Third, the succession campaign may have succeeded internationally but inside Egypt it has been an abject failure, because Egyptians have never accepted the idea that Egypt should become a monarchical republic in which the son inherits his father’s throne. Add to that the fact that Gamal Mubarak himself, while I fully respect his person, may be a successful expert on banks and business management but he does not have any political talent or experience of any kind. Dozens of meetings and seminars have been held at which Gamal Mubarak has made speeches hailed by hypocritical members of the National Democratic Party and government writers, and Mr. Gamal Mubarak has been to villages and poor neighborhoods on numerous visits where some wretched people are chosen by State Security to have their pictures taken as they clap and cheer for him. None of these campaigns has convinced Egyptians that succession is a good idea. On the contrary, they have made Egyptians reject, condemn, and sometimes joke about the succession.
Fourth, conditions in Egypt have reached rock bottom in the full sense: poverty, disease, oppression, corruption, unemployment, lack of healthcare, and deteriorating education. Would anyone have imagined that Egyptians would end up drinking sewage water? The number of people who have died on the ferry that sank, on burning trains, and in collapsed buildings is more than the number who died in all the wars Egypt has fought. That’s why protests and strikes have proliferated in a way that Egypt has not seen since the revolution of 1952. The regime’s apologists say these protests do not reflect a real desire for radical reform but are aimed at achieving narrow professional demands. It escapes those people that most revolutions in history started out with protest movements that did not fundamentally seek revolution, because revolution is not a slogan or a prior objective but a stage a society goes through at a certain moment, when everything becomes liable to ignite. We are definitely at such a stage. All Egyptians know that the old status quo is no longer tenable or acceptable, and that change is inevitably on its way. Our national duty is to try to ensure peaceful democratic change, or else Egypt will face the danger of overwhelming chaos, which no one wants because it would set everything ablaze.
Perhaps it is this feeling of danger that drove the great writer Mohamed Hassanein Heikal to go public with his transitional project for democratic change. Although we might not agree with some of the details of Heikal’s project, it remains an excellent and objective starting point for real reform. On top of that, Egyptians have started to air the names of major figures whom they would like to see win the presidency, such as Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa, and Dr. Ahmed Zewail, all of them much more eligible than Gamal Mubarak to take on the presidency.
Lastly, a few days ago an Egyptian Campaign against Succession began, and as soon as it was announced, dozens of public figures, associations, and political parties joined it. I attended the opening meeting of this campaign and I felt optimistic at the enthusiasm and sincerity of those present. Hassan Nafaa was chosen as campaign coordinator—a respectable figure who brings great credibility to what we are doing. The members of this campaign are from diverse political trends, ranging from the Muslim Brotherhood, to socialists and Nasserists such as Abdel Halim Kandil, to liberals such as Ayman Nour and Osama al-Ghazali Harb. Despite our political and ideological differences, we have come together to perform our national duty. Our objectives are clear and legitimate: to prevent great Egypt from being passed from father to son as though it were a piece of land or a poultry farm, to restore the natural right of Egyptians to choose who rules them, and to bring about justice and freedom for Egyptians. Egypt has the potential to be a great state but this potential is thwarted by despotism. If democracy came about, Egypt would flourish within years through the work of its own people.
Dear reader, I invite you to join the Egyptian Campaign against Succession if you oppose injustice and despotism and look forward to the dignified life you and your children deserve. Come and join us. God willing, we will shape Egypt’s future without waiting for them to shape it their way to serve their own interests. The time has come for us to leave our seats in the auditorium and create the next scene ourselves.
Democracy is the solution.
November 1, 2009
Three Fallacious Arguments for Supporting Gamal Mubarak
Last week I wrote about the creation of the Egyptian Campaign against Succession, which aims to prevent President Mubarak from passing our country on to his son, Gamal, because Egypt is not a private estate or a poultry farm owned by someone, whatever his rank or position. Patriotic intellectuals, political parties, and organizations of various political and intellectual tendencies took part in setting up the campaign and all of them decided to do their best to ensure Egyptians regain their natural right to elect the next president of the republic through respectable elections.
