Democracy is the Answer: Egypt's Years of Revolution

vote.

The President Has Fallen but the Regime Still Stands

1 March 2011

In his television appearances, Ahmed Shafik¹ comes across as a tactful and mild-mannered man, and the state information service also speaks highly of his administrative efficiency, but with all due respect to Ahmed Shafik, he is not suitable to be the post-revolution prime minister. There is a great difference between partial suitability and the revolution. The revolution aims to bring about radical change, to destroy the old regime completely and to set up a new structure in its place which accords with its principles and aims.

This is how revolutions have been throughout human history. The Egyptian revolution erupted on 25 January to put an end to the corrupt and unjust regime of Hosni Mubarak and to establish true democracy. To this end, the Egyptian people have paid a crippling price: hundreds of people have been killed, hundreds more have been blinded by rubber bullets and no one knows if the thousands who have disappeared are dead or alive.

The success of the revolution is testament to the strength and bravery of the Egyptian people. After the removal of Mubarak, it seemed natural to expect that Egypt would go through a transitional period and achieve democracy by taking a defined number of steps that can be listed as follows:

1. The dissolution of the People’s Assembly,² the Shura Council³ and local governments that were fraudulently formed by the previous regime.

2. The dismissal of all politicians connected to the former regime.

3. The separation of the judiciary from the Ministry of Justice in order to achieve judicial independence.

4. The formation of committees of independent judges to investigate claims of corruption. The committees will present their findings to the attorney general.

5. The scrapping of the old constitution and a general declaration of constitutional principles followed by the election of a committee to formulate a new and permanent constitution.

6. The formation of a nationally unified government made up of approved representatives that are not connected to the previous regime. They will be in charge of carrying out the country’s affairs during the transitional period and must forego the right to stand as candidates in the forthcoming elections.

7. The rescinding of Emergency Law⁴ and the special courts, and the granting of general freedoms including those of forming political parties, free association, peaceful demonstration and the press. Parliamentary elections should take place in two years’ time so that Egyptians have the chance to express their political thoughts and to ensure that an elected parliament truly expresses the will of the people.

8. The release of all political prisoners and the prevention of arrest and torture, the abolition of the state security service⁵ and the fair trial of all officers who have violated the dignity and humanity of the Egyptian people.

9. The appointment of the first ever democratically elected parliament.

These are not some quickly thought-up and cobbled-together steps, but are recognised worldwide to be the sine qua non for any state transitioning from dictatorship to democracy. After Mubarak stepped down, the Egyptian people expected a peaceful transitional period. They did not expect to find members of the former regime, including Ahmed Shafik, still in power. Shafik swore an oath to Hosni Mubarak and his politics and philosophy belong exclusively to the former regime. He bears political responsibility for the slaughter of demonstrators at the hands of the police and the regime’s thugs, and has broken his promise to investigate these killings. Shafik has been against the revolution since the beginning as he did not believe that Mubarak would be forced from power. He openly mocked the revolution, comparing Tahrir Square to London’s Hyde Park, sneering at the people occupying the streets and promising the mourners sweets and chocolate.

Mubarak’s resignation and the success of the revolution came as a violent political crisis for Shafik as he had been a loyal supporter of the regime for many decades and considered Mubarak to be his leader, teacher and commander. It is unthinkable that he might be entrusted with implementing the demands of the revolution which toppled his leader. Under Shafik, the corrupt local councils were still in existence, fraudulent trade unions continued to provide henchmen to attack demonstrators, and the headquarters of the National Democratic Party (NDP)⁶ remained open with Muslim Brotherhood members enlisting there and being brought out in preparation for the upcoming elections. Under Shafik, the state security service continued operating at full force with the aim of suppressing the revolution. There was no investigation into the police officers that opened fire on Egyptians. Instead, his minister of the interior, Mahmoud Wagdy,⁷ went on television to praise the police force for successfully carrying out their duty, that is by using snipers to kill Egyptians, blinding them with rubber bullets and running them over with armoured cars. The minister of the interior considers these horrible crimes to be laudable police activity. And even more oddly, he stated in his television appearance that it was a small minority of the demonstrators that were hellbent on committing acts of violence and that foreign snipers were amongst the demonstrators.

The minister of the interior continued to accuse the demonstrators of being agents, intent on causing trouble and of serving foreign agendas, the same old logic used by the regime of Hosni Mubarak. The most provocative statements issued by the minister of the interior were those in which he confirmed that the state security service would not be dissolved and that he would not investigate any of its officers. In fact, he went to great lengths to praise the role played by the state security service.

All that is to say that the minister of the interior considers it praiseworthy and within the national interest to arrest demonstrators without legal justification, to beat them up, to torture them viciously and subject them to electric shocks, to abuse their wives and daughters in front of them, to sabotage the Egyptian nationalist movement, to subvert the state media, and to go so far as to drag the whole country into ruination by appointing corrupt and often inept individuals to positions of leadership. These are all tried and tested methods used by the state security service for many a long year.

In any case, we must thank the minister of the interior for his frankness in expressing the attitude of Ahmed Shafik’s government, which is essentially the same as that of the Mubarak regime. The head of security for the province of Buhaira expressed it most clearly in a filmed speech he gave to his officers in which he stated that the police officers were the masters of Egypt and that anyone laying a hand on them would find it cut off. Those who agree with this statement must also believe that no Egyptian, regardless of position or profession, is anything more than a servant of the police and that any servant who tries to get above himself should be given a deterrent sentence. There is nothing new in all of that. This was the thinking of the Mubarak regime for decades: to have a sense of superiority over ordinary Egyptians, to degrade them, to deprive them of their human rights and to commit crimes against the innocent in order to hang onto power. It is strange and regrettable that those officials kept their jobs even after Egyptians rose up against Mubarak and toppled him. Hosni Mubarak may have been toppled, but his regime did not fall.

