On the State of Egypt (10 page)

The way the regime handled the international press reports on the health of President Mubarak reveals the real crisis in the concept of government in Egypt, because yet again the regime has proved that it does not see Egyptians as citizens but as subjects who have never had the right to choose their rulers freely and so do not have the right to know whether President Mubarak is ill or if he intends to stay in office or retire or even what will happen if the president leaves office for any reason. In the eyes of the despotic regime, the Egyptian people do not deserve to choose, to ask, or to know. This distorted concept of government does not stem from the nature of the ruler as much as from the nature of the system. The way he came to office imposes on the ruler a certain vision and behavior while he is in office. When and only when Egyptians win back their natural right to choose their rulers, the ruler will change from being a unique legend into being merely a public servant to the people, and Egyptians will have the right to precise and lucid information about his health. That’s when Egypt will rise and start its future.

Democracy is the solution.

August 3, 2010

Why Don’t Egyptians Take Part in Elections?

W
hen Egyptians rose up in 1919 against the British occupation, and nationalist leader Saad Zaghloul went to Paris to submit the demands of the Egyptian nation to the peace conference that followed the First World War, the British government reacted with a skillful maneuver: sending a fact-finding committee to Egypt under Colonial Secretary Lord Milner. But Egyptians quickly saw through the trick and realized that to have any dealings with the Milner Commission would undermine the credibility of Saad Zaghloul as a leader with a mandate from the Egyptian people. When the commission arrived in Cairo, it found a complete boycott awaiting it. Not a single Egyptian politician agreed to cooperate with the commission and the prime minister of the time, Mohamed Said Pasha, had to resign to avoid having to deal with Lord Milner. The lord is said to have lost his way in the streets of Cairo one day and when his driver asked a passerby for directions, the man replied, “Tell your Englishman to ask Saad Zaghloul Pasha in Paris.” As a result of this national consensus, the Milner Commission failed in its task and the British government had to bow to the will of Egyptians and negotiate directly with Saad Zaghloul.

You will find this intense political consciousness among the Egyptian people on every page of Egypt’s history, without exception. The intellectuals and politicians analyze everything based on theories and preconceived ideas, talk much, and take part in complex debates in which they always disagree, whereas ordinary people, even if they are less well educated, often have a sound political instinct that gives them shrewd insight into everything that happens, and they adopt the correct position with amazing ease. Forty years after the death of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, we are still debating his mistakes and his achievements, whereas the Egyptian people gave their opinion when Abdel Nasser died and millions of Egyptians came out to attend his funeral. These simple people who sobbed like children in mourning for Abdel Nasser were well aware of all his mistakes and knew that he was responsible for a cruel defeat for Egypt and the Arab nation, but they also understood that he was a great leader with a rare commitment to his principles and that he had done his best and devoted his life to his country. When we intellectuals face a confusion of choices we must always listen to the people. Ordinary Egyptians are by no means rabble or riffraff who do not know their own best interests, as Egyptian officials say. On the contrary, they usually have an infallible compass by which they determine the correct political position. Many intellectuals may stray from the nationalist path and become accessories and propagandists for the despotic regime, and we should bear in mind that intellectuals who lose their way always start by despising the people. We can understand our country only if we understand the people, and we cannot understand the people unless we respect their abilities and their way of thinking, listen to their opinions and experiences, and deal with them not as creatures of deficient intelligence and competence who need us as mentors but as people who have experience of life and from whom we should learn.

