While some see the numerous sit-ins of 2007 as political, in reality they are about how the system is running, not the basis upon which it runs, writes Amin Howeidi* 2007 was the year of sit-ins. As sit-ins kept taking place across the country, and even abroad, analysts spoke of the Year of Sit-Ins, the Year of Wrath, etc. People have been waiting for change and when nothing happened they took to the street, venting their discontent at a wide range of issues, many of an economic nature. The government addressed the problem on a case-by-case basis, negotiating here and throwing crumbs there. But even as it extinguished one fire, another broke out, then another. The fact that the government was willing to talk to the protesters each time is good. Recognising the legitimate demands of the protesters is something that takes getting used to, and the government seems to have grown accustomed to this new situation. Fortunately, the protesters mostly conducted their sit-ins without engaging in acts of violence. They sat, chanted and sometimes brought in drums and sang to enliven the mood. A few incidents of violence were inevitable, as in the case of the Qursaya Island dispute. There, inhabitants had to defend their ownership of the land through drastic measures, some going as far as digging their own graves and threatening to die rather than move out. In a rare instance of overseas protest, Egyptian pilgrims took to the streets in Jeddah to protest the mismanagement of their affairs by the employees of Egypt's Hajj Mission. Another extraordinary incident happened when employees of Ain Shams University held the university president hostage to press their demands. Interestingly enough, most of the protesters' demands were met, albeit belatedly. Why did officials in question take such a long time in resolving problems that could have been handled promptly? Is it because the channels of communication were flawed? Is it because the government was averse to being seen as weak? In the end, it turned out that face-to-face dialogue was better than evasion. Most sit-ins are about professional demands, things that should have been addressed at the workplace, unless there is an invisible barrier between management and labour. Bosses should take more interest in the welfare of their employees, respond quickly to their news, and put in place a decentralised system of regulation and reward. Bosses should be accessible by employees, not use their secretaries as a barrier to block institutional channels of communication. The government also has a role. It should make sure that the country is being run smoothly, that traffic is flowing, that prices are fair, that building regulations are respected, and that police brutality is prevented. If the government does that, people will have less reason to protest. Sit-ins are a means to an end, a sign that something has gone awry. So everyone involved should address them with a cool mind. Negotiations, mediation, concessions are all worth a try. Professional demands are not an act of defiance, but a way of overcoming certain obstacles in the way. It is wrong to see sit-ins as a measure of the strength or weakness of the political system. Sit-ins are not about politics, but about better management, and a more efficient way of production and life. Those who think it shameful to admit their mistakes are not doing anyone any favour. Their actions harm the state and undermine the entire country. The government needs transparency, not denials. The longer you wait, the worse the problem gets. Identifying the problem is the first step towards correcting it. So we need to keep channels of communication open at all times. Don't think in terms of victor and vanquished. Think of what is good for us all. * The writer is former defence minister and chief of General Intelligence.
