For all the failed idealism of the revolutionaries and secular left, the Egyptian people did overthrow a dictatorship, and that means something, writes Salah Eissa* Egyptians, especially those who took an active part in the 25 January Revolution, have mixed feelings about the first anniversary of the revolution. Some are sad, some uncomfortable, and some still hope that things will work out somehow. So far, it is not clear whether we will be crying in joy or with tears, dancing or mourning, on 25 January 2012. We have cause, some say, to celebrate. After all, the revolution was a miraculous feat, unforeseen and unthinkable. An unarmed nation removing a 30-year-old despotic regime in 18 days. Who would have thought? We must, others say, shed tears over a revolution that was led astray and hijacked, distorted and debilitated. The high hopes with which last year began ended in disappointment as the country removed a small slice of the status quo, leaving the rest as it is. Or shall we have another revolution, start it all over and get it right this time? Some say that we should all go back to 6pm on 11 February 2011, erase everything that happened since, and start afresh. Once Omar Suleiman declares that Mubarak is stepping down, we should celebrate for just a few moments, then go back to Tahrir Square and demand the immediate return of the army to its barracks. This view is based on more than just wishful thinking. There is a certain legality involved. Once a president steps down, what right does he have to name the army, or anyone else, as successor? So wouldn't it be great if we all can go back in time and set this right. Cannot we just elect a revolutionary command council to run the country instead of the army? One year after the revolution, at least a section of Egyptians are tired of it all. They are tired of the economic difficulties, the lack of security, and the continual clashes between revolutionaries and the army. Tourism is down, investors have run away, international lenders are having second thoughts about underwriting the government. As unemployment rose, disturbances to traffic and transportation are taking their toll on the economy. This is why the call for another revolution is not exactly falling on sympathetic ears. Replacing the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) with a civilian revolutionary council or a panel of judges and public figures doesn't seem to be an appealing option to most Egyptians. Even the call for the speaker of the People's Assembly to be an acting president didn't get much support. The hard line factions of the revolutionaries may be willing to press on with their campaign against SCAF, even staging open-ended civil disobedience if needed, but the rest of the country, indeed the rest of the revolutionaries, is not in agreement. Islamists want SCAF to keep running the transitional phase. And some of the revolutionaries, including those who want to see the army make a quick departure from power, don't mind allowing SCAF to stay in power for the rest of the transitional period. The negative view of the army held by some radical revolutionaries is contrasted with the positive view held by Islamists. Of course, Islamists have good reason to be pleased with SCAF, for the latter has overseen a political process that left them with a sweeping majority in parliament. The secular and leftist factions of the revolutionaries didn't see this coming. They kept saying that Islamists would only win 15 per cent or 20 per cent of seats in parliament. Some of the Islamist currents played along with this assessment, saying that they wish to "participate" and not "overpower" their opponents. As suspicions over SCAF's intentions surfaced, bloody clashes ensued, leading to a falling out between the revolutionaries and SCAF. Eventually, the revolutionaries started calling for "a civil state, not a military one". In my opinion, they should have said, "a civil state, not a military nor a religious one". Now that Islamist currents, some of which wish to establish a religious state, have a clear majority in parliament, revolutionaries and their secular friends must start learning from their mistakes. They must understand that their idealism has hurt their cause, so has their blind faith in the spontaneity of disorganised masses. And they must understand that turning back the clock is not an option. Asking SCAF to leave at this point in time is nonsensical, partly because it will leave anyway, and partly because its presence is actually needed. SCAF must now ensure that those taking power will abide by the minimum requisites of the civil state and that the constitution will safeguard the regular rotation of power through the ballot box. The revolutionaries were too busy being idealistic to get organised in political groups. And they failed to form a cohesive vision that could draw the masses to their cause. As a result, we couldn't draw a clear line between religion and politics, between democracy and chaos. We have, however, deposed a despotic regime. And no one can take that away from us. * The writer is editor-in-chief of Al-Qahera weekly newspaper.