In a few weeks parliamentary elections will begin and the regime has refused to provide any guarantees that the elections will be fair. It has refused to repeal the emergency law or to purge the electoral registers of the names of dead people (who always vote for the ruling party), and it has rejected judicial supervision and even international monitoring. All the indications confirm that the next elections will be rigged, like all previous elections. In such circumstances Egyptians decide to boycott elections and despite the regime’s desperate efforts the turnout is never more than 10 percent of the electorate. The question here is: Why don’t Egyptians go to the polls? In fact, when Egyptians boycott elections, it is not at all a sign of passivity, as the regime’s propagandists repeatedly say. It is a conscious decision, effective and sound. If the elections are rigged and it is impossible to prevent electoral fraud, then boycotting them is the right choice, because it prevents the regime from claiming that it represents the people it rules. That’s why the regime is so vociferous in urging Egyptians to take part in the coming elections. The scenario has been written and produced and all the roles have been assigned. All they need is a cast of extras for the show to begin. The Egyptian people are not at all passive; they have grown wise from experience accumulated over many centuries.

The evidence for this is that Egyptians are keen to take part in any credible elections. Last year I went to vote in the elections at the sports club I belong to and found crowds of club members who had come on their day off to stand in long lines to elect new board members. I had an idea and started asking the club members if they voted in parliamentary or presidential elections. Most of those I asked looked at me with scorn and said they never took part in government elections because they are rigged, and some of them said they were not registered to vote in the first place. The truth is as clear as the sun in Egypt: a despotic and oppressive regime, which has failed and which has monopolized power for thirty years by means of repression and fraud until Egypt has hit rock bottom in all spheres of life, is asking people to take part in rigged elections in order to obtain fraudulent and superficial legitimacy. So boycotting the coming elections is the proper position. Simple Egyptians will boycott the elections because they do not want official posts; they do not dream of becoming members of parliament, they do not have investments they are frightened of losing, and they do not have friendly relations with the security agencies.

Some weeks ago we were reading in the newspapers about debates in the political parties over whether to boycott the elections or take part. The question to ask here is: Is there a single guarantee that real elections will take place? Has the regime given any commitment not to rig them and, even if it did, has this regime ever met any of its commitments? What’s the point of any party going into elections when it knows in advance they will be rigged? They say they will take part in the elections in order to put the government to shame, but hasn’t the government been shamed enough times already? Besides, what are these parties and what have they done in recent decades for the millions of poor people? What have the parties done to prevent torture, repression, and corruption? The answer is zilch, nothing. Most of these parties are paper puppets on strings held by the regime. Some of the party leaders cooperate with the security agencies and some of them are such favorites of the regime (which they claim to oppose) that they are appointed members of the upper house of parliament. So their position is worthless if they take part in rigged elections in return for one or two seats in a parliament that has lost legitimacy.

It would be truly regrettable if the Muslim Brotherhood were implicated in taking part in rigged elections. It seems that the Brotherhood is destined never to learn from its mistakes. Anyone who reads the history of the Brotherhood will be amazed at the vast difference between its nationalist positions against foreign occupation and its attitudes toward despotism. The Brotherhood played an honorable and important role in the Palestine war of 1948, led the Egyptian resistance against the British in the Suez Canal towns in 1951, and set a fine example of sacrifice and courage. But, sadly, in most of its positions on domestic matters the Brotherhood has put the organization’s interests before the interests of the nation and has invariably stood on the side of despotism. It supported King Farouk and Prime Minister Ismail Sidki, the butcher of the people. It backed Abdel Nasser when he abolished parliamentary life. It supported President Anwar Sadat and overlooked his repressive measures. When it comes to the possibility of President Hosni Mubarak passing the presidency to his son, Gamal, some Muslim Brothers have made vague and ambiguous statements that can be read in conflicting ways. If the Brotherhood does take part in the coming elections, it will be giving this iniquitous regime a fraudulent legitimacy it desperately needs and will play the role of the wretched extra in a drama for which all Egyptians will pay the price.

Those who advocate for taking part in the elections fall into three groups: they are either simpletons who do not understand what is happening around them, people seeking office at any price, or stooges who receive their instructions from the regime and have to carry them out. Boycotting the coming elections is the correct position, which the Egyptian people will adopt, and so anyone who does take part will be acting in defiance of the will of the nation. When Egypt has real elections we will all take part, but for now, let’s leave them to act out their silly and boring drama alone, without extras.

