Sunday Book Review: Revolution 2.0 by Wael Ghonim

Hi everyone!

If you're looking for a book that provides an effective first-hand account of the events leading up to the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak last year, then Wael Ghonim's just published memoir, "Revolution 2.0" is a strong bet.

Mr. Ghonim is the Google employee who more-or-less inadvertently became the face of Tahrir Square. What is extraordinary about his story is how he was able to harness the power of social media to bring together a revolutionary popular movement that succeeded in toppling Mubarak's entrenched regime in just eighteen days. Mr. Ghonim's activism was sparked when a friend of his sent him horrific photos of a young man named Khaled Said who was beaten to death by state security outside an Internet cafe in Alexandria, Egypt in the summer of 2010. The security officials planted a plastic bag of marijuana on Khaled's body and tried to convince the public that the young man had died of asphyxiation in an effort to swallow the drugs as a means of hiding them from the police. In actuality--as the photos attested--Khaled had been savagely beaten with his head bashed-in against a wall. This event prompted Mr. Ghonim to create a Facebook page in support of determining the truth about Khaled's death. He named this page "Kullena Khaled Said" or "We Are All Khaled Said."

The page grew by leaps and bounds in a remarkably short period of time, in part as the result of Mr. Ghonim's tireless rallying of supporters through Facebook and Twitter and his (and others like him) ability to tap into a growing sense within young Egyptians that the status quo could no longer hold. This evolved into January 25, 2011 -- Jan25 -- the opening salvo in an incredible popular (and peaceful) uprising that changed Egyptian history forever.

Mr. Ghonim's memoir is written at a breathless narrative pace that is hard to put down. His voice is determined and uncompromising, yet very humble at the same time. He takes pains throughout to emphasize the fact that he did not and does not see himself as the leader of the revolution. He was merely one man acting upon a deep-seated moral belief that decades of corruption and social injustice could no longer be tolerated. The more he witnesses, the deeper his conviction.

While his portrayal of his arrest and beating by state security after January 25 and his subsequent interrogations and psychological torture make for compelling reading, what I found most intriguing was how beautifully he articulates the power of social media in uniting millions of people on behalf of a justified cause. What makes his account so extraordinarily readable--not to mention downright inspiring--is the fact that he publishes dozens of actual excerpts of his Facebook messages and Tweets that put the reader right there in the middle of the action. You feel you are experiencing the revolution as it's happening which adds to the poignancy and our understanding of the scenes in Tahrir Square that we've all seen on television and on YouTube.

This ability to utilize social media for a greater common good is what gives the book its backbone and supports Mr. Ghonim's statement at the end of the book--as well as the book's subtitle--"The Power of the People is Greater Than the People In Power." This is a worthy notion to keep in mind as we continue to watch the ever-unfolding events in the Middle East, particularly Syria.

"Revolution 2.0" is more than a memoir. It's an important documentation of the first phase of a remarkable period in world history and an affirmation that all of us have a responsibility to work toward social justice--however great, however small--in each of our daily lives. The tools are there. We just need to use them.

Ciao.

A Call for Eyewitness Accounts of the Events in Egypt

Hi everyone!

When I'm not following current affairs in the Middle East or tutoring high school kids in the inner-city, I'm a playwright. I'm in the process of writing a new play, tentatively titled "Tahrir." It's a very different sort of piece from what I've written in the past, different in that it's very topical as one can probably assume from its title. I mention it here because I know I have readers in Egypt and other places in the Middle East that are currently being rocked by the tidal wave of the Arab Spring. And while I've done all this research, what I feel I'm lacking is some in-depth stories from the trenches from people who have been actively involved in the protest movement, whether it be in Egypt or Tunisia, Syria or Lebanon. I am currently reading Wael Ghonim's excellent memoir "Revolution 2.0" that gives a brilliant first-hand account of how social media was responsible in large part for putting the Egyptian revolution into motion. This is very helpful, but I need more.

In a nutshell, the play tells the story of Alistair, a young American blogger who goes to Cairo in the early days of Tahrir, meets and becomes influenced by a young Egyptian activist named Gamal. Gamal comes from the Egyptian elite. He is Western-educated, lives in Heliopolis, and prides himself in his life as a playboy. His father is one of Egypt's leading businessmen with very strong ties to the Mubarak regime. But despite all this, Gamal is moved by the protesters' demands and the plight of the everyday Egyptian. As much as this is a story about Alistair's understanding of these events, it is also--perhaps more so--the story of Gamal's social awakening and the conflict he feels between his socioeconomic background and what he believes to be right. I'm still in the early days of writing the play but I do know that Gamal will be arrested in Tahrir, will be tortured at the hands of the police, and will eventually be martyred.

