Pitting the population against the forces of the regime, the Egyptian popular revolution is the most important political movement in the country since the 1952 coup d'état, writes Ayman El-Amir* Egypt is undergoing a historical change that has not been seen since the 1952 military coup by the Free Officers' Movement. It is not only unprecedented in terms of its magnitude or youthful structure, but also because of its diversity, spontaneity and unity of purpose, insisting on regime change as the bottom-line. This is not a bread- shortage protest or a demonstration for salary increases, but a grassroots movement that has combined revolutionary passion with a perceptive political agenda. In the confrontation that followed the 25 January uprising, angry masses of people demonstrated their ingenuity and a response that was superior to the heavy-handed approach of the ruling regime. It has been comparable only to the 1919 Egyptian People's Revolution. After more than two weeks of demonstrations and violence instigated by the ruling oligarchy, it would seem that the regime is now grudgingly starting to blink. After decades of injustice, unemployment, impoverishment, state of emergency rule, sham elections and human rights' violations, the Egyptian masses declared that they were not prepared to take things anymore. As the uprising spread to all the major cities of the country and involved all groups of society, the protesters coalesced around the undivided demand for regime change. The Egyptian people decided to exercise their option for marching for their rights, or voting with their feet, as they believed that their votes through the ballot box have been rigged in favour of the ruling party. In 1918, V I Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, coined this phrase when Russian troops, exhausted by the war with Germany, decided to leave the frontline and simply walk back home. When their commanding officers ordered them back to the front, they shot them. Lenin said that the Russian troops had "voted with their feet" to make peace with the Germans. One thing that is unique about a revolutionary uprising is its capacity to build momentum quickly and to cultivate a sense of immediacy. Word of the uprising, which was reportedly initially organised by a small group called the Khaled Said Group, spread like brushfire to most provinces of Egypt. Khaled Said was the young man who was allegedly beaten to death in Alexandria last year by two security agents. The government's response to the protest demonstrations, apparently decided at the highest level, was as brutal as it was disingenuous. It took the familiar form of intimidation and the use of force. However, the protesters had crossed the barrier of fear and fought back against the government crackdown. The combined brutality of the police and the Central Security and State Security forces, that used clubs, tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition, water cannons, thugs and electric batons, all backfired. The death of 300 protesters and the injury of 5,000, as estimated by the High Commission for Human Rights, only served to enrage the population further. A comedy of errors was played out when the measures taken to quell the protests only fuelled more outrage and wider participation. When the estimated 1.5-million-strong riot police failed to control the situation, units of the Republican Guard and the army were called in. Both were ill- equipped to fight civil unrest and had no tradition of intervening against the people or firing on civilians who cheered and hugged them. As protesters gathered more momentum the riot police were abruptly withdrawn -- a deliberate move that was apparently designed to create an atmosphere of panic. According to eyewitnesses, some recognisable thugs who had contrived fights and threats against opposition supporters in the elections for the People's Assembly in December last year, were released into the crowd to create confusion and start a campaign of looting. The withdrawal of the police also left several prison facilities unguarded. Prisoners broke out, and they have been suspected of involvement in the looting. However, there was a quick and effective reaction from the protesters. Neighbourhood vigilante groups were formed to protect public and private property, while a group of protesters ringed the Egyptian Museum after some minor looting had occurred. It was then handed over to the army. One landmark building that no one cared to safeguard was the imposing headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), declared the winner of 98 per cent of the seats in the People's Assembly last year in what most people believe were 100 per cent rigged elections. The NDP building was looted and set on fire and, for four days, continued to blaze without a single fire-engine arriving on the scene to save it. This seemed part of a plan to create chaos, something that made people more defiant. Army helicopters and jet fighter planes flew over Cairo to enhance the atmosphere of emergency, also raising the level of tension. A 17-hour daily curfew failed to disperse the crowds in Tahrir Square, the hub of the protests. It may be recalled that during the 1973 October War with Israel, the curfew was limited to 12 hours daily. The disruption of the Internet, social networking services, public transport and train travel only unleashed the creative skills of the protesters, who soon found ways around these restrictions. The appointment of a vice president and the swearing in of a new cabinet as signs of reform have also been widely dismissed by the protesters. These things have been seen as mere window- dressing, designed to maintain the appearance of normalcy and the regime's continuing grip on power. Moreover, the Egyptian army's statement confirming the legitimacy of the protesters' demands and indicating that it would not use force against them signalled that the powerful military institution did not see eye-to-eye with the ruling elite. The speaker of the newly-elected People's Assembly blamed the wretched state of the Egyptian citizens that the body presumably represents on the government's failure to implement its "recommendations". Paper-tiger National Democratic Party apparatchiks, including the president's son, Gamal Mubarak, were sacked. Stripped of the support of its principal institutions, the regime has seemed increasingly isolated. Yet, what the government has succeeded in doing has been to create an uncertain situation in which to gain a breathing space and room to manoeuvre. The US has insisted that change start immediately. After the government reshuffle last week, US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley commented that the government of Egypt "cannot reshuffle the deck and stay put", while the White House's Robert Gibbs said that change had to start now, and now meant "yesterday". The Obama administration has also spearheaded Western and Arab worries about the direction that Egypt will take as a consequence of the protest movement and its implications for the region. Western, and particularly US, concerns have been focussed on stabilising the region and maintaining Western interests. The US is trying to bring about a controlled revolution in Egypt and the region, calling for measured reforms that will nudge the status quo but leave Western interests essentially intact, including those of Israel. This is what former British prime minister Tony Blair meant when he argued that "we have to manage change". A key US policy concern is to avert the development of sympathy between reformed Arab regimes and Iran that could radicalise the region. However, when the winds of change have finished sweeping the region, Western countries will be facing a different ball game. The new or reformed regimes will have to be accountable. The West will no longer be able to count on corrupt business practices to make lucrative deals with government support. The bluff of the Iranian threat may no longer be so scary. The presence of US and French military bases in the Gulf may come under close scrutiny. Arms-purchase extravaganzas, designed to generate jobs in depressed Western markets, may not be so generous. US foreign aid may not be as instrumental as it has been in countries like Egypt. As the ramifications of the Egyptian People's Revolution unfold in the region, there will be one sticking point in Arab-Western relations: Israel. The latent dichotomy in Arab-Western relations is that the West wants to secure the benefits of the region's resources, while supporting intransigent Israeli policies. This has been made possible by the creation of client regimes that suppress their peoples, while being compliant with Western policies. This will no longer hold under the new, reformed regimes. Western attitudes that tolerate criminal Israeli policies will have to change as part of the new package deal. Meanwhile, Israel is using its usual scare tactics with its Western allies, warning that the Egyptian People's Revolution will result in a radical Islamist government that will ally itself with Iran. This is the same spectre that the autocratic Arab regimes have produced whenever they have come under mild criticism from the West for their repressive behaviour. Another scare tactic has been the threat of terrorism. However, there is a solid argument to support the view that terrorism is a product of autocratic regimes that spread terror among their own people. The Egyptian People's Revolution will inevitably impact on other repressive regimes in the region. Candidates may include Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Sudan and Syria. Decades-long authoritarian rule has stymied political and economic development and the enjoyment of human rights in most Arab countries. The pressure for change and democratisation has now become irreversible. For President Hosni Mubarak, a one-time Air Force pilot, the Egyptian popular uprising has reached a point of no return. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
