The Egyptian Revolution - A Satyagraha Immune from Civil War?

This is an article I wrote shortly after Feb 11. 
-----------------------------------------------------------

Satyagraha, which is literally translated into ‘Soul Force’, was the animator of a nation-wide movement in India to resist the imperial rule of the British empire.This ideology which was conceived and preached by Mahatma Gandhi, was built on the principle of non-violent resistance (also known as non-violent non-cooperation). Satyagraha is far from merely being passive resistance, but was rather an active resistance that required a great deal of discipline from the Satyagrahi. On the issue of Satyagraha versus passive resistance, Gandhi wrote in one of his articles: “It is said of passive resistance that it is the weapon of the weak, but the power which is the subject of this article [Satyagraha] can be used only by the strong. This power is not passive resistance; indeed it calls for intense activity”. This intense activity that Gandhi mentions emerges from a disciplined soul that learns to love country, neighbour, and oppressor. It is this almost spiritual discipline that made the Satyagraha movement unique in its nature. It is without a doubt that Satyagraha was a chief contributor to India’s Independence in1947 and was later the main inspiration to great leaders such as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Unfortunately, however, this non-violent resistance was followed by a bloody civil war between Muslims and Hindus which led to the partitioning of Pakistan in August 1947. The brothers fought against the cousins. This historical fact should raise a red flag for all Egyptians that care for Egypt and its future. History repeats itself and it is therefore crucial for us to look back and learn from past events

The Egyptian revolution was the latest manifestations of Satyagraha. The movement was peaceful and non-violent, but more importantly the people lost the fear factor. People in Egypt abandoned their comfort zones and defied fear. They filled up the streets in all major Egyptian cities, and took to them the Tahrir Square a residence and an emblem of their resistance. The Tahrir square was also a place of transformation; there the people replaced previous discourteous behaviour with civil, respectful and considerate behaviours. It was the first time in many long years that Egyptians felt at home; the revolution gave them a sense of ownership of the country, and out came the goodness that had been buried under the rubble for 30 years. The revolution also employed a sense of unity between the people, which dissolved all differences based on financial, religious or social status. All resented the status quo, and all believed in change. However, not all agreed on what kind of change is needed, and who can carry it out. Not that anything is wrong with that, but in a country where democracy was never practiced, one has to be cautious with what democracy can do.

This was evident from the first democratic poll results, in the history of Egypt, regarding amendments to the constitution. The leaders of the revolution stated that the revolution came for ‘complete change’ and not for ‘amending’, and for that reason started the ‘No’ campaign. On the other hand the National Democratic Party (NDP) and the Muslim brotherhood saw it as an essential step to move forward and thus started the ‘yes’ campaign. The results were astonishing, a perplexing 77% yes and a 23% No/ These results simply mean three things: (1) A group of Egyptians want to move on with life and need a new government as soon as possible, so the economy could recover; (2) The ‘YES’ campaign played a big role in influencing people’s votes; and (3) The supporters of the revolution are less influential than previously thought. I am of the opinion that the second and third reasons were the major driving force for the first truly democratic practise. The majority of Egyptians are not the well educated, secular, middle class youth like those who started the revolution, but: 35% of Egyptians are illiterate (above 15 and cannot read or write) according to the 2010 amnesty report on Egypt; 20% are below the poverty line (CIA world factbook); many are adopting extreme fundamentalist views; and tensions between Copts and Salafis are on the rise. A true democracy in Egypt right now could lead to civil war. Islamic fundamentalists are mobilizing the masses to disrupt the peace in Egypt, and create a state of unrest. Also, a true democratic parliamentary election anytime soon, will with no doubt give the Muslim Brotherhood a majority of the seats. The revolution started with one objective in mind, and that is to overthrow the Mubarak regime, and in that they succeeded. However, they failed to carefully plan the future prospects of Egypt, and did not take into account many dangerous players that could harm a Mubarak-free Egypt. This state of unrest could also be a sufficient reason to prolong the military rule and keep Egypt in this current status quo for God knows how long.

It is my fear that fundamentalists will ride the wave of democratic reform and take Egypt back to a theocracy. Maybe, not right away, but a Parliament majority could be a good start. I am aware that many Egyptians will tell me that they are Muslims and are tolerant of other religions and want a secular Egypt, and to them I say, unfortunately you are not a majority in Egypt. On the Internet you seem like a majority, but not in reality. Egypt is slipping into civil war. The satyagraha that started with tolerance, could end up in blood-shed.

