By all measures, Egypt has excelled in its role in the Arab Awakening, a personally preferred term to “Arab Spring” — a term that did not originate in the region, where Spring is known for its sandy and hot wind, not for its flowery blossoms. Toppling two governments in little over two years is breaking a record and a matter of pride for all Egyptians as it was of their own making, during which many Egyptians sacrificed their lives. Before drawing on the lessons we ought to learn from Egypt's two historic revolutions (25 January 2011 and 30 June 2013), and focussing on the sort of society we should be aiming for, we should agree first on a common definition of the Arab Awakening. To me, as to many others, it is the breaking of fear; it is the growing political maturity of the simple people; it is raising of one's voice and making sure it is heard. It remains unknown whether the numerous and hastened attempts of Morsi and the Brotherhood throughout last year to cement their power came as a result of their overconfidence and belief that they had the country in their grip, or whether it was a result of fear and insecurity. At any rate, these sweeping changes were at the very basis of Morsi's fall. Steps like attempting to pack the government, the military, the police with Islamists and people loyal to the Brotherhood; or writing a constitution to suit the objectives of an Islamist state; conferring “legal immunity” on his own rulings and throwing down the drain the idea of nationhood, an idea so dear to all Egyptians. These steps and others were simply unacceptable by a mature population. And they were not seen or simply ignored by the international community, which was only obsessed with a “democratically elected” president, irrespective of the consequences such a regime had on the quality of life of the Egyptian people and their future. The population took to the streets 30 June. Had the army not intervened a timely manner, the situation would have got out of hand as the threat of civil war was imminent. The army intervened to defend the legitimate demands of a very large segment of the population whose rights and aspirations had been trampled. The army on multiple occasions forewarned the authorities to take corrective action to stem the unraveling of the country's security and basic services. The army and wider population's message fell on deaf ears. Intervention was not a surprise or a plot; it came in support of millions, and prevented the country from falling into the abyss of civil war. As the West had hardly followed the course of action pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood and executed by Morsi and his government in the year they ruled, and was simply unaware of the sufferings of the Egyptian people and the boiling of the Egyptian street, the West became so irritated with Egypt's second revolution, which came as more of a surprise than the first one and caught them totally unprepared. Many Western countries felt that having elected a civilian president, following a simplistic notion of the democratic path followed by Western countries, Egypt was on a democratic trajectory and the Egyptian people should be more than content that they had succeeded in creating a bloodless democracy in a record time. Egyptians, however, felt betrayed; that those who came through ballots were not much different from the previous regime dressed in the robes of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood did not cater to the people whose call was loud and clear: “Bread, freedom and social justice!” If the West is disappointed in its expectations and wants to define Egypt's second revolution as “a coup” or as an “anarchistic movement”, let it do it. We define our second revolution purely as exercising our right to democracy; a serious attempt to restore what we lost in our first revolution and being more alert than before of not losing it again. The biggest mistake of all, however, was that Morsi repeated the same policies of his predecessor by polarising Egyptian society into what he called the faithful (representing Islamists and their followers), while the rest of society became the “unfaithful”. This division was made in the spirit of revenge on the Egyptian people for the years the Islamists were totally ignored and discredited. They ended by antagonising the entire Egyptian population. In essence, this was not much different from the polarisation of society by Mubarak into elites with unchecked political power and a religious opposition yearning for power. Whether under Morsi or under Mubarak, the majority of the Egyptian people were simply taken for granted. Today, they rushed to the front of the political scene and pulled the strings. The Arab revolutions were meant to create pluralistic societies where there is no more polarisation. However, we are going to live for some time in a new type of polarisation, which we experienced throughout last year between the forces of pluralism and non-pluralistic political fractions (the Islamists). The Islamists gave birth to a new culture in Egypt never known before, a culture of hatred and thirst for vengeance. Pluralistic political movements in the Arab world cannot be established overnight as these movements will have to be developed through educational reform. Children ought to be taught from childhood critical thinking, as a new method of education to replace the theory of obedience of Islamists. Maybe the stability of Egypt is not yet around the corner as true stability is rooted in a government that acknowledges domestic diversity and the rise of pluralism. Believing in the right of the other and accepting it even though it may be different than yours; acceptance of the reality that truth is relative rather than absolute. So that the sacrifices of those who have given up their lives are not in vain, and as Egypt is rewriting its history in our turbulent region, one can draw the following lessons:It is important not to repeat the same mistakes of polarising society. However, “reconciliation” comes at a price for everyone, without exception. Reconciliation is not arming anyone — and certainly not today's opposition — with the ultimate veto, obstructing advancement. Reconciliation is about integrating into the deep fabric of society and becoming an integral part of it. The Salafists are playing the game and seem to have been outmaneuvering the Brotherhood in the new political environment. They will have still to be part of the coalition of the majority and accept its ruling. We all work towards one goal: development of our society and its progress. The power of the people can no longer be subdued. People everywhere in the Arab world are developing much faster than their leaders and intellectuals. Governments will have to cope with the new pace of the people or they will have to depart. They have no other choice. It happened twice in Egypt and can happen again if necessary. It is true that it does affect stability and growth, but the people are no longer prepared to be taken for a ride. It is also for that reason that Morsi's ouster cannot be thought of as a coup. Morsi and the Muslim Brothers were simply rejected by the people, who had given a year earlier a very specific mandate: that of providing bread, freedom and social justice. As things were not going according to schedule, and Morsi was holding on to his Islamists, literarily sacking the rest of the population and implementing an Islamist agenda — bottomline: this became unacceptable.The Islamists, though trying to cooperate without limits with the US, were not able to dominate the Egyptian people fictitiously through slogans such as “Islam is the solution.” Political parties will have to prepare themselves and prepare their programmes in the future in a more objective manner and stay clear of empty religious rhetoric. The Brotherhood will have to accept that there is other powers that can develop and challenge it. The era of Mubarak is gone forever, as is the era of the Islamists, having both followed the same path of rejecting any kind of balance with the opposition they face.Reaching to a pluralistic society where people can live and talk to one another can only happen after the present wave of anger subsides and the culture of hatred whose seeds have been planted disappears. Both sides must realise that neither is more legitimate than the other, and neither will be able to control all the power. When all factions realise that they have to deal with one another that will be the start of a process towards a pluralistic society, and real democracy.
The writer is director of the Prince Alwaleed Centre for American Studies and Research at the American University in Cairo.
