A tale of two Egyptian revolutions

[Winged Isis]

An interesting article; too big to post in full, I think:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... tions.aspx



During my recent visit to Egypt, I bought the following, all excellent memorials to the events of January 2011, and highly recommended. They are mainly photos. The first is particularly poignant, bringing both tears and laughter as my husband and I read it. The creativity, wit and intelligence of ordinary Egyptians shine through.

Messages from Tahrir edited by Karima Khalil, AUC Press.

Tahrir Squre: The Heart of the Egyptian Revolution by Mia Grondhahl, AUC Press.

Egyptian Freedom Story by Mohammed Fadel Fahmy and Samy Al Tobgy, Mediaworx.

[Robert Send]

A lot of people dispute the fact there has been a revolution in Egypt, and many believe we have just reverted back to the old days and the old ways, probably to stop the country tearing itself apart, to the eyes of the world.

[LivinginLuxor]

OK Robert, could you explain what you mean by reverted to the old days? Whose old days - Farouk? Nasser? Sadat?

[Hafiz]

An Egyptian a revolution seems an exaggeration. A coup, rebellion, regime change, large unfocussed, splintered demonstration or transition seems closer to the facts. The revolution claims seem to be puff coming from media and Cairo bloggers If a revolution had really happened there must have been revolutionary demands, actions and results.

Those who claim to be 'revolutionaries were principally the Tahir groups - but some of them were conservatives and moderate liberals - unlikely to have a revolutionary program. There were a small number of anarchists and old style socialists. The majority wanted democracy, clean and efficient government, jobs, Mubarak and cronies out and security. Nothing radical or new in that - polls had been saying this for years.

The methods used were generally moderate and violence was often only the result of provocation or assault. This was not the type of direct action you would expect of revolutionaries such as nation-wide strikes, rebellion in the army or police, seizing of power, coup?, appeals to the UN or other countries for assistance or civil war. There was little pillaging or retribution against the old regime. Support seemed patchy - not the type of sustained revolutionary fervor one expects. Not sounding as if there were too many revolutionary methods in Tahir or elsewhere. If there weren't revolutionaries in Tahir where were they?

There could, against the odds, have been revolutionary results? The Tahir's might say 1. Mubarak and 2. democracy. Some would say that SCARF wanted him out anyway - he'd become a liability and a threat to them. In any case its hardly revolutionary to get rid of a leader - its a standard Egyptian practice - the English removed two Khedives, Farouk was deposed as was his son, Nasser forced out and Sadat assassinated). Its stretching a point but all leaders have been 'removed' since 1947.

If the Tahir's revolution caused democracy then they were pretty slow to defend their creation. SCARF crafted it (probably to suit their needs) and managed its implementation (and got close to getting what they wanted out of it). The so-called revolutionary results were left to be consumed by the forces of reaction so that there is still no constitution, no clear Presidential powers etc. If there was a revolution last year its produced mixed results and the revolutionaries, if they ever existed, were careless with their creation.

Is democracy really a revolutionary demand? Maybe in Egypt - but anyone in Egypt for decades watching TV could see that its standard almost every where else and not a big jump to make for Egypt to catch up. So maybe democracy is just catch up for Egypt rather than a big revolutionary break with the past.

Whatever the Tahir demands there seems to have been little change in who runs Egypt. Power is mostly where it has always been and it didn't change in early last year or since. Most of the major crony capitalists are still in place, the Mubarak bureaucracy seems much the same, the state media still operate under direction on significant issues, the state run banks still lend to the rich but not the poor, the budget is likely to change little until things 'improve', the Mubarak judges are still there, the legal profession seems still submissive and of course, after removing their mate, and now liability Mubarak, the Army still wields the ultimate power. The Cairo elites have lost little and there has been no transfer of wealth.

There are always unintended consequences of revolutions. The rise to power of the beards could be one. The brothers can't accept responsibility for their own rise because their rise wasn't part of the Tahir revolutionary program and the brothers weren't revolutionaries. They didn't lead demonstrations - until very late in the piece - and early on they opposed demonstrations against the regime as un-Islamic. Therefore the only revolutionaries on the block at the time of the rise of the brothers were the Tahirs and they should accept responsibility and credit for this their only revolutionary achievement. The alternative is that this is not a revolutionary change or the beards are revolutionaries.

One major, but not revolutionary, change might be in civil rights for non Islamic behavior - but poor civil rights is hardly a new thing in Egypt - just the targets might change. The Copts seem to be worried, but again that follows on from years of problems and is therefore not a break with the past.

I don't mean to devalue what happened 18 months ago but calling it a effective revolution seems to a bit over the top. Then again it might feel like (and be) a revolution for western residents of Luxor who have to face day to day Egyptian reality.