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.