Contrary to the impression many of you may have received of me from this blog, I have never been particularly politically motivated...that is, until I started following the extraordinary events of the past year. I have become very impassioned and feel a strong need to express this passion through my writing, which has always been my strongest suit. So if any of you who follow my blogs regularly or just happened to stumble upon it can offer any insights or put me in touch with anyone who may have been in Tahrir or have been arrested or suffered first-hand the injustices of these governing regimes, please let me know. You can respond here with a comment or contact me on Twitter at @jonmalysiak. Your insights are invaluable. I want my play to do your story justice, especially here in the West where people may not be as aware or well-versed on what's happening in Egypt or Syria on a daily basis.

At any rate, that's my pitch. Tomorrow, back to the news analysis.

Ciao.

One Citizen--An Extraordinary Plea for Human Rights by Maikal Nabil Sanad

Hi everybody!

I want to introduce you all to a remarkable young man. Maikel Nabil Sanad is a twenty-six year-old Egyptian who was released from prison yesterday after enduring a hunger strike and nearly a year in Cairo's El Marg Prison. You probably haven't heard of him, right?

Mr. Sanad never really got the opportunity to join his peers in the protests at Tahrir Square. In 2009, he spoke out against conscription into the all-powerful (and corrupt) Egyptian army. In 2010, he ignored his draft notice and was subsequently detained and released. Then, last February, Mr. Sanad was arrested again en route to Tahrir Square. After a sequence of further arrests and beatings, he began writing anti-military statements on his Facebook page and other blogs, claiming that the army did not share the democratic values of the protest movement and that it cared nothing for the rights of citizens but rather only for preserving and inflating its power. He went on to say that the revolution "so far managed to get rid of the dictator but not of the dictatorship," a criticism that has been expressed frequently by many who fear the interim military council will never step down from power as promised in June.

Mr. Sanad was then arrested again on March 28, 2011, initially sentenced by a military tribunal to three years that was then shortened to two for the 'crime' of criticizing the Egyptian army.

As Michael Wahid Hanna, a lawyer and fellow at the Century Foundation, writes in today's New York Times: "[Mr. Sanad's case] illuminates a broader challenge facing Egyptian society itself, if it hopes that democracy and pluralism will replace the Mubarak government."

The reason Mr. Sanad's case hasn't received the same amount of attention as other Egyptian dissidents who have been unjustly imprisoned is because, as Mr. Hanna points out, 1) Mr. Sanad is a Coptic Christian, a member of a religious community traditionally aligned with the former Mubarak regime; 2) Mr. Sanad is an avowed atheist and pacifist; and 3) he is a passionate supporter of Israel in a region that for the most part would probably rather that Israel didn't exist at all.

His criticism of the military is merely icing on the cake. Coptic Christians are a minority in this increasingly Islamist country. Last October, the military unleashed the full might of its power on a Coptic demonstration that resulted in the deaths of 27 people. It would seem that there's a strong community in Egypt--even among the protesters--who don't necessarily believe in freedom or justice for all...and I'm not just talking about the military.

Mr. Sanad eloquently argues his points in an essay he wrote last year while in prison that was smuggled out and published online in December. Entitled "One Citizen," Mr. Sanad writes that in a truly democratic society, if there's even one citizen with a view that runs counter to the majority, society has an obligation to allow that citizen his/her freedom to express their opinion. I've included the full text of that essay below.

Mr. Sanad's words pertain not only to Egypt as it grapples with its ongoing democratic transition, but to all citizens and all nations of the world.

The One Citizen

by Maikel Nabil Sanad

Thanks to Nariman Youssef for the translation.

At a press conference last week, SCAF’s Mukhtar Al-Mullah issued a number of statements that revealed the hidden intentions of the military to kill the nascent democracy in Egypt. When towards the end of the conference he was asked about me, he refrained from answering. And when asked about Alaa Abdel-Fattah, he tried to justify the detainment of Alaa, and then concluded by a very telling sentence, “Maikel Nabil and Alaa Abdel Fattah are Egyptian citizens, and we are very keen to protect all Egyptians, but we’re talking here about one citizen out of 85 million”.  Al-Mullah did not say who that “One Citizen”  was, Alaa or myself but what difference would that make?

