On the State of Egypt (6 page)

The approach ElBaradei advocates deems democratic reform to be the only way toward economic reform and achieving social justice. It is truly gladdening that Dr. ElBaradei’s popularity is growing daily in a manner without precedent. Tens of thousands of Egyptians have declared they support ElBaradei and have full trust in him, and the signature campaign will continue until a million Egyptians have signed. Then we have to move to the confrontation stage. It’s no longer any use begging for our rights by appealing to the regime, because it will not listen. But if a million Egyptians went out to the streets in protest or announced a general strike, if that happened, even once, the regime would immediately heed the people’s demands. Change, as far as it goes, is possible and imminent, but there is a price we have to pay for it. We will not triumph in the battle for change unless we summon up our resolve to recover our rights, whatever the sacrifices might be. It’s the only way to evict Battista.

Democracy is the solution.

February 28, 2010

What Do Egyptians Expect from ElBaradei?

T
he political system in Egypt is facing a veritable crisis because President Mubarak (to whom we wish a speedy recovery) may have to retire at any moment and because the regime, despite its great efforts to market Gamal Mubarak, has completely failed to convince Egyptians that the son is worthy of the presidency. On top of that, most Egyptians fundamentally reject the idea of hereditary succession, whether for Gamal Mubarak or anyone else, and insist on their natural right to choose their rulers. At the same time Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei has succeeded in portraying himself as a real leader for Egyptians in the battle for change. The broad popular support ElBaradei now enjoys is a rare political phenomenon seen only a few times in our history, with Saad Zaghloul, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Mustafa al-Nahhas. Egyptians from various intellectual and political trends have come together in support of ElBaradei—Islamists, Copts, socialists, liberals, Nasserists, Wafdists, and, most important of all, millions of ordinary Egyptians who have seen in ElBaradei a leader who embodies their dreams of justice and freedom. Given the crisis in the system and the widespread support for ElBaradei, it might be useful for us to ask what Egyptians expect from ElBaradei. In brief the answer is as follows:

First, Dr. ElBaradei held a senior international position as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and such people do not stop working when they retire from so high a position. As soon as they leave their posts they receive a barrage of invitations to give lectures and take part in various international activities. Egyptians expect that Dr. ElBaradei will eventually settle in Egypt and give priority to leading a national campaign, because a leader who defends the rights of the nation must always remain on the field of battle. I trust that Dr. ElBaradei will remember what Mustafa al-Nahhas did when he took over the leadership of the Wafd Party in 1927. At the time he was a big well-known lawyer but as soon as he became party leader he withdrew from legal practice, closed his office, and made his famous remark: “Today I have become an advocate for the whole nation, so I can no longer defend individuals in court.”

Second, before the appearance of ElBaradei several national movements for change had sprung up, the most important of which was the Kefaya movement, which deserves most of the credit for breaking the barrier of fear for Egyptians. The Kefaya members who defied the emergency law, who were hit on the head by riot police, and who put up with detention and torture are the ones who won back for the whole nation the right to demonstrate and go on strike. They are the true fathers of the protest movements that have now proliferated from one end of Egypt to the other, although all movements for change in Egypt, including the Kefaya movement, have suffered from having weak links with the broad masses of Egyptians. But in ElBaradei’s case the opposite has happened. ElBaradei’s popularity began in the street and then moved to the elite. The people who made ElBaradei popular are not big intellectuals and politicians, but the tens of thousands of ordinary Egyptians who like him and trust him. This widespread popular support for ElBaradei imposes on him an obligation to remain always among the people. Dr. ElBaradei’s entourage now includes some of the best and most sincere Egyptian nationalists, but the door must remain open to all. Dr. ElBaradei has become a leader for all Egyptians, whatever their political inclination, so any Egyptian has the right to meet Dr. ElBaradei and convey his or her ideas to him and Dr. ElBaradei has a duty to listen. Dr. ElBaradei’s success in his enormous task will always remain dependent on keeping in touch with ordinary simple people.

Third, by announcing the formation of the National Association for Change, Dr. ElBaradei made a shrewd political move, and I expect that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Egyptians will join this association, though it is not yet open for membership. People in Egypt and abroad want to join ElBaradei but they do not know what to do. They must be given more of a chance to take part, beyond writing the endorsements now being collected. The broad support ElBaradei enjoys has gathered around him a group of the best minds and talents in Egypt, and they are all looking forward to the moment when they will be called on to perform any mission for the sake of their country. We expect Dr. ElBaradei, as soon as he returns from abroad, quickly to choose a headquarters for the association, start enrolling members, and set up specialist committees to take advantage of all this talent in order to achieve the reform we all desire.

Fourth, we expect Dr. ElBaradei to be ready for violent confrontation with the current regime. ElBaradei has gone beyond the role of political reformer to the role of political leader, and it would be natural for the despotic regime to defend its privileges with great ferocity. So there is no point in avoiding or postponing confrontation because it is inevitable. It has already started: as in the last week one of ElBaradei’s supporters, Dr. Taha Abdel Tawab, was summoned to the State Security Prosecution headquarters in the province of Fayoum, where he was stripped, beaten, tortured, and humiliated in a horrendous and inhumane manner. This crime, which takes place daily in State Security offices, takes on new significance this time. It is a message from the regime to those who demand change that no one is immune from abuse by the authorities even if they enjoy a high position in society. Dr. ElBaradei is aware of that and when he was in Korea he issued a press statement strongly condemning the assault on Dr. Taha Abdel Tawab and declaring his full solidarity. But this horrendous incident is just the beginning of the war against ElBaradei, a war in which the regime will use every weapon, legitimate and illegitimate, in order to eliminate Egyptians’ hopes of freedom. We expect Dr. ElBaradei to use his extensive experience of international law to prosecute the executioners who detain the innocent and use torture, and bring them to trial before international courts.