As soon as the article appeared, dozens of messages flooded in to me from readers inside Egypt and abroad, all of them declaring their support for the campaign and asking how they can join it. I thank the readers, I appreciate their magnanimous enthusiasm, and I assure them that within a few days the campaign’s founding statement will come out and the procedures for joining will be announced. We expect this campaign to enjoy complete success, God willing, but we also understand that the path will not be easy, because the Egyptian regime has formed its own special organization to promote the succession, with journalists, politicians, media people, and law professors whose sole task is to prepare the Egyptian people to accept the idea of succession. No one respects these advocates of succession because they are hypocrites who have betrayed their professional and patriotic duties, preferring to serve their personal interests over the interests of the nation. Gamal Mubarak’s propagandists have only three fallacious arguments they repeat again and again. In brief, they run like this:
First, they say Mr. Gamal Mubarak is an urbane, well-educated young man and irreplaceable as the presidential candidate at this time. They also say that he will be the first civilian president of Egypt since the revolution of 1952, and that this is a step toward democracy. So why don’t we all agree on him, with the provision that he promises to serve only two presidential terms? We agree with them that Gamal Mubarak is indeed urbane, has had a fair amount of education, and speaks English fluently, but we don’t understand what all that has to do with the presidency. In Egypt there are hundreds of thousands of urbane people with advanced academic degrees who have good English and French. Are they all fit to be president? As for the idea that Gamal Mubarak is the only option, this is not true. Egypt has enough talent and intellectual power to serve ten countries together. As the pace of the succession process speeds up, Egyptians have started to think of major figures who would be suitable as president: Ahmed Zewail, Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa, Hesham al-Bastawisi, Zakaria Abdel Aziz, and many others. All of these are far preferable to Gamal Mubarak as president.
The argument that Gamal Mubarak will be a civilian president for Egypt is also based on a fallacy, because what defines the nature of a regime is not the profession of the president but the way in which he assumes power. There are autocratic military regimes that have put a civilian into the presidency, as happened in Syria with Bashar al-Asad, and alternatively there are democratic systems in which military men have left military service and stood for election and won, or have taken on ministerial or presidential jobs, like Colin Powell in the United States and Charles de Gaulle in France. If Gamal Mubarak gains the presidency of Egypt, this will not put an end to military rule but merely add to it another disaster. Autocracy will be combined with a hereditary system, and after that what will there be to stop Gamal Mubarak from granting the presidency to his son or nephew? Those who say that Gamal Mubarak will restrict himself to two presidential terms are trying to deceive the public and do not respect people’s intelligence. What will oblige Gamal Mubarak to give up power voluntarily? At the beginning of his time in office President Hosni Mubarak also promised to restrict himself to two terms but then he went back on his promise and has stayed i
n power for thirty straight years.
