Yasser Shehata looks at how Egypt handled revolutions in the distant past Before the 25 January Revolution, many people in this country despaired of change. They claimed that Egyptians were too apathetic to mount a credible challenge to those in power. History, however, says otherwise. We have had revolutions in this country from time immemorial. In fact, hardly a century has gone by without a major popular uprising in Egypt. Even in pharaonic history, when kings were considered demi-gods, it was not uncommon for the public to rise against injustice. In 2280 BC revolutionaries shook the basis of government in Egypt, changing the style of government and altering for ever the relationship between ruler and subject. This period of upheaval is what western scholars refer to as a period of chaos, considering it to be a sign of weakness. But was it? The first recorded revolution in Egyptian history deprived rulers of their divine status, forcing them to lead the nation as mere mortals. As the old aristocracy crumbled, new classes rose to power. Here is a first hand account of this revolution, attributed to someone called , of whom little is known: "Events happened that were unheard of, unparalleled since the dawn of history. The rabble has deposed the king. He who was buried in the name of the hawk was pulled out of his grave. The burial room was looted and everything in it stolen. A group of marauders, who do not know the first thing about the intricacies of government, have scuttled the monarchical system in the country. They have desecrated what is sacred and destroyed the bodies of dead kings. They have toppled the structure of the universal pyramid, demolishing it and tearing it apart. Now Egypt is turned around, the world is upside down." We do not know who was, but judging by his style he must have been part of the power structure of the old regime; a man with an axe to grind, so to speak. His phrasing recalls the language used by pro-Mubarak groups. Another anonymous papyrus speaks thus: "The country is crawling with marauders. No one is paying taxes. Foreign trade has come to a halt. People have ransacked the government depots and stolen their contents. They attacked the government offices and scattered the material they found. The dead kings have not been spared. Their bodies have been ripped apart. Their pyramids are now empty of their belongings. The people have risen against the rich. They pillaged the palaces and then torched them down. And now the owners of these palaces are sad and crying, while the people are joyous and celebrating. Those who owned slaves are now walking in tattered clothes, and those who had nothing are dressed in the best linen. The bald man who never used oil now owns many bottles filled with the finest perfumes. He who never had a small box now owns a massive box, and the girl who used to go to the water to look at her face now owns a mirror." From the two above papyri it transpires that the revolution shook the social structure to the core. The old ruling classes lost much of their power while new groups prospered. It is hard to know whether the revolution involved a systematic attempt to seize power, but it was clearly a major public uprising and it resulted in a new system of government. For example, a new class of dignitaries started sharing power with the king, a very early signal of democratic government -- and perhaps the first in history. A measure of equality among all citizens was introduced, with every Egyptian gaining the right to be embalmed and thus the right to commune with Osiris, a privilege previously confined to royalty. Ordinary people gained the right to own land, thus encroaching on what to be used an exclusive right of the king. The first recorded industrial action in history occurred under Ramesses III, c. 1192 BC. Workers on a government project did not get paid, and so they stopped working. When the minister went to see them, they said, "Why don't you and your king go ahead and build it yourselves?" According to Egyptian archaeologist Ahmed Fakhri, Egyptian workers were in the habit of staging work stoppages to press for their demands. Sometimes they attacked the storehouses of the king in protest against delayed payments. Fakhri recounted how demonstrating workers gathered in front of a temple to demand payment. The mayor of the town succumbed to their demands, opening the grain silos and giving them their dues without waiting for authorisation from above. The priests were incensed at his action and complained to the pharaoh. One of the ministers of Ramesses III tried to stage a revolution against him out of sympathy with the workers, but his rebellion failed, Fakhri wrote. Labour strikes continued, and eventually the government paid them back their wages in full, including compensation for the months in which no work was done. This goes to show that workers in ancient Egypt were hired for the job, not forced to work as some people claim. It is also clear that labour strikes were regarded as normal, because the king sent his minister to negotiate with the protestors. He did not send the army or the police to beat them up. Also, the strikes were considered legal, since the workers were compensated for the period in which the labour protests were staged. Clearly, the workers had a clear nation of social and economic rights and were used to pressing what they considered to be legitimate demands. The legal framework seems to have been somewhat willing to deal with situations of conflict. Piecing together court rulings, the legal references in the Book of the Dead, and the observations of historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, one gets a glimpse of how advanced the ancient legal system must have been. For example, during the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty (c.715 BC), contractual freedom was a basic component of the law. In marriage contracts, details concerning living expenses and financial arrangements were stated in advance. Divorce and polygamy were also regulated. In general, women had the right to choose their husbands, to keep their finances separate, and to obtain a divorce. Judges took an oath in which they pledged to apply the law even if it contradicted the wishes of the king. This is further proof that the divine status of kings was not the rule, as divine beings are by definition above the law. The judicial system gave the judges immunity from the wrath of disapproving royalty. One legal text notes that, "If the king submits the entire country to the laws of the gods, then he himself must obey the same laws." According to Diodorus Siculus, equality before the law was strictly observed: "People in Egypt are only punished in accordance with their actions, not their wealth." His remarks suggest that this was not the case in other contemporary societies. Interestingly, Egyptian officials had to state their wealth for the record before and after taking up public posts. The Greeks admired and later on adopted the same system. Egyptian judges were independent from the palace, and their rulings applied to everyone, including the king. The king was allowed to look into petitions of clemency, but even those he usually referred to the judiciary to consider. Apparently, Egypt had a system of checks and balances system long before modern democracies embraced the concept.