The political scene in Egypt bears witness to the fact that there are clearly two contradictory desires amongst those in power: a positive desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Egyptian people and to bring about the demands of the revolution. This is reflected in the wishes of the armed forces that have guarded the revolution from the very first day. It was the armed forces that protected Egyptians when the Mubarak regime schemed against them by withdrawing the police, setting prisoners loose in the streets and ordering them to terrorise innocent people and cause chaos. The government, under the control of Ahmed Shafik, has worked hard to impede any real change and abort any democratic transformation by scapegoating a few former officials.

The Egyptian people ask themselves how officers have evaded trial for the killing of demonstrators with live ammunition. They also want to know why Habib el-Adly⁸ is being tried for money laundering rather than on charges of killing demonstrators. Why have members of the police force disappeared from sight and why have the armed forces been tasked with security duties? Is the intention to wear out the army so that they turn against the revolution or to punish Egyptians by providing them with so little security that they start to be nostalgic for the Mubarak era? If the reason for the disappearance is the tense state of relations between the police and the people, then it is only natural that this tension will remain until those officers who killed innocent people are given a fair trial. So why has the state security service not been disbanded and why is it still being relied upon and its role praised?

Why have there been no trials for the pillars of the former regime, i.e., the cronies of Mubarak and his sons, such as Safwat el-Sherif, Fathi Sorour and Zakariya Azmi.⁹ Why have the tens of thousands of political detainees not been released, most of whom have spent long years in detention with no legal representation? Why the great hurry to carry out parliamentary elections in two months’ time when we know that during a period of transition there should be sufficient time given to the general freedoms necessary before elections so that their results can be considered an expression of the people’s will? What is the use of tinkering with the old constitution rather than calling for a new constitution that will bring about true democracy?

There are many questions but only one answer. Ahmed Shafik does not express the will of the Egyptian people. After his failure to put down the revolution, he is now trying to obfuscate and reverse its gains. Shafik’s government is a real obstacle to change because it is simply granting the remnants of the former regime time to regroup and gather strength. Under Shafik, the former unjust and corrupt regime has managed to stay in power with only a few cosmetic changes.

We must all work to bring down the government of Shafik so that the revolution can achieve its aims and Egypt can head towards the future it deserves and for which hundreds of people have paid with their lives.

Democracy is the answer.

RH

The Sickness of Dictatorship

3 March 2011

Straight after graduating, I worked as a resident doctor in the oral surgery department of the college of medicine at Cairo University. They were the worst days of my life. The whole department of oral surgery was riddled with corruption. Favouritism and favour-paying enabled the sons and daughters of the rich to get what they did not deserve. It was an open secret that examination results were tampered with and there was no end to financial and administrative irregularities. The patients, forced to seek free healthcare, were treated so badly and with such contempt that it was criminal. However, what I suffered from most was the systematic bullying and the arrogant, overbearing and humiliating treatment meted out by the senior members of the department. One of the professors supervising the master’s thesis of a teaching assistant used to call him ass in public. When this professor walked into the department he would ask anyone there: Where’s the ass? I want to see him.

The teaching assistant would step forward with an obsequious smile on his face and say: Here I am, sir.

I recall upbraiding the teaching assistant for allowing his dignity to be sullied, but he replied: The professor is like a father to me.

But your father should respect you and not humiliate you like that with everyone watching.

The teaching assistant let out a sigh: Which scenario is better? That the professor treats me with respect and I fail my exam, or that he calls me whatever he likes and I get my degree sooner?

That was the prevailing logic in the department: abandon your dignity if you want to get on professionally. Put up with the humiliation and if it gets too much, take it out on the nurses and interns who are further down the scale from you.

One day the head of our department called me to his office. Peremptorily he asked me to go to the main railway station in Cairo to buy him a train ticket to Alexandria. There were some people in his office with him and I did not want to show him up in front of them so I went to the clinic next door and telephoned his office.

I am sorry, sir, but I cannot go and buy the ticket for you, I said.

Why not? he replied.

Because I am a dentist, and not an office boy or your assistant.

The head of the department laughed contemptuously and replied: You seem to be off your head. Pass the receiver to someone who has worked here a long time.

I called one of the teachers over, handed him the telephone and heard him saying: Yes, sir. At your service, sir.

The teacher, who had a doctorate in surgery, went off to buy the ticket in a state of happiness because the head of department had singled him out for this praiseworthy task. I resigned from that dreadful place and travelled to the United States where I studied for my masters degree at Illinois University. I had to attend lectures with the second year students, and during a seminar on histology, an American student raised her hand and told the professor: I haven’t understood. Could you go over the explanation again?

The professor wiped out what he had written on the blackboard and then went over the explanation again. But the student still did not understand so asked the professor to explain it one more time. As the professor turned to wipe the blackboard for the second time, he raised his hands in the air in a sign of exasperation, at which point the student shouted: Why are you exasperated by my stupidity? I am not stupid. If I was, I wouldn’t have got the grades to get me here.

There was total silence and I, coming from Cairo University, expected all hell to break loose. Instead I was surprised to see the professor smile gently and tell the student: Please accept my apologies; I did not mean to belittle you. I shall now try as hard as I can to give you a clearer explanation.