The MB rushed into messing with the SCAF

Please read 'Turmoil is on the horizon' before reading this article.

As expected, the MB exposed their first hand in the first game of a (maybe quite short) tournament of poker, where winner takes all. However, they rushed into it, and it will back fire very soon. Morsi's decision to re-instate the unconstitutional Parliament was the first public clash with the SCAF. It seems extremely naive that an organization that has been functioning underground for 80 years to take such action early on. Such a decision will only strain an already tense situation and keep the SCAF on high alert. Or perhaps this decision was not naive afterall, and Morsi wants to use the pressure of the people before their allegiance to the MB dwindles with time. Either way, the SCAF will very shortly reveal its own hand and we will witness the winner of the first pot.

At this point in time, Egypt seems to be the furthest thing from a secular democracy. A fundamentalist president ruling in a military state.

Turmoil is on the Horizon

It would be naive to think that Morsi will not fight back to regain some (or perhaps all) of the powers denied to him by the SCAF. However, the question is when and how? It seems that the relationship between the MB and SCAF is calm for the moment, but the tension is definitely on the rise. Thousands of Egyptians are gathered in Tahrir Square calling for the complete transfer of power from the SCAF to Morsi; they have vowed to stay in Tahrir Square until that happens on June 30th.Today on a satellite TV show, the MB spokesman mentioned that president Morsi has the right to veto any decision made by the SCAF; even though he said it in a subtle manner, it still carried a hint of arrogance in it. Egyptians overall feel that the SCAF have hijacked the revolution (assuming it really was one) and have been calling the shots. The MB knows the people's frustrations and will make sure to use them  against the SCAF at the appropriate time. The MB have been working underground for more than 80 years and they know a big deal about picking their battles. For the time being, it seems crucial for them to maintain a stable relationship with the SCAF since they need time to infiltrate and secure all the country's agencies. However, I believe at a specific time, the MB will retaliate against the SCAF and will mobilize the people to overthrow the current Generals. The SCAF is definitely expecting such an incident, but how is it planning to react remains elusive. Will they use force? Will they re-instate some powers to Morsi to satisfy the people? Will they create some sort of a 'distraction' to avoid the issue all together?

Morsy the declawed tiger

Please read my previous article, 'Are we back to where we started?' before reading this one.

As expected, Morsy is the first democratically elected (fair and square) president of Egypt. This event came as a shock to many, especially Copts, who spent most of their day wailing the newly elected president. And I wonder, how is it that they still fail to understand that having Morsy is better off than having Shafik. Morsy is just the new facade of the SCAF and his powers have been drastically reduced. He is even required to swear the presidential oath infront of SCAF on June 30th and not the parliment (since it has been dissolved). The SCAF is in full control and this is the reality of Egypt today! I even suspect that the new parliment will NOT have an islamic majority, and the constitutional council will be led by supporters of SCAF and will draft a constitution that further limits the powers of the president. These people will probably come from the ~49% that voted Shafik. Unless an uprise of MB supporters, from within the military, otherthrows non-MB military Generals, then there is nothing to worry about.

The MB will also want to prove to Egyptians (especially at the beginning) that they are worthy of ruling. They will attempt to improve infrastructure, build schools and hospitals, provide more youth-oriented services, reduce commodity prices, etc... This is not new to them, they have been doing this since their inception in 1928 to attract public support. In addition, they will play the pan-arabism card; they already started rallying Egyptians around the idea of liberating Palestine and having Jerusalem as the capital of the new islamic state. Even though I am pretty sure this will not happen, but nontheless the pan-arabism card will attract a lot of support from muslim Egyptians.

Copts should be glad that Shafik did not win this run-off race. His victory could have sent waves of violence across Egypt and further destabilized the country. A ruling declawed tiger is safer than a caged one.

And we are back to where we started?

The recent developments in Egypt have been, to say the least, disturbing. A few days away from the run off election, the Parliament was dissolved and Shafik was allowed to run for presidency. Was that a coincidence? Well, anyone in his right mind would disagree. A strategic move by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCF) that have confirmed to all Egyptians that they (SCF) are in control.

