Egyptian revolution: Death and rebirth

The first phase of the Egyptian revolution ended when toppling Mubarak was deemed enough. The second phase has been below the surface, and perhaps now it can fully emerge

People wanted elections for the sake of stability. Yet there is nothing vaguer than the word “stability."It is in all fascist leaders' vocabulary, specifically in order to maintain control of the people. The economyand security are the predicates that define thisso-called stability. Progress in these two areas is saidto bring more comfort to some people, and the bare minimum to others: bread. I remember that duringthe 18 days of the uprising in Egypt, an outraged friend said, “Some people in the square arescreaming ‘Awzeen aysh!' (We want bread), but this is not why we are there, we want freedom!” The rest wouldfollow, I imagine he meant. In 1977, under Sadat, a revolt for “bread” occurred in Egypt whensubsidies for certain foods were cancelled. The country suffered another bread crisis in 2008. Butwhen bread is given to people, it acts as a sleeping pill. Bread is not enough to satisfy people's needs;it is just enough to calm their passions, at least for a while.
The tremors of a country in transition trigger injustice and violence, both psychological and physical.The same injustice and violence were actually constant during the 30 years of Mubarak's dictatorship;now, they have been brought out into the open because a revolution reveals truth. The truth about whatpeople really need and want, about alliances and divisions, the truth about past lies. New lies appearalthough they are now known to be untrue, but in such an atmosphere of such uncertainty, we swallowthem for the sake of stability.
The Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (SCAF) as the protector of the nation, of the revolution, and the organiser of a fair transition;elections promising democracy, even though no one can agree on its definition yet — such are thecurrent illusions, which act as tranquillisers. This treatment is skillfully distributed in the necessarydosage to keep people at home, or at least far away from local revolts (labelled “thugs andbloodshed”). It is sufficiently strong to ensure the efficiency of the brainwashing process (mediapropaganda); of course, it goes with a nationwide, silent but palpable state of depression (over theelections and the constitution).
Does stability include any of the primary demands from the beginning of the revolution, such as theeviction of all ex-NDP members from the political scene, or the freedom of speech and freedom toprotest? Of course not, because to attain stability, one cannot tolerate efficient alternative thought.For example, the Disenfranchisement Law was passed too late, just a month before the presidential pollwas scheduled to take place, and has not been effectively implemented yet. Media discourse waspredicated on the assumption that two candidates are leading in the opinion polls — Abdul MoneimAbul-Fotouh and Amr Mousa — and they were given much more room to express themselves ontelevision and billboards in the street than anything the other candidates could obtain.
Respect for the essence of the revolution is gone
What will the next president do, and what can he do? Will he allow Tahrir Square to host tents thatkeep the memory of massive gatherings against a corrupt system alive? Will he allow protests and sit-ins anytime and anywhere? Or will he allow trade unions and human rights organisations to be acounter power? Of course not. He might claim the people have chosen a president they trust, and thathe will honour their trust by doing his best to bring them peace and prosperity; he might claim thatthere is no need for revolt anymore. Many before the first round said that people will have to acceptthe result whatever it is. The legitimacy of these elections was not questioned anymore, to the pointthat advocates of stability appear to be progressive, and those calling for a boycott to be old-schooltroublemakers.
In fact, no president will be able to bring people what they need in the short term. Jobs, education,social services and healthcare require investment and the building of infrastructure over a very longperiod. Any attempts from people to speed up the process, or to express scepticism or disappointmentby going on strike or protesting in the streets, will be repressed for the sake of stability during thedemocratic transition process, or the semblance of one.
The nearer we came to the presidential elections, the less talk there has been of revolutionaries or ofSCAF. There is more discussion of vague entities such as “third parties”; recently, considerableattention has been focused on the Salafists, contributing to concealment of the real source of chaos, asusual. In TheEgyptian Gazettea report was published about the neighbourhood of Abbasiyafollowing the clashes that took place there in early May. It did not contain clear criticism of therevolutionaries and the Salafists, nor any direct praise for the army: just a list of complaints from localresidents who have had to cope with a violent siege for days on end. This report constituted a call forstability without giving any reasons for it; it played on mere sensitivity, and avoided anymention of the fact that some locals had actually taken part in the protest. Well done! No one can denyhow hard it is for shop owners to see their benefits going down because of protests when the economyis already weak.
Tahrir's hiatus
This brings me back to the past, to the time when we thought all agreed on being in Tahrir for thesame goal(s), which at least allowed the Egyptian revolution to begin. But during the 18 days of theuprising, there was already a latent hiatus between political activists and the people. The activistswanted, and still want, a massive social change: to them, Mubarak's stepping down was just one stepin the process. On the contrary, the majority of the people wanted a change of president, and theyessentially stopped at that. As soon as Mubarak left power, it was time to go home, they said. Thus,they began to kill the revolution that day.
