What does the presence of one or two million protesters in Tahrir Square today mean? It means that the protests have set a record turnout of those demanding the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak's regime. But is the above the full picture of what is happening in Egypt these days? The first impression would be to say yes. However, there is another picture, and I ask again: What does the presence of one or two million protesters in Tahrir Square today mean? It means that 81 million Egyptians did not yet protest and demand the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak's regime. Both pictures are valid, and perhaps there is a third and even fourth picture that did not occur to me. But if I am to make an objective verdict, bearing in mind that I do not belong to any side and that I am not an opponent of the regime in Egypt, I would say that the Egyptian people is demanding change, and duty requires that the will of the people be respected. Sound governance is based on Shura [mutual consultation]. We were taught [in the Quran] that “take counsel with them in the affairs” and “who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation”. In modern terms, this is democracy between the ruler and the ruled and among the people. But is democracy the only picture, or the only sound system for good governance? We have a good measure of democratic practice in Kuwait and Lebanon. However, the Kuwaiti parliament and the Lebanese people are an advertisement against democracy. The antithesis of democracy is dictatorial rule, but this needs an enlightened dictator, and this is as scarce ‘as hen's teeth' as the saying goes. In short, we never had, nor do we have today, a dictator ‘lite' (as in lite soda) such as Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, who achieved a miracle in his country out of nothing. What we have is a blind dictator like Saddam Hussein, who wrecked his country and almost wrecked the entire region around it, before leaving to meet his maker who shall hold him accountable for what his hands committed, while the destruction he had unleashed continues unabated today. Perhaps the picture is not about democracy and its opposite dictatorial rule, but is instead about those Arab rulers who practice this or that. Here, we find two pictures, which are both inaccurate. Some of us say that Arab rulers have grown old and have lost their touch with the people and with time, or that Arab rulers are young, have no experience and are learning on the job. But Alexander the Great had conquered the known world in his time while he was below the age of thirty. Ancient Greek philosophy continues to be the basis of all modern philosophies, and the two old men Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer started the revival of all of Europe after the Second World War, and not just France and Germany. On the other hand, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi seized power in Libya when he was still twenty-nine years old, and at seventy, he is still in office today; he has succeeded neither as a young man nor as a grey-haired and old one. What pictures are left when both democracy and dictatorial rule have failed in our countries, and as we see the failures of both young and old rulers? There is the model of ‘nongovernment' or anarchy, and there used to be a very active anarchist movement in Europe in the early twentieth century. But the problem with anarchist thought is that it carries the seeds of its own destruction, because when anarchists seize power they seek to abolish it, or abolish their own existence along with government. Perhaps the best example of anarchy in our countries is Somalia. I do not know who rules this country or how it is ruled, and I only hear about it when the Al-Shabab group commits a crime, usually against a woman, or when a ship is hijacked at sea. The anarchist regime in Somalia hence resulted in a pirate regime, in the twenty-first century no less. However, I started with Egypt and I now return to Egypt. I have always considered Egypt to be the ‘Mother of the world' out of love, not logic or conviction. Then the recent developments took place, and Egypt became the front page headline of all major newspapers around the world for the past two weeks until now, to the extent that I began believing that Egypt is indeed the “Mother of the world”. This is one picture. The other picture is that half of what I read was about Israel or caused by it, if not in defense of it. I suffice myself with American writers, since the United States has made itself a party to the Egyptian crisis, and because of the influence these writers wield. I read some good articles full of sympathy to the people of Egypt, written by Nicholas Kristof, and other objective articles by Thomas Friedman. I also read articles by Roger Cohen and Jonah Goldberg, who are both Likudniks, even if they deny that. They said that the Egyptian uprising invalidated the Israeli alibi used by Arab autocrats to justify their failure. This is while bearing in mind that Tahrir Square is more hostile to Israel than the Egyptian presidency, and that the shortcomings of the Egyptian government, or indeed any government, be it real or imagined, do not cancel the fact of the occupation and its crimes. Of course, Israel's advocates all fear the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. I do not want the brotherhood to rule Egypt. But if they indeed scare Israel's people, then I support them both in and outside of the government. Finally, all what I attempted to do today was to urge the reader to see the whole picture, or the two or more pictures, and then decide. [email protected]
