Logo: “The Popular Committees for the Defense of the Revolution”
A progressive publication issued by the Popular Committees for the Defense of the Revolution
Volume Five, Week Four March 2011 Price: 25 cents
When will the revolution triumph?
The revolution will triumph when the demands of the revolutionaries—who organized the revolution, were martyred for it, and faced bullets along with other types of oppression while protecting it—are met…until then we can say that our revolution is on the path to victory.
The revolution will triumph when the regime it was intended to topple falls.
When the entire regime falls, from the president to his MP’s and ministers, on through his corrupt businessmen… When they are given fair, public trials that the people can follow … When the torture files, old and new, are opened… When those individuals who tortured and killed tens of Egyptians, along with those who ordered them to do so, those with whom they collaborated, and those who oversaw their actions, are investigated… When those individuals who have been detained in prisons for years without charge or trial are set free… When apologies are made to those who suffered torture and imprisonment, and when these individuals are compensated for the oppression they faced at the hands of the security apparatus.
When the army returns to its barracks and protects the borders from foreign aggression, instead of ruling the people sometimes with leniency, and sometimes with violence… When the police return as a civil power and treat people with respect, both in and out of the police station… When the secret police, whether they were called State Security or National Security, are eradicated, and there are no more underground arrests or instruments of torture imported with taxpayers’ money… When education is free for all Egyptians, and children aren’t forced to leave school in order to work at an early age, which results in their being deprived of education and fun, and their childhoods being stolen from them… When health services are free, and every sick person can find care and treatment regardless of his financial means… When there are no longer ‘hotel hospitals’ for those who can pay the price and others without medicine, outside of which the poor line up… When citizens can live in homes fit for humans, and the current, criminal situation—in which citizens are divided between a few who live in palaces and the majority who live in huts and graves— is brought to an end… When workers can find clean drinking water, rather than drinking what is used to water the gardens of palaces and golf courses, which flourish while some neighborhoods still rely on public faucets and others demonstrate in protest out of thirst…
When state funds are spent on the streets of Nahia and al-’Umaraniyya and all the poor neighborhoods where children play in the middle of garbage, rather than on decorating main squares and building bridges for car-owners and businessmen… When a citizen is free to practice his religion, whether he be Muslim or Christian… When discrimination between women and men is brought to an end… When they both earn the same wage for the same work and treat each other respectfully, in and out of the home… When citizens aren’t forced under heavy pressure to work without a contract, insurance, or social security, and when minimum wage is set at 1,500 pounds [per month] at least, so that people can live at the subsistence level and not below it… When there are no longer some individuals who earn one hundred fifty pounds [per month] and others who earn one million… When the state treats its citizens as its most precious possession, provides job opportunities for every youth, and pays unemployment to youths until they can find work…
When we are able to organize ourselves, express our opinions, protest, demonstrate, and organize sit-ins without fearing imprisonment or fines… When we can freely choose who rules us and how they rule us, without intimidation, threats of arms, emergency law, or debt extortion… When we write our constitution ourselves and agree upon the principles according to which we will deal with each other and the state.
When the government understands that it exists to serve us and not the reverse… that we and Egypt are one… that the country is the people… and that without the people there is no country and no Egypt… When they understand that we are the nation…Then and only then will the revolution have triumphed… and at that time we will have to employ all means to protect it and keep it going… to keep it vigilant and alert, wary of danger, opportunistic attempts to defeat it, and deceitful attempts to circumvent it.
The January 25th Revolution belongs to us; we are the ones who were martyred so that it might triumph. We: the youth, students and workers, women and men, old and young, Muslim and Christian… We all have demands, but we all have rights… We are not begging for them as one begs for alms… We paid the price in advance rather than paying a thousand all at once, and we are still paying, and we will pay until it triumphs…. We are not ‘factions’ and our demands are not ‘factional’ demands… Our demands are the ones that ignited the spark of the January 25th Revolution…. Our demands are to live free and with dignity in our country… The revolution belongs to us and we are the ones invested in its victory. We are the only ones who can complete and preserve it….
The revolution is not only in Tahrir Square… It is in the heart and soul of every citizen yearning for freedom, dignity, humanity, and social justice… We transmit it and protect it wherever we go…in neighborhoods, cities, villages, and squares.
Our revolution continues until victory.
From the first moments of the Egyptian revolution and following the revolutionaries’ success in toppling the dictator Mubarak, two visions have been butting heads in the Egyptian political street: gradual reform versus immediate, total, radical revolution to out the remnants of decay that have been accumulating for thirty years. Those that call for reform promote the idea that the revolution requires a transitional period in which power is transferred peacefully so that we move from subjugation to freedom, from dictatorship to democracy, and from the rule of an individual to rule of the people. These demands seem revolutionary, popular, and just, but they are accompanied by an apparent condition, which is stability. For the camp that calls for gradual reform believes that the revolution is now in urgent need of stability, just as it once needed the vociferous, mass labor movement in its first stage.