-     The Military in their stupidity think that One Citizen is without value and easily marginalized… Their minds do not comprehend the fact that One Citizen put an end to Mubarak’s regime, one citizen: Khaled Said.

-     The first thing that came to my mind when I read Al-Mullah’s words was a quote by John Stuart Mill: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”…  This is precisely the difference between fascism and freedom. Fascists claim that there’s no harm in sacrificing One Citizen for the good of the community, and it was under this banner that people in Germany, in the Soviet Union, in fascist Italy, Nasserist Egypt, Baathist Syria and Maoist China, in Cuba and Milosevic’s Serbia, lost their freedom to tyrants who massacred whole communities while claiming each time that it’s just One Citizen, sacrificed for the community.

      In my lectures on liberalism I always said “that if the individual was at odds with society, as liberals we should take the side of the individual against society.”  Protecting the individual (the One Citizen) means protecting the values of individualism and individual liberties. Those who claim they can build a society made up of oppressed members are deceiving themselves, for if the individual is the building block of society, how do you construct a building out of stones that are crushed and broken?!

–     Neo-fascists forget that all great deeds in history were done by “One Citizen”.  It was One Citizen named Galileo who maintained that the earth was round, while all the inhabitants of the planet denied it. One Citizen named “Muhammad”  who brought Islam to humanity; the message was not revealed to 85 million people, but to One Citizen… Throughout history, human creativity has always been individual creativity: Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Nietzsche, Darwin, Edison – great deeds were always carried out by individuals who stood out, even while the rest of society did not go far beyond their natural instincts… The sacrifice of one individual for the good of the community is the argument put forward by tyrants to enable them to persecute thinkers, philosophers, scientists and all others who offered their services and their creativity to humanity.

-     I am not addressing myself to the military, for they are advancing toward their end like the enchanted, ignoring all indications of their fate. I am addressing myself to society, a society that was taught to accept the violation of One Citizen’s rights for the greater good of the community, as if the power that oppresses one will be able to later respect the rights of the community. This society that has accepted the displacement of the Nubian community in the name of national interest, that has accepted the expulsion of Egyptian Jews, the confiscation of their property, the revoking of their nationality, in the name of the interests of the majority. The same society that has sequestered homosexual rights, that has limited the individual freedoms of individuals under the guise of maintaining the family system and the interests of the greater society. It is time for the 85 Million to understand that their freedom is tied to the freedom of that One Citizen, that all freedom is lost once they allow the wolf to choose the first victim from amongst the herd, that they cannot regain the freedom of society unless every One Citizen is free.

Immediate freedom for Alaa Abdel-Fattah, for myself, for Ayman Mansour, for Amr Al-Beheiry, for each and every One Citizen in Egypt. Not because that would be the moral thing to do, but because you will never be free as long as the “One Citizen”  remains captive.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg general prison – prison hospital


2011/12/15

Brother vs Brother?: A Generation Gap in the Muslim Brotherhood

Hi everyone!

I came across an interesting article in today's New York Times Magazine about a gentleman named Mohamed Beltagy. Mr. Beltagy is a doctor and a popular leader within the Muslim Brotherhood, which incidentally won 40 percent of the seats in the new Egyptian parliament.

The article discusses the conflict brewing within the Brotherhood between its moderate members--like Mr. Beltagy--and the hardliners who have traditionally been the more dominant faction. Because of this, many fear that any government majority comprised of hardcore Islamists is going to result in a repressive society, a fact that would appear to contradict the democratic values upon which the Egyptian protest movement was founded. It's disappointing that the youth movement, at least from a political perspective, appears to have lost its influence. The party it backed in the recent elections barely registered with voters who turned out in droves to elect a parliament that is at least 65 percent Islamist.

While the Muslim Brotherhood came out with the majority of votes, not too far behind it are the Salafists who advocate strict religious rule...a theocracy if you will. It would appear then that there should be a modicum of overlapping values between these two political parties. But, as the article points out, there is not. In fact, although the Brotherhood claims to have abandoned its more fundamentalist leanings--at least for the sake of elections--the Salafists have hardened their more extremist stance. This poses an obvious problem for the future, let alone stability, of any Egyptian government. If the two leading parties are unable to compromise for the sake of a united and stable parliament, it just gives the military council (SCAF) further reason not to step down as promised in June. In fact, when the unofficial election results started to trickle in late last month, the military revised its position and said it would not step down and would in fact take control of the writing of the Constitution.

