A description of what happened: There is a point at which a popular uprising, indeed, any popular movement, must be described as a revolution and that is when it succeeds in rallying huge numbers under its banner and when it produces effects and brings about changes that impact strongly on the reality on the ground. The first condition was fully satisfied in the movement that began on January 25, 2011: the number of Egyptian men and women who took to the streets to demand change ran into the millions. While Tahrir Square was the scene of million-plus demonstrations in Cairo over many days, the size of countrywide demonstrations ran to over ten million for several days. Even taking into account the difference in the size of the population, the numbers were proportionally far greater than those who participated in the 1919 revolution or those who took to the streets in support of the Amy takeover on July 23, 1952. Indeed, they were far greater than the mass demonstrations which toppled the socialist era in the countries making up what was known as the eastern bloc. Thus, the quantitative aspect attests to the fact that we witnessed the largest popular movement in Egypt's modern history as well as one of the largest in the history of the world over the last two centuries. As to the second condition that qualifies a movement to be called a revolution, namely, the effects it produces and the changes it brings about, there is no doubt that what began in Egypt on January 25, 2011 brought about (and continues to bring about) huge and radical changes in Egyptian reality, the most important being the overthrow of the head of a regime that ruled Egypt with increasing repression for thirty years, attaining in the last ten one of the worst forms of an alliance between power and wealth. In addition to toppling its head, the revolution shook the regime to its roots, even though many of its component elements not only still remain among us but are actively engaged in fomenting what can only be described as a counter-revolution. There is, therefore, no disputing the fact that the events which began in Egypt on January 25, 2011 were a revolution, indeed, a great, even a glorious, revolution. It was also a “white” revolution: the only blood spilt was at the hands of the regime and its cohorts, including a number of loyalist business tycoons. Thus, the revolution of January 25, 2011 deserves the praise heaped on it by a large number of world leaders who did not stop at describing it as a great revolution but went on to talk admiringly of its resolve, dedication, brilliant organisation and peacefulness. Some went as far as to propose that the Egyptian revolution be included as a subject on the curricula of their higher educational institutions. Background to and reasons for the revolution: Although no one can deny that the first half of president Mubarak's rule (1981 -1996) was marked by political repression and economic and social stagnation, there was no momentum for a revolution against the president as long as he was ruling Egypt on his own. However, during the second half of his period in power, his family, notably his wife and younger son, began to take an active part in ruling Egypt, involving themselves in all spheres of activity. The son established an oligarchy between some prominent members of the political power structure and a number of business tycoons. The influence and power of this coalition grew until it became the real ruler on the internal front (leaving foreign policy to the president). During those years, political repression and financial corruption attained levels never before experienced by Egyptians in their modern history. The coalition committed its fatal mistake in 2010 when the president's younger son helped the secretary-general of the ruling party (the president's party), Safwat el-Sherif, a man despised by all Egyptians, and the wealthy tycoon Ahmed Ezz, the son's close associate, to forge election results twice. The first time was for the Shura (Upper House) elections; the second (and this was the more important) was for the People's Assembly elections, when they took over 98% of the seats for their followers, leaving 2% for the rest of Egypt! As far as the Egyptian people were concerned, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. To recap then: during the second half of his period in power, the president succumbed to pressure from his family, specifically from his wife and younger son, setting in motion a process that was to bring about his downfall. He began by allowing them to participate with him in managing the country's political, economic, social, cultural and educational affairs, gradually allowing them to virtually take over the running of the country while reserving for himself the foreign affairs portfolio. This led to the formation of an unholy alliance between power and money that engendered corruption in all spheres of life for a full decade and a half, culminating in the unprecedented rigging of the parliamentary elections. A few weeks after this latest chapter in the rampant corruption perpetuated by the coalition between power and money under Mubarak's rule, the flood gates of revolution opened on January 25, 2011. Was the revolution expected? As someone who has lectured at most of the major universities, academies and centres of Middle Eastern studies in the United States and Europe, I believe I am in a position to confirm that all the experts on the region believed Egypt was headed for a revolution. However, all of them (as well as the writer of this article) expected it to come either from the slums or the mosques. This proved not to be the case. The revolution was launched by young men and women of the middle class, most of them university graduates and all of them adept in the use of modern communications technology. Their grasp of this technology, notably the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, provided them with a contemporary understanding of two concepts. The first is citizenship; the second is the role of the government. Most of the members of the computer generation have a better understanding of the rights of citizens than previous generations. At the same time, they know that governments are there to serve not to rule, and can clearly see the difference between governments that serve in advanced countries and those that rule in countries like Egypt. (To be continued next week) Heggy is a prominent Egyptian thinker. He contributed this article to The Egyptian Gazette.