Especially after the first bloody clashes between the army and protesters (on 8-9 April 2011, thearmy cleared Tahrir Square, sending commandos to crack down on protesters and defected armyofficers at the sit-in), some argued that revolutionaries should go home in order to think and to buildthe future, instead of expending energy in protests and fighting against the police. This gathering ofprotesters and defected army officers caused considerable fear, because a potential mutiny within thearmy could herald the fall of the real system in control of the country. It is not only the weapons of thearmy that are hard to fight against: its status is already untouchable. Many protesters have chantedagainst SCAF, many people have criticised SCAF from the safety of their homes, but everyone ismore or less aware of the impossibility of pushing it to step down by means of an uprisingin the streets. This does not mean it is meaningless to continue chanting slogans against it, because thespirit of a revoltdoes not have to stay between four walls,but should bring all together in the public sphere.
The truth is that both SCAF and the interior ministry effectively managed to keep protesters busyresponding to their attacks, so as to prevent any sit-in from growing to the point that people wouldcome up with political plans for their future. They had seen how a massive gathering during 18 dayshad led to the fall of the regime, and they had no choice but to acknowledge this and make dowith it, at least in the beginning. Whether it was due to a military coup or purely to popular pressure,in point of fact it was the people who won on 11 February 2011.
The appropriation of public space and freedom of speech are necessary conditions for activists andpeople to develop their revolutionary movements. We cannot ask them to go home and only expressthemselves on Twitter or Facebook (for those who have access to these networks at home) whileworking the two jobs they need to earn enough money to survive. We cannot ask revolutionariestorelegate the memory of torture and death to the background of their demands. We cannot ask them notto see what a devious and filthy game is being played against them, and the whole country.
Security dangers are partly made up
People continue focusing on the apparent increase in crime rates (robberies, car-jackings, etc),complaining about it, and hoping the next civilian government will solve the problem. But why hassafety on the streets not been part of the military's mission during the transition period? The armysurely has enough skills to train policemen to secure the streets properly. This is a naive questionindeed, but it is part of the decades-old taboos the country has not been able to shake off. The police wasthe armed enforcer of the Mubarak regime, yet it also consists of an entire population that has beensacrificed: thousands of young men forced to do their military service as policemen every year, throwninto the streets without a pound in their pockets, kept away from their families and studies. In themeantime, high-ranking policemen — some of which are skilled — have been following the rules of thecorruption game, more than the law.
The regime had decreed a holiday to honour the police force on 25January, but in 2011, itturned into a day of insurrection. Shortly afterward, this entire section of the population suddenly leftthe streets, only to reappear in disgrace after the military had taken over control of the streets in themost glorious way. Since then, the police force, especially the riot police, has been used as themilitary's partner in the streets, in the most vicious way: face-to-face fighting against their fellowcitizens. Today, we cannot even say who is good and who is bad among policemen, thugs or soldiers.These three categories have been mixed in a game which consists in exchanging their clothes anduniforms time and again, so as to spread confusion during attacks on protesters. As a result, noone can easily identify a clear enemy, but together, these forces have certainly made enemies amongthe people.
The question of military service is avoided by the political scene. If it is out of topic to consider canceling it because Egypt has sensitive's borders to protect, at least reforming it substantially could be considered. Putting face-to-face soldiers and people who neverwished to fight against each other has been criminal for society. Especially that most of the soldiers are justthere to fulfill their one to three years of duty, enduring much humiliation duringtheir training. Education is not made only at school or university; the model of education thatis provided by the army for the low ranks has to be abolished or totally changed to respectindividual dignity and not serve a selfish oligarchy.
From reality to myth and so on
The revolutionaries have been cornered, the parliament had been paralysed since the beginning and theconstitutional process is at a dead end. This leaves space for othersto express their will and beliefin a new government. This situation serves thepurpose of the electoral spectacle and it kills the primary essence of the revolution, makingus forget how we ended up in this state of affairs.
Yet the idea of a compromise was not absurd. On 16 May,Ahram Onlinepublished the results of asurvey carried out in the cultural field, about artists' voting intentions. Before choosing a candidate,many expressed rejection of the election process as a farce, and also because it is scheduledbefore the writing of the constitution. But most of them were also aware the elections would happenanyway, and it is rather more in their interest to take part than to opt out. Those whoexpressed this opinion mainly indicated they planned to vote for Hamdeen Sabbahi (a Nasserist) orKhaled Ali (a lawyer and activist), two candidates they see as willing to respect the revolution, andoffering fair and serious electoral programmes.