Under the call for stability, deceptive propaganda began describing social demands as calls to destruction that sought to damage the country’s economic interests. It also describes them as factional demands characterized by individualism and selfishness on the part of divided sectors of workers. These descriptions deliberately ignore the truth that these are the Egyptian general public’s demands. We have waited a long time, and it’s unacceptable to require that we wait any longer.
In truth, these calls for waiting and stability only serve the remnants of the former regime, protecting businessmen and the wealthy. Under no circumstances will they ever serve the workers’ and laborers’ interests. This became clear under Sharaf’s government, which promoted these calls on the basis that they are popular and derive their legitimacy from the square. Sharaf was careful to appoint ministers who were new faces, unknown to the masses—supporting the myth of change. But the government still administers the country’s affairs the same way even after the era of deposed tyrant. The government thus shows itself loyal, if only tacitly, to businessmen and capitalism, just as it is openly and blatantly hostile to the working class and the proletariat’s ranks. This was clearly manifested in the decree which Sharaf’s government approved, which criminalizes and prohibits strikes and labor sit-ins, and threatens those who participate in them with imprisonment and fines. Then the government deigned to clarify that it will allow for strikes in non-official work hours so that the process of production is not interrupted or harmed.
The only word with which to describe these governmental interpretations of the new law is that they are absurd. Sharaf’s government underestimates our intelligence before even considering our demands. Through these hostile behaviors towards workers and the masses, Sharaf’s government proves that it is little more than a partner to the revolution’s enemies from the previous regime, cooperating with them in attempt to suppress the revolution and steal victory from the people. It proves that this claim to stability is merely an opportunity for them to take a breath and organize their ranks to work once again, both aboveground and underground. It seems it is now our turn to explain to the Sharaf government and all those calling for stability and reform that the Egyptian revolution was not organized to topple Mubarak alone, but the entire regime. It was meant to enable us in bringing about true, democratic, radical change. The truth is that your calls for reform seem meager and insufficient in comparison to the revolution’s wealth and its radical promises. Indeed, the continuation of the revolution is the only path to meeting our social demands, our only guaranteed chance.
Be Done With Your Old Union
Public Transport Authority workers were able to disband their independent union, a fact which they announced at the Constituent Assembly that they convened last Friday, the 25th of March.
Public Transport workers suffered for many years from the deterioration of their social status and the lowering of their wages, while their union, adhering to the old regime’s policies, stood against their interests and opposed the actions they took to realize their legitimate demands. In spite of terrible pressure from security forces under the obsolete Mubarak regime, and the collusion of the union’s leader Hussayn Mugawur (a hero in the Battle of the Camels) with the regime and against the workers’ interests, the workers were able to organize a large strike on the 18th and 19th of August in 2009. This strike had a great impact on both the labor movement and the workers themselves, for it exposed the extent of the union’s extreme hostility towards the workers’ demands.
Three days before Mubarak’s resignation, the workers organized a strike involving all of the Transportation Authority’s garages. This strike, along with others, greatly contributed to making it impossible for Mubarak to remain in power.
Following in the footsteps of their colleagues in real estate taxes and the Pensions Union, Public Transport Authority workers decided to establish their own independent union to express their concerns, and in so doing struck a fatal blow to the remains of Mubarak’s and the businessmen’s unions. They did this so that the workers could practice their democratic right to choose their leaders on the ground directly, without waiting for an announcement from anyone, no matter whom.
In so doing, Public Transportation workers, like their colleagues in real estate tax reform, confirmed that democratic rights are taken and not given, and that laborers are also struggling for democracy in their own way.
On the same day, after the Public Transportation assembly, workers at Manshia Bakry General Hospital announced the establishment of the first independent guild in the medical sector, a guild whose membership encompasses both permanent and temporary workers.
Doctors, nurses, employees, and technicians — the guild includes all who work for a wage inside the hospital so that they can face their employer. With this powerful step, the workers’ guild at Manshia Bakri Hospital adheres to the true meaning of the guild structure, in which the guild expresses the interests of members regarding the employer, rather than the laborer and employee being in one guild together, as is the case in trade unions. For example, the doctors guild, unlike the Manshia workers’ guild, includes in its membership both the practicing doctor who fights for the improvement of his wages and the Minister of Health who owns the hospital in which the same doctor works.
With its actions, this guild broke down the surprising discrimination among trade and labor unions; in other words, returned the guild to its original, ideal state.