How will this theatrical play end? Are we going back to where we started? Did the revolution actually accomplish what we thought it did? or was the SCF planning every event after the ousting of Mubarak to take the whole Egyptian population back in a U-turn? Is Egypt a military state undercover, and will it remain to be so?

Here is what I think based on the events currently unfolding...

The SCF has always been in control. The islamists were given the chance to form Parliament, with the blessing of the SCF, to show Egyptians nothing would get done. SCF allowed a democratic presidential election to take place with 2 of its men, one to be intentionally disqualified and the other to make it to the run off stage. Parliament is dissolved at a crucial time to get rid of the islamists and a new SCF-controlled Parliament will be formed. Meanwhile, as they know this will backfire and more people will vote for Morsy in retaliation, they are happy with that and encourage it. The reason being, they want Morsy to win the elections, giving the impression of a fair election (which it will be), and then limiting the powers of the president after forming a SCF-controlled constitutional council. This means that within 4 years Morsy will be out and another SCF-appointed president will be president. This brings back the Egyptian people to the pre-revolution status, and people will welcome it.

AtaMasr - The Ataturk of Egypt

By early July Egyptians will (not) welcome their first democratically-elected president. This is the first time in our 5000 years of civilization we as a people elect our own leader, what a victory for the revolution. Or is it really?

While the revolution was peaceful in its opposition, powerful in its approach and persistent in its demands, it lacked something essential, an AtaMasr. AtaMasr,like Ataturk, is a nationalist that foresees Egypt as a modern, highly educated nation with a secular constitution. A constitution that is not based on any religious law, but allows from freedom, justice and equality. AtaMasr is a true visionary that knows the importance of education and a free market economy. He knows that before introducing Egypt to democracy he needs to fulfill the people's basic needs, namely: freedom, shelter, health care, safety and nutrition. He knows that by satisfying Maslow's basic needs, people will be a step closer to comprehending the gift of democracy. However, like a toddler, the nation needs to grow intellectually once basic needs are provided. AtaMasr knows that this can only be done by eradicating illiteracy, and creating a generation that is ready to lead. People with all their differences have two things in common and these are curiosity and a purpose. It is curiosity that drives some to study sciences and others to study arts. It is curiosity that drives research, innovation and prosperity. Curiosity directed by nationalistic purpose breeds patriots, inventors and visionaries. This is the kind of generation AtaMasr raises over a period of eight years. The nation by then is considered mature enough to rightly choose their president.

This Utopian image of AtaMasr is unfortunately far from real at the moment. However, from history, we know that such leaders rose in times of need and transformed nations that were crippled by religious regimes. We live in the hope of an AtaMasr, one that will grant the revolution its long-lost objectives.

Copts are in a pickle

The latest court ruling, one of the most important events of modern Egyptian history, was both baffling and provoking. After the judge's divine opening remarks about the noble Egyptian revolution, the sentences delivered to Mubarak, Adly, Gamal, Alaa, and others, was nothing but a disappointment. It was dubbed in the Egyptian media as a theatrical play, where the Egyptian people were lead into the illusion of a democracy and new beginnings. This point in particular is emphasized by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), where they claim that since Shafik is part of the old regime, whoever votes for him is betraying the Egyptian revolution. As if the Egyptian people needed to be more polarized!Also, by elimination, that makes Morsy the 'candidate of the revolution'. Now, the Copts are in a pickle. There are very very few Copts that will vote Morsy and the majority, if not all, will vote for Shafik. If Shafik wins, then Copts will be betrayers of the revolution, and if Morsy wins then they will be persecuted since they supported the previous regime.

This frustrating reality, which is already taking place in Egypt, shows that we are far from a democracy! In a true democracy, the supporters of the losing party are not persecuted against and called betrayers. The minority are respected and are even given the chance to become the opposition. A secular democracy does not impose the will of God but the will of the people. A secular democracy will not pass divinely-inspired judgements but will be tolerant of all and supporting of all. This is not the impression I get with the MB. These are people that lied before and will continue to do so. What guarantees do we have to avoid turning into a theocracy?! Don't people know that a religious state is bound to fail; history has shown it time and time over.

As part of a minority group, I am worried about the Copts in Egypt. However, I am consoled by the fact that we as a people have been through countless periods of persecution in the past, and we have manged to survive.