But there are other, perhaps more immediate concerns as well...or if not concerns per se, then questions. Where, for example, has the Brotherhood been in the most recent bout of protests? A year ago, the Brotherhood was a dominant presence in Tahrir Square, serving--according to New York Times writer Robert Worth--as a sort of makeshift security apparatus, frisking anyone who came to the protests before allowing them into the square, etc. This is no longer the case. In fact, the Brotherhood has consciously put distance between itself and the protests, at least from an external perspective. The reasons for this are about murky as the politics.

Many believe that most of the top dogs in the Brotherhood (who are used to a strong military involvement in government)  are not necessarily as adamant about getting rid of the military as are the younger generation, or for example, Mr. Beltagy. The military is still viewed by many older Egyptians as a stabilizing presence without which many fear anarchy. This may just be a case of better the devil you know...

But it does give cause for concern. The Brotherhood appears to be contradicting itself. In response to the most recent spate of violence that left at least 10 dead and hundreds more wounded, the Brotherhood spoke out against the violence--which it conceded was committed at the hands of the military--while telling protesters that their efforts would be better served by going to the polls and encouraging others to do the same. While elections are certainly an important part of the democratic process, if the military ultimately refuses to step down and widespread violence once again returns to Tahrir Square, on what side of the conflict is the Brotherhood going to find itself? After a year of dramatic change and continued uncertainty, the Egyptian public are not going to stand for a parliament--elected for the first time by the public--that sits on the fence and does nothing.

And as for that conflict within the Muslim Brotherhood between moderates like Mr. Beltagy and the traditional hardline cohort, many predict that once the Brotherhood is firmly in power, the moderates are going to be pushed out in favor of the old school...or the old madrassah, as it were. The hardline Brothers will align themselves with the hardline Salafists and you'll have a theocracy like Iran at worst, or Saudi Arabia at best, which isn't saying much.

The one-year anniversary of Tahrir Square is this Wednesday, the 25th. The new Parliament is also supposed to sit for the first time this week. Whatever happens, Egypt is definitely in the spotlight once again.

Ciao.

Protest Ennui Cannot be Allowed to Snuff out the Flame of Tahrir Square

Hi everyone!

Discouraging news coming out of Egypt. As January 25th rapidly approaches--the anniversary date for the start of the protests in Tahrir Square--it seems that the youth movement responsible for initiating the downfall of the Mubarak regime is losing favor with the average Egyptian. According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, many have simply grown weary of the protests and long for a return to some semblance of normal life.

A dangerous sense of ennui seems to be settling in. I say dangerous because if the Egyptian everyman and woman decides to pack it in and go along with the ruling military council (SCAF) out of a feeling that nothing is ever going to change so why bother, the momentum built up over the past twelve months will truly have been naught. The military will take encouragement from this and it then becomes increasingly likely that the longed-for and promised transition from military to civilian rule, currently scheduled to take place at the end of June, will be at great if not greater risk.

To mark the anniversary, a protest 'festival' of sorts has been planned for Tahrir Square, comprising of musical performances, lectures, and other activities designed to commemorate the protest movement and reignite the flame against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Over the weekend, however, the Muslim Brotherhood (who along with the hardline Salafist Party are set to assume control of more than 45% of the seats in the new parliament which is set to meet for the first time on January 23rd) announced that they would not be participating in any renewed protests against the interim military rulers. Without the Muslim Brotherhood's blessing, it is doubtful turnout for the protest will be as large as it otherwise might have been.

Another blow to the youth protest movement was the announcement that Mohamed ElBaradei has withdrawn from the upcoming presidential race. In his official statement to the press, Mr. ElBaradei said: "The regime did not fall yet. My conscience would not allow me to run for the presidency or any position without having a real democratic system that implements the real concepts of democracy, not only its framework."