Long live the free, independent guilds
Long live the fight of the working class
A Day for Our Violated Lands
[words in beige graphic:] Here we will stay
The celebration of Yawm al-Ard (Earth Day) goes back to the 30th of March in 1976, when the Palestinian “Sons of the Nation” stood against the Israeli authorities in the lands that were occupied in 1948. They stood against the authorities that practiced various forms of repression and terrorism against them and deprived them of any right to expression or assembly. These authorities worked to conquer the greater portion of the land by any means, including the utter destruction of many villages, leaving Palestinians with no shelter or source of livelihood. Because of this pressure, which Palestinians living in the lands of ’48 endured for twenty-eight years, a popular outburst erupted in the form of a general strike and a rally. The Zionist occupation faced this outburst with excessive brutality, killing six (among them a woman), wounding dozens, and arresting more than three hundred people.
The spark that ignited Palestinian anger was the confiscation of 21,000 dunim (roughly 5,000 acres of land) from a number of Arab villages, and the designation of these villages for Zionist settlements under the banner of “The Plan for the Development of Galilee.” This plan was announced in 1975 and represented the fruition of a long plot to erase the identity of the Galilee region (Northern Palestine) by forcing Palestinian citizens to emigrate. Zionist authorities confiscated more than one million dunim of the Galilee and the Palestinian Triangle in the period from 1948 to 1972, in addition to millions of dunims that were seized by force, after a series of massacres, during the War of 1948.
Yawm al-Ard was the first Palestinian protest in the 1948 lands. In it, Palestinians used stones, axes, and knives against the authorities armed with machinery, guns, and gas canisters. Yawm al-Ard thereby became a day to express resistance and solidarity with the Arab identity of the land in all the Palestinian territories. Yawm al-Ard became a day to stand against the Western-Zionist media’s allegations that the Palestinians sold their own land, for statistics prove that the percentage of the land Zionists acquired by purchase was extremely tiny. They purchased this land using overly elaborate methods, such as seizing the lands of poor civilian farmers through real estate banks, or those of landowners who didn’t live in Palestine in the first place. Rather, they acquired the vast majority of their lands both with the help of the British Occupation and by force of arms.
The Truth Behind Anti-Libyan Aggression
We cannot designate what Libya is facing as anything but aggression, for how can we believe that world powers would protect the revolution? These regimes do not take action against any Arab dictator unless he stands in the way of their interests, and in our current state, dictators have become “burnt cards.” World powers are leaving their dictator-clients to topple one after the other—first Ben ‘Ali and Mubarak, and now ‘Abdullah Salih and Qaddafi are on their way—after having granted these dictators many opportunities to repress their peoples’ revolutions, which they failed to do. The slogan “The people want the fall of the regime” became a demand that could be realized.
The goal was no longer for regimes to stay in power however bad they became, as long as they served the interests of the new imperialists, because the heads of these imperialist regimes had already fallen. Rather,the goal of the regimes that are currently being toppled was to remain in the best position possible, with the smallest number of changes, by arranging matters with the “New Rulers,” a.k.a. the generals, and by working to stop the revolutions on the threshold of a “Ballot Box Democracy.”
The logical and legitimate question is why, after all this time during which the blood of revolutionaries flowed and surprising victories were realized, the United States and its companions did not try to present military support or even humanitarian aid to the revolutionaries. This especially in light of Hillary Clinton’s visit to the new rulers of Egypt, and before her the Israeli Minister, who confirmed that, “All is well in the nation of the Nile,” and that, “If Mubarak left, one thousand Mubaraks could ride on the shoulders of the revolution.”
They are exploiting a huge propaganda machine to beautify their crimes, publishing pictures of Libyan revolutionaries raising the French flag while the truth is rooted in the confusion of a public born in the age of subjugation, desiring the end of this age by any means, and failing to believe that they themselves have nearly ended it. I recall that many people in Tahrir Square followed the American statements demanding the resignation of Mubarak with great interest, an example of the state of tension and confusion through which we passed.
The current scene reminds us of the American and European strikes on Iraq, and Egyptian forces’ participation. The only thing missing is Mubarak feigning tears in front of the camera, and Tantawi saying “Two sects of believers killed each other…” shamefully exploiting religion in order to justify an alliance with the Imperialist powers.
The Army, the People, and Revolutionary Legitimacy
Only about two weeks after the military police broke up the sit-in in Tahrir Square using violence and deliberate hostility towards the peaceful protesters, the scene repeated itself. This time, however, it occurred in a more repulsive fashion given the sanctity of the place in which this brutality occurred, the university campus, and because it was against peaceful protestors, who had taken care not to disrupt classes and decided to perform their sit-in outside of lecture hours. We all know that there has been a long fight to expel security from the university and respect the sanctity of this holy center of knowledge. After the January 25th Revolution, this dream was realized, but it quickly turned into a nightmare, given the position in which we find ourselves: We carried out a revolution in order to expel State Security, only to replace them with military police and their well-known electric baton, which reminds us of the baton of the Central Security Forces. Some might ask, “Well, how do you want them to break up the sit-in? Do you want them to break it up?” Our response is in compliance with the demands presented by the students, demands which were attacked with the word “classist” in order to insult and malign them. I was shocked when I heard the demands presented by the students described as “illegitimate”, despite the general lack of knowledge about them, for no one was interested in listening to these demands. Instead, they focused all their attention on their description as illegitimate and classist, how they were hampering the wheel of production and it was a kid’s game…etc. So let’s pose the question of the identity of those who determine the legitimacy of demands or lack thereof to researchers who deal with the source of legitimacy.