Second, Gamal Mubarak’s propagandists say that Egyptians are not interested in democracy and are not qualified to practice it because of illiteracy. They also claim that if there were free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would win a majority and take power. In fact Egypt is now witnessing a wave of strikes and protests on a scale unknown since the 1952 revolution. This widespread social unrest heralds change that is inevitable and not at all remote from democracy. The constant protest movements express Egyptians’ demand for justice, which can come about only through democratic reform. The argument that Egyptians are not qualified for democracy, besides being insulting, reveals a shameful ignorance of Egyptian history. Democratic experiments began in Egypt earlier than in many European countries, when in 1866 Khedive Ismail set up the first advisory council of representatives. At first the council was advisory, but the members fought for and obtained real authority. From 1882 until 1952 Egyptians struggled and thousands gave their lives for two objectives: independence and the constitution. In other words freeing Egypt from British occupation was always connected in the consciousness of Egyptians with establishing democracy. Democracy means equality, justice, and freedom, and all of these are basic human rights that no one people deserves more than any other. The argument that illiteracy prevents democracy is countered by the fact that the level of illiteracy in India has not stopped a great democracy from creating a great state there in just a few years, and by the fact that the level of illiteracy before the revolution did not prevent the Wafd Party from scoring landslide victories in any free elections. The illiterate Egyptian peasants would always vote for the Wafd against the landowners, who were members of the Liberal Constitutionalist Party. No one needs a doctorate in law to know that the government of his country is oppressive and corrupt; in fact, the feelings of simple people are often closer to the truth than the views and lengthy debates of cultured people. In any case Egypt has more than forty million educated people, quite enough for a democratic experiment to succeed.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian regime has exaggerated its role and influence, using it as a bogeyman to frighten western countries into agreeing to despotism and succession. The Muslim Brotherhood, in terms of numbers and influence, could not win a majority in any free elections where people turn out to vote. Even if we supposed they did win, wouldn’t that be the free choice of Egyptians, which we should respect if we are true democrats? However much we may disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood, are they not in the end Egyptian citizens who have the right to win elections and take part in government as long as they respect the rules of democracy? Democratic reform alone is sure to eliminate religious extremism, whereas in autocratic countries, even if extremist movements are repressed and crushed, the causes of extremism will remain latent below the surface, awaiting the first opportunity to revive.
Last, the propagandists wonder why all these attacks are being made on Gamal Mubarak. Is he not an Egyptian citizen who has a right to stand for election to the presidency? The answer is that Gamal Mubarak will have the right to stand for the presidency only when there is a democratic system that gives all candidates equal opportunities, when the emergency law is repealed, public freedoms are granted, and the constitution is amended to allow for honest competition for the presidency, and when clean elections take place under full and independent judicial supervision, with impartial international monitoring, without intervention by the police or thugs, and without fraud. Only then will it be Gamal Mubarak’s right to stand for the presidency. But for him to stand under the shadow of the current apparatus of repression and fraud would be to repeat the same wretched and ridiculous charade. He would be the nominee of the ruling National Democratic Party, the authorities would mobilize some extras from the imaginary parties invented by State Security, and then the elections would be rigged. For Gamal Mubarak to win this way would be to usurp the presidency illegally and illegitimately.
Egypt is now at a crossroads in every sense of the word. Will Egyptians, God willing, regain their right to justice and freedom, to live in their country as respected citizens who can choose, by their free and independent will, the person fit to be president of Egypt?
Democracy is the solution.
November 8, 2009
The Art of Pleasing the President
I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it myself on a tape recorded by the Mehwar channel during the recent conference of the National Democratic Party. Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak arrived in the hall surrounded by bodyguards, and ministers and officials rushed to greet her. The minister of manpower, Aisha Abdel Hady, then approached her and started to follow her. The minister was speaking about a subject that did not seem to interest Suzanne Mubarak but she kept listening with a polite smile on her face. Then suddenly, in front of everyone, including the photographers and the television cameras, Aisha Abdel Hady bent down toward Suzanne Mubarak’s hand and started to kiss it. The scene looked very strange. In France, a man might kiss a woman’s hand, but that custom is not widespread in Egypt. Egyptians might kiss the hand of their mother or father to express deep respect, but apart from that kissing hands in our country is considered to be incompatible with one’s dignity and self-respect. In 1950 the Wafd Party had been out of power for some years and when the party was asked to form the new government, Wafd leader Mustafa al-Nahhas met King Farouk. Al-Nahhas leaned down to kiss his hand—a scandal that haunted Mustafa al-Nahhas until his death.
What would impel a government minister to bend down and kiss someone’s hand? The truth is that Aisha Abdel Hady never dreamed that she would become a minister, for the simple fact that she never completed her basic education. In other words she failed to graduate from preparatory school but managed to become a minister in a country that has tens of thousands of people with doctorates. Aisha Abdel Hady understands that she was not appointed minister because of her competence or her capacity to do the job, but only because the president and his family approve of her, and in order to retain presidential approval she is fully prepared to do anything, including kissing the hands of the president, his wife, and his sons.