Artists are among the key protagonists in a revolution as they have alternative means of expressionand represent a source of counter-propaganda. Most of all, they have a duty to fight any attempts toerase the memory of the revolution, and to constantly criticise the system.Ahram Online's survey isinteresting, yet it still divides people into categories according to their specific needs, and analysestheir choice of presidential candidate in these terms. The real question is about what is good for all,not about a candidate as an individual: it is about the guarantees we should demand before one man isentrusted with implementation of a programme, even though his hands are tied. But these guarantees donot exist yet. We cannot find any other common interest for all than to guarantee the basic, necessaryconditions for democracy (freedom of participation in society) to exist: freedom of expression andmovement. There is no other way but this, and the rest will hopefully follow.
On 25 January 2011, when people called for the regime's downfall from many cities across thecountry, some said there was no reason to do so and that all should wait for elections scheduledlater that year, since Mubarak was too old to stay on as president in any case. The revolutionariesrefused that argument; they knew they would have no choice at the end of Mubarak's term of office. Itwas clear that Gamal Mubarak was not the ideal candidate for most Egyptians (except businessmen),and there were no alternatives to the election of yet another figure from the political establishment. SoEgyptians went for the big change, but the hardest part was to keep the people on the side of the revolution long enough to setup new bases in society, before electing someone who will be in charge of respecting this stage of therevolution. This has not happened, for many reasons.
What if 25 January 2013 becomes Police Day again – a day of celebration of the police and thepeople together, for the sake of the new Egypt, unified around its president, in a “democracy”? Is thisa myth, or could it come to pass? Omar Suleiman as a presidential candidate was real, the massivevoting intentions in his favour were real (according to opinion polls), and just hearing from the streetsseemed to confirm it. On the contrary, many people now say the Egyptian revolution was a myth. Thisis the curse of it. The revolution is hard to carry at the moment. But it is not dead, because it hasopened many doors that are impossible to close. A new generation of revolutionaries will knock atthese doors when the right time comes.
Rebounds
Hamdeen Sabbahi would have gained more votes if he would have been more visible in the media asMoussa and Abul-Fotouh covered the whole election theater. Still, today, Sabbahi is aleader for the revolutionaries.
Too late? Many argued the elections had to happen and the results were to be respected. But a big part ofthose who were saying so were believing either Moussa or Abul-Fotouh would win.Since, the worst scenario happened and many of those who wereasking to the revolutionaries to go home are now fearing for their beer and bikinis. It reveals how cheap is theiridea of freedom. On the other side, it will be hard to convince revolutionaries as well as othersthat accepting a remnant of the old regime or an Islamist dictatorship is okay.
So there is a legitimate open position to stand for, the boycott of the second round, and maybe tostand on the side of political activism for the third man, Sabbahi, because he is part of the few who hasno bad intentions and has a credible programme. Being anti-Shafiq and anti-Morsi won't be enough.Refusal needs to be turned into a constructive choice and fight, and maybe the revolutionaries are there now. Egypt has many souls ready for a new era.Fatalism is feeding the dictatorship of the army and the old regime, almost not hidden anymore. Emergency law has just ended, but who can believe that alone can change everything?
This fatalism, much bloodshed, and the speeches about security and economy killed the first phaseof the revolution. A cab driver not seeing any scandal in having Shafiq in the second round of the pollargued: “But we are all feloul(remnants of the regime) at the end.” Others believe in a moderate Islam as promised by Abul-Fotouh orMorsi. It is like no one wants to consider there are other choices. Any alternative thinking andproposition would trigger more incertitude, it seems. But the rules at presentare not in favour of the people.
The question always had been about when the second phase of the revolution will sparkle. Thosewilling and believing in the first uprising were few, and equally those willing to have a second. Thepossibility of alternatives is present; the scattered options prove it. People are very divided andchange their minds everyday about the second round, from who to vote for by faith or default, toconsidering a boycott. So why not in a parallel move start gathering the unhappyaround an alternative for the future?The Egyptian Revolution missed or refused a leader in itsbeginning; maybe it was its success. After a year and a half, the question of leadership emerges asa variety of candidates step up for the presidential elections. The people came to know that other profilesthan military, ex-National Democratic Party leaders, or Muslim Brotherhood members can lead and embody change.
Despite that, some say Egyptians are still not ready for democracy and that this explains the two horses inthe second round. The issue is not thatpeople are not ready for democracy, the issue is how to lead them safely to change.
The writer is a French journalist based on Cairo.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/43725.aspx