Lest revolution give way to repression, every element of the former regime must be weeded out and held accountable, and without emotion, writes Abdallah El-Ashaal* The interim military government's remiss in handling the Mubarak regime and its key figures has raised the widespread suspicion that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) is colluding with that regime. That the regime remains essentially intact in virtually all the critical areas, and that SCAF seems determined to protect that regime's connections abroad, have fed this suspicion and sapped hopes that change is possible. Moreover when, after considerable popular pressure, Mubarak and other key figures were finally brought to trial, the trials themselves seemed short and almost farcical when viewed against the expectations of a people that had sacrificed so much in order to topple that regime and that had believed that they would see the fruits of their sacrifice immediately. The first result they had expected was the restoration of respect and dignity after three decades of scorn, disregard for their needs, and marginalisation of the youth. Instead they saw the opposite. The toll of the dead and wounded mounted as the military police became the same as state security and central security in the public eye. More remarkable yet, the confrontation against the people that protested peacefully against schemes to keep them subjugated was conducted with relentless brutality and shocking bloodthirstiness. Meanwhile, as the campaign to hunt down revolutionaries and drag them before military tribunals continued, the defendants in the Mubarak trials were not only being tried before civil courts but were being pampered and shown every indulgence. Little wonder, therefore, that the downtrodden people whose life had grown so wretched under that regime should begin to suspect that something was being stage managed and that their revolution was being undermined. Then, to add insult to injury, they began to hear of the possibility that the icons of that regime would be acquitted. There was talk of democracy, forgiveness, and the unfairness of a political and legal ban against members of the former National Democratic Party. Perhaps this would not have been quite as provocative had it not been so obvious that the members of that regime had ample time during the early months of the revolution to smuggle their fortunes abroad, to destroy damning evidence and to make whatever arrangements they wished, while the regime that continued after the revolution refused to cooperate in bringing justice to light. The ruling authorities in Egypt made a fatal error when they chose to cater to the corrupt interests of the regime even as they issued hollow statements in support of the revolution and the revolutionaries. Any progress that has been made since the revolution was achieved as the result of popular pressure and in spite of attempts to divide and conquer the revolutionary forces and to fabricate crises. This is not to deny security and economic problems, but the gravest threat to Egypt at present is the lack of a serious intent to eliminate the corruption of the old regime and to implement comprehensive justice that would cleanse the country and bring relief. Such comprehensive justice would be based on certain acts of legislation that are appropriate to this particular juncture in Egyptian history. What makes this moment so unique and great? It is that the rampant corruption, the subjugation and oppression of the people, the insistence on a hereditary succession, the worsening economic straits and deteriorating standards of living, the selling out of the state in the international market, and the betrayal of the nation had reached such unprecedented levels that the normally patient and forbearing Egyptian people were driven to rally together in revolt. In one voice heard around the world, they called for the end of the regime and the prosecution of its leaders and they demanded the establishment of a new order that would achieve the demands of the revolution, namely bread, dignity and social justice, rights taken for granted in most other countries. But foremost among all these simple, natural demands is the call to thoroughly cleanse the country of the old regime and to stop playing with the fate of the nation and making it vulnerable to the designs and conspiracies of foreign powers that do not want Egypt to escape from the grave its enemies have dug for it with the aid of Mubarak and his cronies. In spite of the divisions in ranks and strains of discord that have begun to surface, the Egyptian people remain united and firm in their demand for real justice. This can only be achieved through the dismantlement of the regime's networks of corruption so that the country's resources can finally be put to the service of the people in an equitable way. Yet, a full year has passed since the revolution and the country has grown only poorer and the difficulties more acute. The blame has been laid on the breakdown in security but the real cause and the root of the problem is the continuing presence and influence of the Mubarak regime. In view of all that they suffered at the hands of this regime, the people's sensitivities towards anyone at home or abroad who might defend it are perfectly understandable, as is their tendency to interpret the indulgence that is being shown the key figures of that regime as a form of complicity in a scheme to undermine and end the revolution and to punish and tarnish the reputations of those who put their lives on the line for the revolution. Certainly, too, it strains the credulity and patience of the people to see certain individuals of that regime parading around in public and proclaiming their intention to run for president when, in fact, their proper place is behind bars. The interim military authority may seem to be pursuing the course of justice, whereas in reality it has been working to undermine the peoples' right to true redress. How else is one to interpret the fact that the public prosecutor, whom the people accuse of managing the case in a legalistic way that effectively protects the defendants, added only one new charge against Mubarak, worded as "complicity" in the death of demonstrators? Another mystery is the way the court has been mired in the routines and procedures of an ordinary criminal trial, whereas the crimes in question are of a magnitude that had never been anticipated by the architects of the criminal justice system. So the prosecution may have conformed in form to the letter of the law but in substance it did not conform to a concept of justice commensurate to the nature of the crime. This is why the trial seemed so farcical and caused the people to lose confidence in the system and to demand personal retribution. It was also absurd to try Mubarak's sons and on nothing but the charge of illicit gains. True justice would demand that not just their property but also the property of all figures of that regime be confiscated and returned to the people, to whom it belongs. Then there should be a comprehensive trial in which those criminals would be tried for their financial corruption, smuggling wealth out of the country, destroying evidence against them in every ministry and the presidential palace, and in which everyone who was part of the Mubarak mafia over the past 30 years or aided and abetted its crimes and corruption would be brought to account. True justice would also insist that when a ruling authority kills its own people in order to remain in power and perpetuate its corruption, this is hardly a simple crime, and that any proper inquiry and prosecution process would have to investigate everyone from leaders to their subordinates. True justice requires a sense of balance with the nature and magnitude of crimes of the sort that unleash wholesale systematic violence that leaves thousands of dead and wounded, not to mention the crimes of corruption and treachery that inflicted material and moral injustices on millions and that brought degradation to our nation, squandered its resources and forfeited its legitimate rights and interests. The revolution is the saga of a nation that wants to cleanse itself and start afresh. Elements of the former criminal regime cannot be allowed to remain like termites or dry rot in the foundations of the structure we want to build anew. The failure to weed out and prosecute all key figures of the old regime without exception will lead to more repression and to the resurrection of the old regime. Nor should the new order think that it can kill the old with kindness or that their coexistence would produce anything but a fragile truce while the millions of downtrodden whose thirst for justice remains unquenched act to take matters into their own hands and in a way that would topple the state and all its institutions. Strict resolve and determination are what is needed in dealing with the old regime. The nation needs the purity of heart, the integrity of purpose, and the clarity of vision unclouded by the domination of foreign interests that lead the ship of state to stray in directions the Egyptian people do not wish. For such reasons and more, the revolution must continue and it should be regarded as a force that lives and breathes, and not just as an event that has a beginning and an end. * The writer is former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister.