Democracy is the solution.

September 9, 2010

THE PEOPLE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Our Advice to the Butcher

M
y family used to have an empty apartment in Mawardi Street in Sayyida Zeinab and I used to stay there to be alone while studying for exams at university. In that apartment I saw extraordinary vignettes of working-class Egyptian life.

Opposite us, on the second floor of a dilapidated old building, lived a butcher by the name of Mr. Galal, a stocky man with a fierce temper. He was fond of alcohol and every night he would drink the cheapest and deadliest varieties available. When he was drunk, he turned into a raging bull and as soon as he arrived home toward dawn everyone in the street would wake up to the screams of his wife calling out for help as he beat her mercilessly. Some of the residents, including me, sympathized with the poor woman and we would stand on the pavement opposite where we could see Mr. Galal’s room, shouting out good advice: “Don’t let the devil tempt you, Mr. Galal!” “It’s best to make peace, folks.”

The leader in these mediation attempts was “Uncle” Awad, the grain merchant, a thin man of more than seventy who was also a man of considerable wisdom and courage. One night Galal the butcher was arguing as usual with his wife, but this time the argument escalated and suddenly we saw him bring out a large knife. The sight of it glinting alarmed us as we stood on the pavement opposite, watching and trying to calm the man down. His wife’s cries broke the silence of the night: “Save me, people. He’s going to kill me.” Mr. Galal growled back, “I’ll finish you off. Say your last prayers.”

At this point Awad the grain merchant, with us behind him, rushed upstairs to the butcher’s apartment and began to pound on the door with such violence and insistence that in the end Mr. Galal had to come and open the door for us. We rushed inside, pulled the woman away from him, formed a circle around him with our bodies, and grabbed the knife from him. We started to calm him down and did not leave until we had reconciled the couple.

The next day the butcher came to “Uncle” Awad to complain. “Do you think it’s right to come between a man and his wife?” he asked.

“Of course it is, if he’s going to kill her,” Awad replied at once.

“Even if I kill her, she’s my wife and I can do what I like with her.”

“Of course not. How can you kill her and say you can do what you like?”

“I don’t allow anyone to interfere in my household.”

At that point Awad looked at the butcher long and hard, then calmly said, “If you don’t want anyone interfering in your household then you should show some self-respect.”

I remembered this incident while I was following the case of Ayman Nour, the politician who challenged President Mubarak in the 2005 elections. I don’t know the man personally, and I disagree with him on many things, but I defend his rights as a citizen. The government allowed him to set up the Ghad Party, but as soon as the party began its political activity by calling for constitutional amendments and presidential elections with more than one candidate, the government turned on it. Ayman Nour’s parliamentary immunity was lifted in ten minutes, he was detained, beaten, and humiliated, his wife was threatened with prosecution on trumped-up immorality charges if she defended him, and the government newspapers suddenly discovered that Ayman Nour was the worst person in Egypt and in the Arab world, guilty of every possible vice. The sycophantic scribes said that even his doctorate was a worthless fake. What was behind this volte-face? The government said it was prosecuting Ayman Nour because he submitted forged signatures when he applied to set up his political party, but this is an accusation that would not convince a young child. The head of a political party is not such a forensic expert that he can tell with his naked eye if the stamps on the documents are forged or genuine. Besides, by law a party needs fifty signatures to submit an application for official recognition, while Ayman Nour had collected five thousand signatures, so he had no need for forged signatures in the first place. It’s clear that the security agencies slipped in some forged signatures so they could use them to punish Ayman Nour if and when necessary. So the case against him is political, trumped up, and unjust, and it cannot be defended as legitimate. Naturally the western press treated the case as an example of how the Egyptian regime cracks down on its political opponents, at which point Egyptian officials made a great hue and cry, saying they categorically reject foreign interference. I have a few observations to make: