic revival that will transform the country from poverty, injustice and decadence to abundance, justice and beauty.
This state can be accomplished through persistent pressure by the people on the regime, gradual reform, dismantling the networks of plunder, corruption and ignorance in the state and replacing them with qualified elected leaders.
It is very important, however, to remember that the failure of reform would only mean the launch of a new revolution that is more rigorous and violent than the January revolution.
Revolutions occur when reform fails and the situation is out of control. Detentions, terrorism or accusing others of treachery do not work in this case.
Revolutions do not occur based on a decision by revolutionary vanguards or foreign plots, but are rooted in blockages in channels for gradual reform.
The ball is squarely in the court of those in charge of the state, military and non-military. Do they want to open the door to gradual reform or prefer a new revolution? There is no other option.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/34813.aspx