The head of the Cairo Criminal Court Judge Ahmad Rifaat achieved some of the underlying (subconscious) wishes of the Egyptian public, before he decided to stop the airing of the trial of former President Hosni Mubarak and his sons Alaa and Gamal. The latter saw the president at his weakest, lying on a hospital bed in the accusation cage. This in itself – in addition to the criminal charges – was required, and now that it was secured, the progress of the trial is unimportant. Indeed, the sentence has practically been issued after it became certain that the old Mubarak (83 years old) relinquished the presidency and Egypt and can no longer own the country again. All that preceded the toppling of the former regime focused on political criticisms toward its ruling methods and its tampering with the constitution and the law, while this facet should have been tackled during the times of political transition, as it was indicated by many rational commentators. However, the first charges were criminal, which satisfied a subconscious retaliatory wish, and this was secured by the head of the tribunal during the first two sessions. Mubarak was addressing his people by the “children of Egypt” and “my children.” He was a “father” to the Egyptians, and this position of his was enhanced by his utter presidential powers and his lengthy stay in his post. He monopolized Egypt for over three decades, Egypt which was addressed by poet Ahmed Fouad Negm as “O Splendid Mother… Wearing the scarf and galabiya.” It is the mother of the Egyptians which was monopolized by Mubarak, who prevented anyone from coming near it or even yearning for it from afar. Mubarak did not recognize that his “Egyptian children” have grown up and have become adults, even after they got married and had children, as he is the one managing their affairs and deciding for them, without them having the right to oppose his patriarchal management of the family's affairs. Despite Mubarak's repeated announcement of the fact that “all the Egyptians are my children,” he exercised nepotism toward those close to him and especially two among his “Egyptian children.” Gamal thus became the political “heir” and Alaa the economic “heir.” Mubarak did all he could to create his current image, as a father monopolizing the mother and keeping her children away, and a father refusing to recognize his offspring's maturity and freedom to make up their own mind while favoring some of his children over others. He is the worst kind of fathers, i.e. the tyrannical, oppressive and stubborn father that is monopolizing Egypt, the “splendid” kind and beautiful mother. The charges made against Mubarak of murder and corruption only confirm that image. And in addition to the fact that they satisfy the subconscious wish to punish him for these crimes, they also give a sense of freedom from his hegemony and authority. This is why the people and those he treated unfairly rejoiced when they saw him behind bars and in such a weak state, at a time when journalistic reports quoted many Egyptians as saying they got what they wanted when they saw him so frail. Hence, the two trial sessions were theatrical ones and not a means to achieve legal justice. Only a few did not rejoice, being aware of the fact that what is wanted is a political change and a political trial, not the killing of the father. According to the legend, when Oedipus grew up and started lusting after his beautiful mother - whom his father had prevented from seeing – he had no other way to reach her except by killing his father. It is the symbolism which has become known as the Oedipus complex, and the two sessions of Mubarak's trial marked his symbolic killing as a father of whom his “children” wish to dispose to regain their mother.