This brought home to me two contradictory attitudes: at Cairo University, bullying and humiliation were part and parcel of showing respect to your superiors. At Illinois University, however, students were treated with respect and were rewarded for their efforts. The gap between these two approaches has nothing to do with any gulf between East and West, but that between dictatorship and democracy. Dictatorship spreads like cancer from the presidential palace through society. The individuals subjected to this treatment turn into petty dictators who mete out punishment and bully the weak. A democratic ruler works in the service of the people who have chosen them through free elections, whereas a dictator has no respect for their people, believing them to be lesser beings. Hosni Mubarak used to address members of the intelligentsia, artists and university professors by their first name, belittling them while at the same time expecting them to respond with obsequiousness. There was even one incident when Hosni Mubarak patted a well-known journalist on the belly and made foul comments about him in front of his colleagues. That senior journalist took it as an honour and proudly regaled people with the story: Just imagine. The president called me by name … He always treats me like an old friend!

This vile and degrading way of treating people is in stark contrast to the behaviour found in a democratic society, where a street-sweeper and head of state have equal rights, and it follows that a cat may look at a king. In a democratic country, public officials are subjected to greater scrutiny than ordinary people as it is in the interest of the general public.

The sickness of dictatorship always spreads from the political to the moral sphere. In a democratic society each individual knows his or her place, but in a dictatorship this is often changeable and subject to the whim of the dictator. There is the example of the law professor who hoists their legal flag in the service of the regime, tailoring the law to suit the dictator’s whim and eating away at the rights of the ordinary people. Then, if the dictator no longer needs their services, the great jurist joins the opposition and demands that the regime be changed. But the moment the ruler summons the law professor, they come running to offer their services once again. There is also the television screenwriter who actively condemns corruption but creates programmes that pay homage to Hosni Mubarak and depicts the state security service in a rosy hue. The officers are portrayed as national heroes rather than corrupt criminals who have tortured and abused the Egyptian people.

This moral deformity is one of the ramifications of dictatorship. In a democratic society, people do not need to be in the pocket of a corrupt official to achieve professional success. The very foundation of democracy is justice and people should prosper according to their talent and hard work.

Perhaps my dear readers will understand what I am driving at behind these notions. Many of you will have seen the televised debate between Ahmed Shafik and me while he was still in office.¹ I had planned to confront Shafik in a controlled and measured way about his role in the killing of hundreds of demonstrators and the disappearance of thousands of Egyptians whose families have no idea whether they have been arrested or shot dead. However, the exchange escalated quickly and Shafik went on the offensive, showering me with insults and threats that amounted to defamation of character.

In a democratic system, the head of state is the servant of the people and they treat him with respect. In Egypt, after the revolution, no citizen will kowtow to the president, and no citizen will boast that the president has insulted them or patted them on their belly. Henceforth, the president must understand that Egypt has changed, that a street-sweeper is an Egyptian citizen and it is his right to make the president of the republic accountable for their actions.

After my encounter with Ahmed Shafik I was sent hundreds of tweets of support from Egyptians at home and abroad. I am proud of every word that those dear people wrote, but the greatest mark of honour I received came from the father of the late Mohamed Ramadan, the youngest person killed in Alexandria, who was shot in the head at close range by a police officer. His father wrote to say: I must thank you. When I saw you on the television I felt that the blood of my late son Mohamed was in good hands.

Democracy is the answer.

RH

Five Attitudes Towards the Revolution

15 March 2011

It was two o’clock in the morning and I found myself walking through Tahrir Square. Feeling stressed, I lit a cigarette and threw the empty packet onto the ground. A lady in her seventies came over to me, greeted me warmly and told me she loved my writing. I thanked her but she suddenly looked at me and said: Please pick up your empty cigarette packet.

I felt embarrassed. I bent over quickly and picked up the discarded packet.

You can put it in the rubbish bin over there, she said.

I did as she told me and walked back over to her, shamefaced. She smiled at me: We’re building a new and different Egypt now. We have to keep it tidy.

This is just one of many memorable incidents which I experienced during the revolution. Another time, I was standing with a group of demonstrators when one young man got overexcited and started shouting obscene slogans against Suzanne Mubarak, wife of Hosni Mubarak. The other demonstrators berated him, saying: We are here to demand our rights, not to shout insults. Over a period of three weeks, millions of Egyptians gathered together in towns and squares in the name of revolution. There was not one report of sexual harassment or petty theft during this entire time and the demonstrators made sure to clean up all public spaces after their sit-ins.

The Egyptian demonstrators acted with dignity and respect during the revolution. In fact, revolution per se is a great human achievement as it brings out the best in people and moves them to a place beyond their moral shortcomings. When people rise up in revolt, they immediately become more thoughtful because they are forced to face arrest and death, and sacrifice their own freedoms.

It has been asked whether all Egyptians took part in the revolution, and the answer is no. There has never been a revolution in history in which every single person took part. In my opinion there are now five different attitudes towards the revolution:

First: The revolutionaries. These noble Egyptians rose up in the name of freedom and paid a crushing price for the sake of their country. According to the Ministry of Health, more than 800 Egyptians have been killed, 1,200 have been blinded by rubber bullets and thousands of people are still missing. These enormous sacrifices have made the revolutionaries even more determined to realise the goals of the revolution and they are no longer afraid of the regime.

