On the State of Egypt: A Novelist's Provocative Reflections

  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?

  Mohamed 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 d
escribed 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.

  I thought about this while following what was happening in Egypt when President Mubarak went to have surgery in Germany. Of course I wish everyone who is sick a speedy recovery but I do not think that the president’s illness is particularly special. Everyone falls ill and the president’s advanced age is bound to bring some health problems from time to time. But the regime’s scribes treated the president’s illness as though it were the end of the world and some of them even wrote that the country itself had fallen ill with the same disease, as if President Mubarak was the incarnation and embodiment of all Egypt. This cheap and disgraceful sycophancy continued throughout the time he was under treatment, and when the surgery was successful and President Mubarak came back to Egypt, the sycophants let loose with their chorus of pipes and drums. Some singers received orders to compose songs specifically to celebrate the president’s auspicious return. I don’t know how any real artist could allow himself to sing eulogies for a fee, like those beggars who go around the annual festivals of popular holy men. Have these sycophants thought what they will do when the president goes to Germany again for further treatment? Will they compose new songs for when he returns? Does President Mubarak believe this flattery? Does it ever occur to him, even for a moment, that these pipers and drummers don’t like him, but are merely defending the privileges they have acquired under his rule? Doesn’t President Mubarak realize that these sycophants have always clung to those in power and have shaped their own ideas and opinions to be in tune with the ruler? They were loyal socialists in the time of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, but when the wind changed and the state turned to the market economy they become some of the prime advocates of privatization and the free market.

  What conception of what is happening in Egypt does President Mubarak have? Does he know that more than half of all Egyptians live below the poverty line? Does it bother the president that millions of Egyptians live in shantytowns without water, electricity, or a sewage system? Is he upset at the prevalence of unemployment, poverty, disease, and frustration? Does President Mubarak know that Egypt has hit rock bottom in many fields? Has he heard about the poor people who die standing in line to obtain bread or cooking gas? Has he heard of the death boats on which thousands of young Egyptians embark to escape misery, only to drown on the high seas? Has anyone told the president that for months thousands of civil servants and their children have been lying on the pavement in front of parliament because their lives are no longer tolerable? Has President Mubarak thought about civil servants who support a whole family on a salary of 100 Egyptian pounds ($18) a month when the price of meat has risen to 70 pounds a kilo? Of course I don’t know how President Mubarak thinks, though I imagine, based on the theory of ‘dictator’s solitude,’ that his conceptions are completely detached from the reality of what is happening in Egypt. The reality is liable to produce an explosion at any moment, and if that explosion takes place, God forbid, we will all pay a heavy price. I hope President Mubarak ends his many years in office by carrying out real democratic reform, amending the constitution to allow for honest competition between candidates and for free and fair elections so that Egyptians can choose new faces—people who are respected and willing to take responsibility for ending the ordeal Egypt has been through and to begin a new future. When will President Mubarak grasp this truth?

  Democracy is the solution.

  April 6, 2010

  Does Rigging Elections Count as a Major Sin?

  Over the coming eighteen months or so Egypt will have parliamentary and then presidential elections. In the past the Egyptian regime has tried to use judges to conceal election rigging, but upright judges refused to betray their principles and their message was clear: “Either we supervise the elections seriously and scrupulously, or we’ll withdraw and let the regime alone take responsibility for the fraud.” This time the regime has decided from the start to abolish judicial supervision and has announced that it will not allow any international monitoring of the voting. All this confirms that the next elections will be rigged. Even now Egyptians are well aware that members of the ruling party will win the majority of seats in parliament and that the presidential elections next year will be a farce through which President Mubarak will either hang on to power or bequeath it to his son, Gamal.

  The question here is: Who is responsible for rigging elections? The Ministry of Interior is the authority that supervises the conduct of elections and so is responsible for rigging them, but in fact the interior minister is no more than carrying out orders. The person who takes the decision to rig elections is the president himself, and so the decision to rig is conveyed from the president to the interior minister and is then implemented by thousands of police officers and civil servants across the country. These are the people who prevent people from voting, call in thugs to beat up voters who don’t belong to the ruling party, fill in unused ballot papers, close the ballot boxes, and then announce fabricated election results. These fraudsters, like most Egyptians these days, are conscientious about performing their prayers, fasting in Ramadan, giving alms, and going on pilgrimage, and they ask their wives and daughters to wear the hijab. Although they are meticulous about these religious obligations, they take part in election rigging and do not in the least feel they are committing a religious sin. They are not kept awake at night by any feelings of guilt. Generally they consider themselves merely to be carrying out the orders of their bosses, as though they see the whole question of elections as unconnected with religion.

  Let’s imagine, for example, that the president, instead of giving orders to rig elections, gave the police and civil servants orders to drink alcohol or not to fast in Ramadan. They would definitely rise up against him and refuse to carry out his orders, on the grounds that one must not obey a human being if it me
ans disobeying God. Why do these civil servants see rigging elections as just carrying out orders when they see drinking alcohol and failing to fast in Ramadan as serious sins? The answer will lead us to comprehend the vast gap between the reality of Islam and the way we understand it. Pick any book you like on Islamic law and you will not find in it a single word on rigging elections, because they are all old books written in ages when elections were unknown. The gate of ijtihad, or individual judgment in matters of Islamic law, was closed centuries ago, and most experts in Islamic law now do no more than recapitulate legal opinions pronounced a thousand years ago. Besides, many jurists in Islamic history allied themselves with despotic rulers, and while they did explain the Islamic precepts on many aspects of life, they deliberately ignored the political rights of Muslims. In fact some of them distorted the truth and interpreted religion in a way designed to prop up the despot and exempt him from any oversight.

  In Egypt there are dozens of famous sheikhs attached to various religious schools, from the sheikhs at al-Azhar, to the Salafi sheikhs, to new preachers, and every day they preach to Egyptians in thousands of mosques and on dozens of satellite channels, dealing with everything in the life of a Muslim—marriage and divorce, whether to wear gold or silk, even how to perform the ritual ablution to remove a serious impurity—but none of them ever says a single word about rigging elections. A few months ago I met a famous new preacher and found him to be a cultured young man. He asked to attend the weekly salon I organize and I welcomed him. When he came he found the audience talking about democracy and the emergency law and asserting that Egyptians have the right to choose their rulers. He did not contribute a single word to the discussion but sat in silence and then left. He did not come back and I never saw him again. In the opinion of this preacher, religion has nothing at all to do with public affairs. For him, religion begins and ends with modesty for women, moral virtues, and performing religious obligations, so he has no enthusiasm for discussing political rights and public freedoms. He also knows that discussing these subjects in Egypt carries a heavy price and he does not want to pay it.