Fifth, from the start Dr. ElBaradei has firmly refused to be a presidential candidate through one of the recognized political parties. He has also refused to submit an application to form a new party to the Parties Committee. Last week news leaked about a secret deal between the regime, the Tagammu and Wafd Parties, and the Muslim Brotherhood by which they would refrain from supporting ElBaradei in exchange for some seats in the People’s Assembly in the next rigged elections. This unfortunate deal shows the level to which some politicians in Egypt have sunk, but it equally proves to us how wise and far-sighted ElBaradei was when he refused to deal with them. This has enabled him to retain his clean image among the public, away from the corruption of the regime and of those who pretend to oppose it while in secret colluding with the regime against the rights of the people. Egyptians look forward to Dr. ElBaradei sticking to his principled position, rejecting any kind of negotiation or compromises. What Egyptians are asking for is not a limited adjustment in policies but comprehensive, radical reform. Every Egyptian who signs an endorsement for ElBaradei and for changing the constitution is at the same time saying he or she is withdrawing confidence from the current system. So there is no point in appeals and in composing petitions, because rights are not granted but won. Our ability to bring about justice is always tied to our willingness to make sacrifices for its sake. A hundred eloquent petitions to the regime will not convince officials of the virtues of democracy, but if a million demonstrators went out on the streets … only then would the regime find itself finally forced to answer demands for reform.

While all Egypt awaits the return of Dr. ElBaradei from his trip abroad, I thought it my duty to convey to him what is going through the minds of the Egyptians who love him, have pinned great hopes on him, and are fully confident—as I am—that Mohamed ElBaradei will never let them down.

Democracy is the solution.

March 15, 2010

When Will President Mubarak Grasp This Truth?

M
ohamed Reza Pahlavi, the late shah of Iran, ruled the country from 1941 until 1979 and had close ties to British and United States intelligence, to whom he owed his restoration to the throne after his prime minister, nationalist leader Mohamed Mosaddegh, forced him into exile in 1953. The shah ruled through violent repression of his opponents, and the Iranian secret police, SAVAK, was responsible for killing or torturing hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the years before the Iranian revolution in 1979. By any impartial and objective standards, the shah of Iran was a vicious dictator whose hands were stained with the blood of Iranians, and a pawn, in the literal sense of the word, of the United States and the West. Two years ago I met his widow, Farah Pahlavi, at the home of some mutual friends in Cairo. I was impressed by her open, pleasant, and modest personality and struck by her sharp intelligence and superior education. We had a long talk and she told me she was writing her memoirs, and promised to give me a copy when they came out. She did send me a copy recently, published by al-Shorouk. When I started reading them, I was taken aback to discover that the former empress of Iran sees the late shah as a national hero who brought great benefits to Iran, and that she views the Iranian revolution as just a conspiracy by a bunch of riffraff and malcontents. Describing the last moments before the revolution forced her and her husband to leave Iran, she writes, “We were leaving with heads held high, sure of having worked ceaselessly for the benefit of the country. And if we had made mistakes, at least we had never thought of anything but the general good.” I was surprised at what she said and wondered how this cultured and intelligent woman could ignore or overlook the horrendous crimes the shah committed against his country. It may be that a wife’s love for her husband always blinds her to his faults, but here we are not talking about personal flaws but horrific crimes against millions of Iranians. It is even stranger that the memoirs are full of indications that the shah of Iran himself believed that he had done his country great favors, sacrificing his comfort and his life for the sake of the country.

That leads to the question: How do autocratic rulers in general see themselves? History teaches us that all autocratic rulers consider themselves great heroes and live in such a state of perpetual self-delusion that they are able to justify all their misconduct and even the crimes they perpetrate. This constant dissociation between the autocratic ruler and what happens in reality is a phenomenon that has been carefully described in international literature and is known as ‘dictator’s solitude.’ The dictator lives in complete isolation from the lives of his compatriots and does not know what is really happening in his country. After he has been in power for years, a group of friends and rich relatives forms around him and their extravagant lifestyle keeps them apart from the way of life of ordinary people, and so the dictator loses any awareness of the poor and has absolutely no contact with real life. An image of it is conveyed to him in reports by various security agencies, but these agencies always think it is in their interest to put a gloss on the bleak reality to avoid angering the dictator. They often compete with each other for the trust of the dictator and write conflicting reports. Sometimes they make up imaginary conspiracies they claim to have thwarted in order to convince the ruler of their importance. On top of that, the ministers who work with the dictator are not elected and hence have no interest in what people think of them. Their only concern is to retain the approval of the ruler who appointed them and who can dismiss them at any moment. They never confront the ruler with the truth, but always tell him what he would like to hear. In an autocratic system the ministers rarely venture to express their real opinions; they merely await the president’s instructions and they consider that whatever the president does or says or even thinks is the height of wisdom, courage, and greatness.

In this way the dictator becomes completely isolated from reality until one day he wakes up when disaster befalls the country or a revolution overthrows him. ‘Dictator’s solitude’ is a phenomenon that recurs through history and it is one of the worst defects of an autocratic system. When the French revolution broke out in 1789 and mobs, angry and hungry, surrounded the palace of Versailles, Queen Marie Antoinette of France allegedly asked why they were demonstrating. When one of her aides told her they were angry because they could not find bread, the queen is said to have replied in surprise: “Let them eat cake.” This famous remark attributed to Marie Antoinette shows how isolated an autocratic ruler can become. Marie Antoinette was a strong and intelligent woman and in fact was the real power behind the decisions taken by her husband, King Louis XVI, but after years of autocracy she was living in a different and remote world.