Second: The observers. These Egyptians suffered under the corrupt and unjust regime of Hosni Mubarak but were not prepared to make any sacrifice in order to achieve their rights. They are people exhausted by the struggle for sustenance who focus on their day-to-day concerns. They mumble the occasional complaint but then leave the rest to God. The observers were surprised by the revolution and watched the events unfold on television rather than taking part. They tend to oscillate between supporting the revolution and opposing it. At the start, many of them believed the propaganda disseminated by the state media and thought that the revolutionaries were paid agents. Then they saw how people were being killed in the streets and they felt for them, but when they heard Hosni Mubarak stating how he wanted to die in his country, the observers were moved to tears. Then, the day after, when the massacre of demonstrators happened, they went back to supporting the revolution. The people who observe the revolution want change but at no cost to themselves. They want to see democracy achieved without any personal losses or disruptions. They are stuck, body and mind, in the pre-revolutionary stage.

Third: The enemies of the revolution. This group are against the revolution because they risk being put on trial or imprisoned. They come from various social and professional strata: ministers, businessmen, leading figures in the NDP, state security officers, corrupt journalists, people involved in petty corruption and fixers. They felt safe as long as Ahmed Shafik remained in power as he was a close associate of Hosni Mubarak and had not put a single officer on trial for the killing of demonstrators. On the contrary, the minister of the interior under Shafik had praised the officers of the state security service for carrying out their national duty. When the military council selected Essam Sharaf¹ as a replacement for Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik, the enemies of the revolution panicked and started shredding documents and destroying evidence of their wrong-doing. State security officers disappeared from their offices and started causing chaos in the service of two aims: firstly the creation of a wedge between the army and the revolutionaries in order to make the army withdraw its support for the revolution, and secondly by putting pressure on the observers in an attempt to turn them against the revolution.

Fourth: The Muslim Brotherhood. Like many Egyptians, the Muslim Brotherhood took part bravely in the revolution, showing true heroism in protecting demonstrators from attacks by the police and the regime’s thugs. However, the inherent problem with the Muslim Brotherhood is the distance between their moral rectitude as individuals and their political tractability as an organisation. Most of the Brothers are good and devoted people but their leadership has put the interests of the association first, hence their historical support of all autocratic rulers in Egypt without exception, from King Farouk and Isma’il Sidqi, the strongman of the Sha’ab Party, through to Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat. The Muslim Brotherhood bucked the national consensus and participated in the last elections held by Mubarak, and then did the same again by sitting down to negotiate with Omar Suleiman² who wanted to whitewash the former regime by having his photograph taken with the government’s opponents. The Brotherhood is again repeating the same old mistake by standing side by side with the NDP and supporting the constitutional changes they know to be unsound. This will only serve to get in the way of democracy and undermine the revolution’s achievements. The Brotherhood passed a resolution in support of these constitutional changes in order to secure a large number of seats in the People’s Assembly.

Fifth: The armed forces. The revolution would not have succeeded without the protection of the armed forces. From the very first day, they played an essential role in the revolution and saved the Egyptian people from the corrupt regime. However, the Egyptian people would like them to answer the following questions:

1. What is the legal status of the deposed president, Hosni Mubarak? Is he retired, in custody or under house arrest? Does he still have the right to use the presidential aircraft and palaces? When will he be put on trial for the crimes he committed against the Egyptian people and when will arrest warrants be issued for his most important cronies such as Safwat el-Sherif, Zakariya Azmi and Fathi Sorour?

2. The armed forces are fully aware of the criminal role played by state security officers over decades, from abusing, torturing and blackmailing citizens to sabotaging the whole country by putting agents and journalists in positions of leadership regardless of their abilities. Some high-ranking men and state security officers have been sent for trial, but most are still at large and doing their utmost to spread disorder and stir up unrest. They have the resources and expertise to create havoc in the media and amongst the political parties. The destruction of documents, sectarian strife and demonstrations by the Copts or the Salafists are just a foretaste of what the state security service can achieve. Why do the armed forces not use the emergency regulations to arrest the state security officers and put them on trial?

3. After the fall of Hosni Mubarak there were factional demands all over Egypt because a number of ministers and university departments were in cahoots with the Mubarak regime. Why did the armed forces not create an independent oversight committee to investigate corruption allegations and to forward suspect findings to the attorney general. The only way of putting an end to the factional demonstrations would be to reassure the people that justice would be done at some time or other.

4. Why do the armed forces want to bring the transitional period to a close? It is claimed that they want to finish this difficult job in the shortest time possible and return to their primary function of protecting the state. That sounds reasonable and feasible, but would it not be better to take up the suggestion made by the professors of law and appoint an acting military-civilian presidential council to remove leadership responsibility from the armed forces during the transitional period? That would provide sufficient time for the parties to organise themselves and the resultant elections would then express the will of the Egyptian people.

5. It goes without saying that a constitution falls when the regime that represents it falls. So why this insistence on tinkering with the old constitution? Not only did all nationalist forces (except for the Muslim Brotherhood and the NDP) reject the amendments, but Judge Zakariya Abdel Aziz³ considered them as irrelevant to the Egyptian people. How can a referendum on the constitution be held in this deteriorating security situation? Why do we not follow the advice of the professors of constitutional law and publish a document showing the principals of the constitution, then hold elections for a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution that expresses the will of the people? If the response is that the security situation does not allow the holding of elections, we shall point out that as a referendum on the constitutional amendments was going to be held in this deteriorating security situation, we can doubtless also manage to hold elections for a constituent assembly.

Naturally, these legitimate questions in no way detract from our admiration for the great national role played by the armed forces. However, Egypt is at a critical point and we must all speak honestly and openly so that the country can embark on the future it deserves.

Democracy is the answer.