The question is: Can we expect Aisha Abdel Hady to defend the dignity and rights of Egyptians as she should in her role as minister of manpower? The answer is absolutely not. Thousands of Egyptians who work in the Gulf states are robbed of their due by their sponsors, are mistreated and humiliated, and are often detained and flogged unjustly. They wait for the government of their country to defend their rights, but Aisha Abdel Hady, who kisses hands, does nothing for them. On the contrary, two years ago Aisha Abdel Hady announced she had made an agreement with the Saudi authorities to provide thousands of Egyptian maids to work in Saudi homes. This extraordinary deal shocked Egyptians, first, because Egypt has hundreds of thousands of highly qualified people who are more eligible to obtain contracts to work in the Gulf; second, because sending Egyptian women to work as maids is incompatible with the most basic rules of national dignity and puts them at risk of being humiliated or sexually abused; third, because many Egyptian women have intermediate or advanced qualifications but under pressure of poverty and unemployment are forced to agree to work as maids; and, fourth, because the Saudi authorities, who are strict in all religious matters and require that women be accompanied by a close male relative when they go to the country on pilgrimage or umra, did the opposite this time and asked for Egyptian maids to go to Saudi Arabia unaccompanied. Aisha Abdel Hady defended the deal she made for the maids, saying there was nothing shameful about domestic service and advising her opponents to abandon their meaningless sensitivities. I remember that one Egyptian intellectual, Dr. Ayman Yahya, decided at the time to respond to the minister in a practical and inventive way. He placed an advertisement on the front page of al-Karama newspaper reading, “Wanted: A Saudi live-in maid for a wealthy Egyptian family. Attractive salary.” He left his telephone number for people to call and over several weeks he received a barrage of curses and insu
lts from dozens of Saudis who thought the advertisement was an affront to their country.
Under pressure of public opinion, Aisha Abdel Hady was forced to back down on sending the maids to Saudi Arabia, but she came back and announced last month that she had reached a new agreement to send Egyptian maids to Kuwait this time. I don’t know why some officials in the Gulf insist on bringing maids from Egypt instead of Egyptian doctors, engineers, and other qualified Egyptian professionals of the kind who can take credit for the progress the Gulf has seen. Does using Egyptians as servants give some Gulf people a particular pleasure? I also don’t understand why this strange minister is so enthusiastic about providing maids for Gulf countries. But I do understand that someone who has already lost something cannot then give it away, and someone who is willing to kiss people’s hands in public cannot defend anyone’s dignity. The incident when Aisha Abdel Hady kissed Suzanne Mubarak’s hand reflects the relationship between the ministers and senior officials on the one hand and President Mubarak and his family on the other.
In the same tape I saw on the Mehwar channel, there are shots of Dr. Alieddin Hilal, the head of the information department at the National Democratic Party and a professor of political science, as he faced a curious dilemma when just by chance he found himself standing in the way of Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak. He was seriously confused and did not know what to do. He was worried that turning his back on her might be interpreted as an insult to her status, with serious consequences, but he dared not risk turning to her and talking to her when she had not asked him to do so. And if he decided to get out of her way suddenly, that, too, might appear as inappropriate conduct. So what should he do? The senior official looked confused and undecided. He hovered in his place until the chief bodyguard came up to him and pushed him aside so that Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak could proceed on her way. This complete submission to the president and his family is a shared characteristic of all ministers in Egypt. Perhaps readers will remember how last year Gamal Mubarak reprimanded higher education minister Hani Hilal in public at an American University in Cairo function. He prevented him from sitting next to him on the platform and with a wave of his hand told him to move away at once. The minister was not angry at the public reprimand but was merely anxious that Gamal Mubarak was angry with him.