Mr. ElBaradei's reasons for withdrawing are admirable. Despite recent parliamentary elections, Egypt still has a long way to go before it can unequivocally be said to have transitioned into a full-fledged democracy. As long as the interim military council remains even nominally in control, the country is still technically a police state.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate is perhaps Egypt's most qualified presidential candidate. His experience as the former secretary-general of the International Atomic Agency propelled him into the international spotlight. He is a known commodity as well as being familiar with the fundamentals of democratic government. Who else in Egypt is similarly positioned?

It seems that the fervid youthful revolutionary zeal of a year ago is fading in the face of continued repression and lack of true identifiable reform. The Egyptian economy is in the toilet, crippled by a lack of tourist dollars upon which the country could always depend as well as further uncertainty about the next six months. The youth movement may also be viewed by some older Egyptians as promoting anarchy. To counter this, the movement has initiated a public relations campaign called "Protect the Egyptian Military" that seeks to promote the efforts of the average policeman/woman on the street in contrast to the perceived corruption of their commanding officers.

It is of course understandable and perhaps inevitable that a certain level of 'protest fatigue' is to be expected. A year is an awfully long time to live in a state of economic and political uncertainty. Let's see what happens when the new democratically-elected parliament sits for the first time on the 23rd. Here's hoping the flame of Tahrir Square isn't allowed to die out.

Ciao.

Conflict for the Good of Change

Privet vsem!

Reading the Sunday papers this morning I was once again struck by the volatility shaking much of the world today. Of course, one could argue that there's never been a time when the world hasn't been riven by conflict--both petty and catastrophic. As humans, we seem to thrive on it. If we don't have enough drama in our lives we seek it out on television, in our relationships with friends, family, co-workers, in the daily news... But some conflict is good. Some conflict is necessary. Conflict is what forces and drives change...for better and for worse, though ideally it is for the better.

Take, for example, the top story in today's New York Times. The main headline reads: "Libya's Civilian Toll, Denied by NATO: Scores of Unintended Casualties, and a Reluctance to Investigate." It seems that while NATO was helping to bomb the hell out of Qaddafi's loyalist forces on behalf of the rebels, NATO pilots made egregious errors that resulted in anywhere from 40 to 70 civilian deaths, in some instances, wiping out whole families. Granted, there was at least one case where Qadaffi's top brass deliberately met in civilian areas and this is an area of the world where civilians have been used more often that anyone would care to admit as human shields: just look at the staggering number of civilian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War. A margin of error is to be expected. And while no one likes to read about innocent people being slaughtered in the name of a good cause (as I believe the overthrow of Qadaffi and his family to have been), collateral damage is almost unavoidable. It remains to be seen what the outcome in Libya will be, what with reports of rival rebel groups shooting it out in the streets of Tripoli while U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Libya's interim government (which also happened to be the first time a U.S. Defense Secretary has ever visited Libya), but hopefully Libya will right itself after surviving for years as a pariah state under Qadaffi. So...out of conflict--fingers crossed--comes good.

In nearby Egypt, Cairo was rocked by yet another day of violence as the military continued to crack down on protestors occupying Tahrir Square and nearby government buildings. While the moral advantage is definitely with the protestors, an article I read today said that many average Cairenes are getting fed up with the upheaval as it increasingly interferes with their daily lives. People can't get to work because of the protests and subsequent government crackdown, and there were reported cases of non-protestors being rounded up and beaten by the military police in a case of merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. One Egyptian blogger posted a particularly ominous Tweet this morning that said something along the lines of Tahrir Square being eerily quiet and dark tonight, with an impending sense of blood about to be shed soon. But again, we have conflict out of which--judging by the relatively peaceful elections--good is coming.

And then finally in Russia yesterday in an address to the United Russia party, for the first time President Dmitri Medvedev spoke out almost in support of the 50,000 protestors who came out en masse last weekend against the recent fraudulent elections there. Mr. Medvedev said it was time to start listening to the voices of the people on the street, as those voices represented the true desires of the Russian people. Putin, of course, was nowhere to be seen. Could this be a sign of a rift between the top Russian powers-that-be? Medvedev has always come across as a reasonable sort. The question is, if he continues to endorse the protestors, is his job as prime minister once Putin takes over the presidency in jeopardy? But then, maybe that wouldn't be such a change as it's clear Putin has always been top brass despite the job title.

So, we have three scenarios here where conflict has the potential to resolve itself in favor of good. A lot remains to be seen. But I'd like to think the world as a whole is taking a step in the right direction.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Is collateral damage to be expected in the pursuit of positive change? Why or why not?"