The counter-revolution is the current hype in the on-going revolution's development. But it is a grave mistake to consider it a big conspiracy against the revolution. Speaking of conspiracies, naming enemies, and discriminating between martyrs is precisely the logic of the counter-revolution. The counter-revolution is not a big conspiracy by individuals and groups opposed to the revolution. Instead, the counter-revolution is a logic that is at times adopted by revolutionaries themselves. It is also a grave mistake to consider the revolution a completed project that has been planned and executed, and that owes its success to a particular group. The revolution is a historic moment where people, events, and circumstances interact to create a confrontation of power structures. It is a total, rapid confrontation that does away with the status quo and challenges power in every corner. Despite variation in the size of such confrontations, and in the limits to which revolutions go to confront and challenge existing power structures, the revolutionary logic always remains in confrontation with the status quo. But this revolutionary state is not a product of an individual or a group. Rather, revolutions start when a revolutionary capacity is suddenly discovered, a capacity that can turn things around in a decisive moment. No one plays a decisive role. A historic moment that could have been bypassed is eventually transformed into a decisive one. The adventure embarked on by the 25 January youth was undoubtedly a major turning point. Youth's unknown quest for freedom became the biggest adventure in Egypt's history, a stubborn adventure that changed everything. The revolution itself is bigger than its initial makers, as it became the ownership of everyone who was inspired by it, adopted its logic and mobilized for it. The adventure spreads to control time and space, allowing for the inclusion of all revolutionaries as well as the enemies of the revolution. The adventure transcends everyone while moving forward without a centralized decision. It leaves victims on both sides in its quest to impose its logic that rejects the status quo. On the other hand, the counter-revolution is the reaction that tries to maintain and perpetuate what was a prevalent status quo as it attempts to rob the revolution of its achievements. It contests the revolution's legitimacy by first noting that the revolutionaries are young, insignificant and dreamful. Then it claims that certain unwanted elements have infiltrated the movement and are in control. Lastly, it accuses the revolution of reflecting foreign agendas. When the revolution survives such accusations, and manages to maintain legitimacy, the counter-revolution becomes more cautious and starts to recognize it in its conservative way. The counter-revolution begins to celebrate the revolution's accomplishments. Though it recognizes the legitimacy of the revolution, it takes legitimacy away from any other acts and practices inspired by it. For instance, there is a large campaign condemning “class-based” labor and employees protests, in reference to the fact that they do not concern everyone, and that they involve particular groups who do not value “the national interest.” Such a campaign essentially renders confronting and seeking revenge against corrupt officials the only legitimate goal of the revolution. The counter-revolution is hence not one particular conspiracy, but rather an embodiment of all those who seek “stability” at any cost. All conservative forces, those who want to maintain their old positions, or who are protected by authoritarianism, thus adopt the logic of the counter-revolution. They adopt a logic that is deeply inimical to the revolution, its accomplishments and its aspirations. This counter-revolution includes various conservative societal forces that are frightened by chaos and instability and are ready to compromise their freedom for a fake sense of prosperity. They are ready to compromise this freedom to those groups and apparatuses that played a central role in the repressive ruling regime, which is under serious threat by the revolution. The counter-revolution is evidently also pursued by such structures as the mafia-like National Democratic Party cliques and the State Security apparatus which are playing a more conspiratorial, even criminal role against the uprising. The struggle between the revolution and the counter-revolution is not a struggle between two big conspiracies. Instead, it is a struggle between two logics. The first is a revolutionary logic that seeks to put an end to tyranny and that is driven to--by the necessity of pursuing legitimacy--to continue to disturb stability and the forces of tyranny. The other logic is one that legitimates and protects tyranny. It might be surprising that the Egyptian revolution was peaceful, aware, and humane enough to allow for both logics to survive, co-exist, negotiate and maneuver. The confrontation between the two logics was not set in stone. Instead, the same groups alternated between the two logics from one moment to the next. This is why we must recognize that eliminating the counter-revolution is not possible. In addition, treating the counter-revolution as conspiracy underestimates its power and produces misleading strategies to deal with it. The most important thing is for the revolutionary logic to remain cautious and to create structures and links that enables itself to garner legitimacy. Such efforts would reveal to everyone that the revolution protects the people's interests, that it is not only a process of destruction, but of reconstruction, recreation of authority, and reenactment of a free popular will. The revolution needs to move forward past its anger and focus on an aggressive and sensible democratic program. To reach this end, it needs to institutionalize itself into parties and links to every possible ground. These parties need to open themselves up to each other as well as to the labor movement in order for the revolutionary logic to openly and consciously thrive while being able to negotiate, maneuver, and change strategies. The forces of the revolution need to transcend worries and quests for revenge, for as long as they get rid of the past and begin to build their foundation, they can better look forward, snatch legitimacy from the counter-revolution, add the latter's proponents to their ranks, the ranks of freedom.