RH

Before the Revolution Becomes a Wasted Opportunity

22 March 2011

After the success of the 1919 revolution when the British yielded to the will of the Egyptians, King Fuad¹ appointed a committee to draw up a constitution. The nationalist leader, Saad Zaghloul², objected to this and demanded the election of a constitutional assembly to draft a democratic constitution that would express the will of the people. However, King Fuad would not budge. A committee was convened to draft the 1923 Constitution, which granted the king the right to dissolve parliament at any time.

This serious constitutional flaw led to the corrupting of political life, which turned parliament into a plaything of the king. Over a period of 30 years, the Wafd Party, which enjoyed a crushing majority, only held power for six. The irony is that, despite its shortcomings, Saad Zaghloul accepted the 1923 Constitution even though democratic change was within reach. As undisputed leader of the nation, Zaghloul could have mobilised the Egyptian people in order to finish the revolution and to claim their right to a just and democratic constitution. But it was a lost opportunity and the Egyptian people did not get the freedom they had fought for.

After the 1952 revolution, Egypt wasted another opportunity for democratisation. The anti-democratic trend amongst the Free Officers³ won out and, on 16 January 1953, they issued an edict dissolving all political parties, expropriating their funds and headquarters. The Wafd Party was at that time in the majority and should have called upon the Egyptian people to make a stand against the Free Officers in order to preserve the democratic system. However the Wafd Party made no objections and the country then fell into the grip of dictatorship for sixty consecutive years.

Egyptian history is replete with lost opportunities for achieving democracy and we are now faced with yet another hurdle. The great revolution of 25 January forced Hosni Mubarak to step down and hundreds of Egyptians lost their lives for the sake of freedom. From the outset, the revolution has been beset by an aggressive counter-revolution both inside and outside Egypt. A few days ago the Kuwaiti Al-Dar newspaper wrote that the Egyptian authorities have come under great pressure from Arab rulers, headed by the king of Saudi Arabia and the ruler of the Emirates, not to put Mubarak on trial. The newspaper reported that these Arab states are threatening to end all relations with Cairo, stop all financial aid and withdraw investment from Egypt should Mubarak be prosecuted. They even threatened to dismiss the five million Egyptians working in their countries if their demands were not met.

Israel has also continued to defend Hosni Mubarak on the grounds that he is their closest ally in the region. The Israeli media has not hidden its concerns about real democratic change in Egypt and the US administration has the same fears, of course. The reason that government officials in the both United States and Israel are worried is because they understand Egypt’s position and its capabilities: they know that if Egypt transitions to a democracy it will become a powerful force in the Arab world. The great American intellectual, Noam Chomsky, wrote in the Guardian newspaper that the US supports the dictatorship in Egypt not out of fear of extreme Islam, as has been claimed, but out of fear that an independent Egypt will break free of America’s patronage.⁴ Chomsky adds that the American administration will do all it can to make sure that the next Egyptian president does not stray from the path mapped out for them.

There are many internal and external forces waiting to ambush the revolution. Inside Egypt, the real cornerstones of the Mubarak regime are still hale and hearty. The NDP continues to have support throughout the country and is filling its headquarters with hundreds and thousands of party members who will do anything to regain power under a new name, as well as hundreds of state security officers who abandoned their posts after the revolution in order to stir up trouble in the streets. There are also tens of thousands of local council members, heads of governorates and universities, deans appointed by the security service, press and media bigwigs, leading businessmen and heads of the fraudulent trade unions, and thousands upon thousands of members of the former regime, who are all plotting against the revolution.

So, what are the aims of the counter-revolution? Here we need to look back at the declarations made by Mubarak to the world media before he stepped down: I would like to step down, but I am fearful of chaos in Egypt. I am afraid that Egypt will fall to the Muslim Brotherhood. The counter-revolution is now trying to make all Mubarak’s fears come true in order to show the whole world that he was right all along.

The counter-revolution is creating as much chaos as possible so that Egyptians no longer feel safe and will therefore start to resent the revolution and accept any compromise in return for stability. They deliberately kept the police off the streets throughout Egypt and released tens of thousands of criminals from prison, who were given arms and instructed to attack civilians. This scheme continued throughout the government of Ahmed Shafik, and then, when Essam Sharaf became prime minister, incidences of vandalism and sectarian strife intensified in order to discredit the revolutionary government despite the best efforts of the new minister of the interior, Mansour el-Essawy,⁵ to restore order in the absence of the police. Preventing the police from defending the nation was an act of sabotage and treachery, and the order must have come from an authority that has greater sway over the officers than the minister of the interior himself. The emergence of groups of thugs throughout Egypt is also not a matter of serendipity but a carefully planned operation. The guard outside the polling station in Muqattam stood by as Mohamad ElBaradei⁶ came under brutal attack as members of the NDP pelted him with stones. And in the Shubra district [of Cairo], particularly over the last two days, these thugs have been allowed to shut off streets, intimidate people and shoot at random, leading to the deaths of citizens. Not a single policeman or soldier intervened to offer protection. Is this somehow connected to the fact that Shubra is home to Copts who announced that they rejected the constitutional amendments? Was the aim to intimidate the Copts into accepting the amendments, or was the aim simply to punish them for having believed that Egyptians deserve a new constitution?

Furthermore, the state media only covers certain trials as they still receive instructions from the state security service. The press rushed to film Ahmed Ezz, Zuhair Garana and Ahmed el-Maghrabi⁷ being interrogated in prison uniform. This violates all professional and humanitarian standards. The aim was to appease angry Egyptians and to make them feel that justice was taking its course. With all due respect to the person and position of the attorney general, there are still many unanswered questions. Why has there been no investigation into Hosni Mubarak and members of his family? Why have Zakariya Azmi, Fathi Sorour and Safwat el-Sherif not been put on trial? Why did the attorney general not investigate the 24 complaints filed by workers in the civil aviation sector against Ahmed Shafik for the misuse of state funds?

