One of the most prominent results of the Egyptian Revolution, since it began and until the moment Mubarak stepped down, had been selflessness and the assertion – by all parties that were active in, drove towards and incited the Revolution – that it was a popular revolution, which no one could claim responsibility for; that, had it not been for ordinary citizens, the elite could not have achieved anything; and that Hosni Mubarak's regime fell under the strong pressure of the masses in Tahrir Square and other Egyptian public squares, after this regime had become adept at dealing with its opposition, politicians and “revolutionaries”, over three decades, but failed to confront the peaceful crowds that chanted for it to fall, and achieved what they had wanted. A year after the Revolution erupted; the scene has become quite different. It is true that the same crowds were driven to public squares demanding punishment, the same masses revolted against the military, and the same multitudes emerged from their homes, took to the streets, and gathered in public squares to complete their revolution. Yet this does not hide the fact that, even if history is repeating itself with the gathering of multitudes to commemorate the Revolution and on the Second Friday of Anger, the situation in terms of geography is quite different. Indeed, the shades of the political spectrum, which had become a single shade in Tahrir Square before Mubarak stepped down united behind a single demand – “overthrowing the regime” – have transformed a year later. They have become separate, broken up and fragmented, with each of them appearing different from the others, and with every shade believing that achieving the goals of the Revolution could only take place if this faction were to rise to power or that “leader” were to assume the presidential seat! Meanwhile, the people remained united, without any shades making them separate or political ideas dividing them, seeking to complete the Revolution, while at the same time heading to the ballot boxes at every referendum or election, finding no contradiction between public squares and ballot boxes. The quarreling between forces and movements a year after the start of the Revolution has led to the spread of things that would have been impossible to imagine when it erupted or to expect when Mubarak stepped down: the Army now stands against the Revolutions and is working to subvert it; the Leftists along with the Nasserists want to demolish the state and eliminate its institutions; the Liberals are Western agents who “swallow up” millions from international institutions in order to destroy Egypt and the bases it stands on; the Copts are loyal to the West, they are pushing for foreign intervention and want to divide the country and win their own country in the South; and the Salafists are obtaining funds from abroad. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, it has betrayed the Revolution, sold the public squares, and struck a deal with the military – they would take over power in exchange for members of the Military Council safely leaving power without being held to account or punished! Regardless of the details of the reasons that led to such a situation, and they are varied and numerous, the facts indicate that the division reflected on Tahrir Square last Friday, and one of its results was the friction that took place between the Muslim Brotherhood and other political groups and movements, the supporters of which had gathered in the square. And what matters here is the result. Indeed, the Revolution, which the Mubarak regime, with its policies, its security apparatus and its use of force, could not stop and put an end to, seems to be devouring itself as a result of the contradictions between politicians and the actions of the parties active in it. Certainly all political factions have made mistakes as result of certain practices or even interests, but this does not negate the fact that they have also failed to contain their disagreements and differences, and that every party started to behave, after Mubarak stepped down, as if it were the sole force present on the scene, starting from the army and up to the political elites, while the people want nothing more but to complete their revolution and emerge from the dark tunnel the Mubarak regime had plunged them into, to then struggle with its legacy and reach broad horizons in which they would achieve their legitimate dream of living a decent life. The Egyptian Revolution has no need for books that would “theorize” on it or define its philosophy, as has been the case with the July 1952 Revolution. Indeed, the people themselves laid out the philosophy of their revolution, and proved that they were not all affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist groups, nor with the Revolutionary Socialists, Nasserist parties or youth movements. Rather, they aspire to fulfill their dreams and obtain their rights. They may appreciate and value every effort exerted by every one of their factions, but they will always be able to rise up and revolt again, even against those they chanted and voted for. And just as the slogan “the people and the army hand in hand” turned into “down with military rule” as a result of the mistakes made by the Military Council, the people will not be afraid to chant against the rule of the Brotherhood, the Salafists, the Revolutionary Socialists, the Nasserists or the Liberals, if one of these factions were to come to power and make the same mistakes.