During Ahmed Shafik’s tenure as prime minister, why did he not order the attorney general to investigate a single officer for the killing of civilians? And after the resignation of Shafik, why did the state prosecution service order the release of those officers accused of carrying out killings as part of their job? Does their release not enable them to destroy any incriminating evidence? What is the point of putting the guilty on trial if justice is carried out selectively, allowing people to try others according to incomprehensible standards?

Instead of electing a constituent assembly to issue a new constitution that expresses the will of the people and transitions Egypt to democracy, we have been surprised to see Hosni Mubarak’s suggestion to make a limited constitutional amendment carried out by a committee selected according to some arcane criteria. This was followed by a hasty referendum whose subject matter people were not empowered to understand and which was organised in such a manner that citizens could only vote for or against all the amendments, with the NDP making an alliance for the first time with the Muslim Brotherhood to support the amendments.

The Brotherhood has shown again that they are ready to change their political stance according to their interests, and after they collected thousands of signatures in support of ElBaradei⁸ they turned against him and formed an alliance with the NDP instead. It would seem that the principles of Islam, as far as the Brotherhood is concerned, were completely set aside during the elections. In order to achieve power, the Brotherhood is prepared to do anything, from accusing their opponents of being foreign agents and infidels to buying votes by handing out free sugar and oil. The Brotherhood’s strong showing, while not representing their true size in Egypt, does the counter-revolution a great service. On the one hand it leads to a greater polarisation of Egyptians against a religious backdrop, and it destroys the national unity created by the revolution, and on the other hand it confirms to those who sympathise with the revolution in the West that Hosni Mubarak was the last bulwark against extremists.

Those like me who are disturbed by the warmth displayed by the media towards Aboud al-Zamar⁹ – who is, after all, a murderer – must understand that the image of Aboud al-Zamar is of ultimate value to the counter-revolution. When he sits behind the cameras with his bushy beard, reminiscent of Osama bin Laden, and states that it is legitimate to shed blood in the name of religion, millions of foreigners, who have sympathised with our revolution, will be moved to abort the revoltuion in order to protect Egypt from extremists.

The results of the referendum have been declared in favour of the amendments to the constitution. Despite my joy at the high turnout of voters, and despite my full respect for the choice of the electorate, I must also state that the manner and the speed of this process of transition goes against the interests of the revolution and Egypt itself. If the organisers truly want to be of service to democratic change then they must change the plurality voting system which leads to the division of seats between members of the NDP and the Muslim Brotherhood. It is unacceptable that these two parties be solely responsible for drafting the constitution, when it was the Egyptian people that shed so much blood for the revolution.

We must listen to the professors of law, the majority of whom have stated that drafting a constitution by means of a parliament elected in this manner does not represent the will of the Egyptian people. The great Egyptian revolution will not turn into another wasted opportunity, even if decisions continue to be forced upon us in this way. No one, no matter how powerful, can prevent the Egyptian people – who were able to bring down Hosni Mubarak – from achieving their freedom.

Democracy is the answer.

RH

What Did the Monkey Say to the Lion?

29 March 2011

It was a beautiful forest, vast and lush. The animals lived together happily and peacefully until the elephant and the lion took control. The elephant proclaimed himself king of the forest, and the lion its loyal guard. The lion carried out his duties faithfully and competently; all night long he would roam the areas just beyond the forest in search of intruders. If he came across any unwelcome predators, he would bravely pounce on them before they could reach the animals of the forest and do them harm. For this reason, the animals living in the forest held the lion in great esteem and respected him.

On the other hand, however, the elephant was corrupt and oppressive. He gathered two groups of followers around himself: the pigs and the wolves. The pigs stole food from the other animals, and they were so filthy that nowhere in the forest was free from their foul smell. Then there were the wolves; they terrorised the other animals and abused those that asked for fair treatment. How many animals were killed in cold blood by the wolves, simply for objecting to the actions of King Elephant!

The animals endured the oppression of the king for many long years until they could take no more. One day they rose up against the elephant and a great battle took place – the like of which had never been seen in the forest. The wolves fought fiercely in defence of their king, but with astonishing bravery, the other animals rushed into the battle, wave after wave. They fought with desperation in order to liberate the forest from oppression. The wolves killed dozens of the animals but this only increased their determination to triumph. After two days of bitter fighting the wolves became exhausted and fled, with the pigs following close behind. The animal revolutionaries surrounded the elephant king who now spoke with a voice that trembled with fear: What do you intend to do with me?

The giraffe answered him defiantly: Justice demands that we put you to death for the brutal crimes that you have committed. However, we do not want to stain the purity of our revolution with your blood. We want you to leave the forest and never return.

The elephant answered: But without me the forest will descend into chaos.

No, it is you who brought disorder to the forest through your oppression and iniquity, said the giraffe. Then he ordered the elephant into exile, shouting: Leave! Leave!

From every direction, the angry voices of all the other animals chimed in and chanted: Leave! Leave!

Realising that the game was up, the old elephant asked the animals to let him have an hour’s respite to put his affairs in order before leaving. The animals agreed to this but they kept a close eye on him throughout because they knew that he was treacherous by nature. At one point, however, the elephant and the lion went behind a tree, far away from the animals. When they returned the elephant lifted up his trunk and proclaimed: From now on the lion shall be responsible for ruling the forest in my place.

At this, the animals cheered with joy, because they loved the lion and had faith in his courage and integrity. The lion, however, roared and said: I thank you, but I cannot rule the forest and continue to be its loyal guard at the same time. I will take over as its ruler for the period of a week or two until you find a new king.

The animals were happy with this and cheered in agreement, then they turned again to the elephant and renewed their chanting: Leave! Leave!

The elephant acquiesced. He flapped his large ears, lowered his trunk, turned and left the forest that he had plundered and oppressed. The animals followed him until he reached the land beyond the river. Once out of sight, they returned to the forest and celebrated their freedom. Each species of animal expressed its joy in its own particular way: the deer leaped around with beautiful grace, the monkeys shouted as they swung from tree to tree, the zebras brayed harshly and exuberantly, and the wild rabbits did somersaults.

A state of bliss prevailed for several days, during which the animals felt as though they were breathing clean air for the first time. The future seemed bright and the animals felt optimistic that they could face any problems they might now encounter. However, the animals could not decide who should be the new king of the forest. Should it be the old fox, renowned for his shrewdness and life experience? Should it be the brave and gentle giraffe that led them in the revolution? Although the debate was heated, all of the animals felt proud that they were taking part in choosing the new king. After a week had passed, however, something happened that spoiled the good mood: the foul smell of the pigs returned to the forest. The animals were greatly troubled by this and rushed to the lion to ask for his help: O great lion, we can smell the foul stench of the pigs; they must have returned to the forest to steal our food.

The lion gave them a blank look and said: Don’t worry, I will do what needs to be done.

The animals took leave of the lion, certain that he would do his upmost to protect them from the pigs. However, the stench of the pigs grew stronger each day and the animals were worried that they had entered the forest in even greater numbers. As they were trying to get to grips with this unsettling development, they discovered that the wolves had also returned to the forest during the night and wreaked havoc. They had devoured a large number of the wild rabbits and killed a zebra that had tried to fight them off. They had also savaged a beautiful, young gazelle that later died from her wounds. The animals rushed back to the lion to again ask him for his help. He gave them the same blank look and said: Go back and I will do what needs to be done.

The giraffe responded to this gently and politely, saying: But this is what you said to us before, O great lion. Why do you not stop the wolves from entering the forest? Why do you not protect us when we are sleeping like you always did before?

The lion roared in annoyance and then raising his voice threateningly he said: Did you not understand what I said? I told you that I will do what needs to be done. Now go!

The animals felt distressed as they left him. With his hoarse voice the zebra said: What was the point of our revolution? The foul smell of the pigs has returned and the wolves continue to attack and kill us – everything is just as it was before we deposed the elephant.

The voice of the giraffe stammered with emotion as he answered, saying: I don’t understand: the lion could easily do away with the pigs and the wolves. Why does he let them come into the forest?

The fox forced a smile and said bitterly: Listen everyone, it seems as though we have been duped; we were naive to believe that the lion would take a stand with us against the despotic elephant.

An old monkey answered him, saying: Don’t be so hasty. Remember that the lion stood by our side and helped us to get rid of the elephant.

The giraffe stretched his neck and said: Yes, the lion has a strong code of honour. He is on the side of good.

The fox smiled again, and with a faltering voice, he said: There is no doubt that the lion is honourable; however, he is also a close friend of the deposed elephant. A heavy silence prevailed after these words were spoken. The fox continued: Listen everyone, I have an idea that will help us get to the bottom of all this. The animals all looked at him expectantly. If the lion does indeed still fraternise with the elephant then he must go and meet him during the night. One of us can follow him in order to find out what is going on.

Hearing this, the animals cheered with approval. A young monkey said excitedly: Fox, I wish to be entrusted this task. I will observe the lion during the night.

The fox regarded him cautiously and said: Monkey, you are well suited to carry out this task because of your cleverness and your ability to move quickly. However, in all honesty, I fear your recklessness; you often act without thinking about the consequences.

The monkey screeched and twice jumped into the air, then he said: Fox, give me a chance to do this and I promise that I will act wisely.

That evening, the monkey crouched on the branch of a high tree at the edge of the forest. He watched as the lion carried out his usual patrol of the area. Suddenly, the pigs and the wolves appeared. His heart felt heavy as he watched the lion allow them to enter the forest; the lion remained motionless, simply looking on as they went in. From the top of his tree, the monkey continued to observe the lion as he started to move out of view. With great skill the monkey swung from one tree to another so as to keep the lion in his sight. After some time, he saw the lion greeting the deposed elephant – a meeting that appeared to have been pre-arranged. The monkey paid close attention and listened attentively to the conversation between the two.

The next day the animals went again to complain to the lion that the stench of the pigs had become unbearable and that the wolves had been getting into the forest. The lion yawned and said calmly: I will handle this matter.

At this moment the monkey hastened to speak: Honoured lion, I know that you have no intention of doing anything to keep the pigs and the wolves out of the forest.

The lion looked closely at the monkey, then he let out a terrifying roar, and bellowed: How dare you speak to me in this manner!

A heavy silence fell over the animals, but then the monkey jumped in the air – as was his custom when agitated – and said: Lion, I saw you meet with the deposed elephant and I heard what you said to each other.

The lion was visibly shocked by the monkey’s revelations. He said: Have you become so insolent that you now spy on me?

Lion, forgive me, I overheard you by chance, said the monkey.

The lion roared and said: Tell me what it is that you all want then.

The monkey responded: Can I ask you why you continue to meet with the elephant in spite of all the crimes that he committed against us?

The elephant is my friend and mentor; I hold him in great esteem, said the lion.

Calmly the fox asked: Are you with the elephant or with us?

I am with you, of course – but also with the elephant.

You cannot be on the side of the oppressor and the oppressed at the same time, answered the fox.

The other animals began to despair, and all were too afraid to speak until the monkey plucked up the courage and said: Lion, we animals love and respect you, and we know that you are upright and honourable. If keeping ties with the deposed elephant means doing what is wrong, then you must change your loyalties and stand for what is right – this is what we expect of you. We do not want to suffer the elephant’s wickedness; all we want is to live our lives freely. Dozens of our friends sacrificed their lives for the revolution, in order to put an end to oppression. O great lion, we know how much you love the forest and how you fight to protect it. All we want is for you to do what is right. We will not leave from here until you pledge to protect us from the pigs and wolves.

The animals cheered when the monkey had finished his speech. The lion, however, was quiet and looked to be in deep thought. Then he roared loudly, and pronounced his final decision:

Democracy is the answer.

AB

Masters of Egypt

5 April 2011

Some days ago, scores of police officers in Alexandria staged a sit-in to protest the trial of three of their colleagues for the killing of demonstrators. The same thing took place in a number of governorates across Egypt with 48 police officers in Suez tendering their resignations.

Since the start of the revolution, more than 820 Egyptians have been killed and 1,200 have been blinded by rubber bullets, not to mention the thousands who have disappeared and whose families have no idea whether they are dead or in unknown places of detention. These disastrous human losses did not happen during a war against foreign enemies but were acts committed by Egyptian police officers against the persons of Egyptian citizens like them. One police officer, by the name of Wael al-Koumy from Alexandria, has been accused of personally killing 37 people.

Why then are the police officers angry at the trial of their colleagues for killing demonstrators? How would these officers feel if their own sons and daughters had been beaten or killed? And why are they so dismissive of the relatives’ demands for justice? The answer to these questions requires an understanding of the culture in which the police officers of the Mubarak regime were educated.

In a video that went viral on the internet, the former director of security of the Buhaira Governorate tells his officers: We are the chosen few who protect the Egyptian people. We are their masters. If anyone stretches out their hand against their master, what will their reward be?

We’ll cut off their hand! the officers reply as one.

This sad exchange illustrates the attitude of the police in the Mubarak era. A police officer felt superior to ordinary citizens, no matter their social standing or education. They considered themselves above the law and able to do whatever they wanted to the Egyptian people. They could beat them, arrest them and torture them to death without the threat of serious repercussions.

To generalise would be misleading and wrong, because there are thousands of police officers that carry out their duty devotedly under difficult conditions and for what is hardly a living wage. However, many officers from the criminal investigation and the security branches of the police carried out horrendous crimes against the Egyptian people, some of which have been documented in local and international reports. We must then ask ourselves how a police officer can change from being a guardian of the law to being outside of it? What makes a motivated and intelligent individual turn into a corrupt and arrogant police officer that beats and tortures people? Psychological studies suggest that any individual, no matter how decent and kind, can turn into a killer after going through a repressive security-training institution as a result of the following:

1. They find that blind obedience to orders represents the prevailing system in the police station and quickly become compliant and ready to carry out any order no matter how savage.

2. They find themselves in a group of colleagues who practice brutality as a matter of course and they fall in with their behaviour through fear of ridicule or rejection.

3. They persuade themselves that the victims are enemies of the state, saboteurs or agents of foreign powers. They view their crimes as part of their duty to protect the nation.

This justification of brutality can help us to understand the psychological crises experienced by many police officers after the revolution. The absence of the police and the failure of its officers to maintain security may be a result of a plot by elements of the old regime in order to foment chaos, but it also reflects the attitude of many police officers post-revolution that have refused to go back to work. Many officers do not want to work because they feel demeaned, betrayed and wronged. The revolution has turned their world upside down as it challenges everything that they have been taught. For example, torture will no longer be regarded as necessary for the protection of the state as the revolution considers it to be a shameful crime whose perpetrators should be brought to justice. This crisis of confidence is not in the interest of Egypt or of the revolution. Some officers have arrested and tortured people they believed to be saboteurs and [foreign] agents, but those very saboteurs are winning and bringing down the regime of Hosni Mubarak.

Some days ago Habib el-Adly was in court facing charges of corruption, and there was unprecedented security precautions taken to protect him. Not only were there armoured cars, guards and central security soldiers, but also inside the building itself police officers formed a human wall to prevent journalists getting any pictures of el-Adly in the courtroom cage. The safety of the murderous Habib el-Adly was clearly more important to those officers than justice for their own country.

On the same day, at a football match between Zamalek and the Tunisian Club Africain, according to eyewitnesses, the police failed to secure the ground and allowed scores of hooligans to enter armed with sticks and knives. The police officers then opened the gates so that the crowds could storm the pitch and attack the players. A video recording of the incident shows that the police officers on the pitch did absolutely nothing to deter the hooligans.

The contrast between the behaviour of the police officers in those two situations is telling. Some police officers still hold Habib el-Adly in high esteem regardless of the crimes he has committed against the Egyptian people. They refused to allow journalists to take pictures of el-Adly in the courtroom cage because they consider any stain on his image to be a blow to their own self-esteem. At the same time, many police officers are determined to bring down the revolution by neglecting their duty and creating chaos in the streets so that Egyptians hanker for the days of Mubarak.

The legacy of Hosni Mubarak and his regime is a country beset by problems, including the soured relationship between the Egyptian people and the police. In order to reconcile this relationship there must be immediate and fair trials of the police officers, regardless of rank and status, that were involved in the torture and killing of demonstrators. Only then will the Egyptian people know that those