From my point of view, we carried out the revolution in order to lift away the guardianship of the regime so that we would determine our own path without needing someone to fill the role of the loving father who is afraid we’ll hurt ourselves with our recklessness. Consequently, we have emerged in order to present a group of demands whose only source of legitimacy lies in those who came out to demand them, and in spite of the lack of recognition from the regime—which represented the guardian—of these demands, their legitimacy was not destroyed. It was the duty of the Armed Forces not to interfere in the politics of the country, but after legitimacy was wrested from the political regime and bestowed upon the Armed Forces, their intervention and move to take over responsibility for the country became completely legitimate. Dissolving the legislature and creating constitutional amendments were not part of the Armed Forces’ powers, but they were capable of doing all of that based on a legitimacy that was itself based on the people.
In summary, they say that legitimacy is the legitimacy of the people, that it is something the people possess and that they alone can bestow upon who they wish. The people are the only measure by which legitimacy can be determined, enforced, or dispensed, and the system responsible for running the country has no duty other than synergizing the demands of the people and planning them out, then working to realize them using state resources owned by the people. By this same way of thinking, the source of legitimacy of the demands called “classist” is those who issue them and not the Armed Forces or the government. Of course, an employee at an insurance company would not determine the legitimacy of the demands from workers in a factory nor that of the demands from students in the College of Media.
In the case of those who ask for change solely for the sake of change without any wider understanding, forbidding people to make demands or beating them is not the solution. How easy it is for workers or students to not go to a rally and instead topple the institution by not going out and staying at home. Will this end in the passage of a law criminalizing staying at home?! The ideal solution is rational, logical dialogue and the establishment of a timetable for rational demands. As soon as these rational demands are realized the sit-in will be broken up. If this dialogue is carried out and the demands are treated rationally and impartially and the sit-in continues, contrary to the customs of the place, and it is being carried out only by the members of the original protesters and not an external faction unaware of the original group’s concerns, then in that case the demands lose their legitimacy for those who belong there and the sit-in should be broken up. However, this should take place in a humane way, without the involvement of the Ministry of the Interior or the Armed Forces but rather with the university’s civil security and under the supervision of rights groups, in order to prevent the occurrence of violations so that we learn a foundation of human respect. It seems that the members of the former regime were not the only ones ignoring this principle.
The Popular Committees for the Defense of the Revolution
Faysal, al-Haram, and al-’Amraniyya
The First Elected Dean on the ‘Ayn-Shams Arts Faculty… A Very Tough Task
After a short battle, the Faculty of Arts at ‘Ayn-Shams University has witnessed the first election process for the position of dean. The most effective party in the election was the young members of the faculty, who insisted on their right to hold elections for the position of dean. Al-Dimati, who arrogantly left his position in order to take a job oversees, threw them out of the meeting hall, protesting that teaching assistants do not have the right to vote and that the elections for dean must be carried out by the teachers on the college board. By that, he meant, of course, the regime that was in place before 1989 of which he was not actually a contemporary. Under this pressure, which in the end was not escalated enough, the oldest teaching assistant was chosen to vote in the name of his co-workers.
“‘Abd al-Nasir Hasan,” a teacher in the Arabic Language Department and the first elected dean, has always enjoyed the respect of the entire teaching faculty, especially from the youth, even before his official nomination. Hasan faced a difficult campaign, as the bureaucracy of ‘Ayn Shams University has long been ruled by their security lords, more so than any other Egyptian university. Security forces are located at the head of the university, in the ultimate unveiling, and visits to the guard office are unavoidable in getting a position while near-constant visits from the guards to your office are inevitable if you want to keep your job.
Added to this is the generally poor academic condition that the university has reached, with the mafia of private lessons, required books, and even intellectual stagnation. This is the most difficult issue facing the university and it will not be easily resolved.
Perhaps the task most deserving of attention is the establishment of a democratic operation in the management of the university, without limiting voting privileges to senior faculty only but rather extending it to every member of the faculty and support staff—and not merely one delegate from the staff. Also at hand is their right to membership on college and department committees, where their representation should be proportional to their presence in each college and department. I see this as a guarantee of the achievement of true reform for all of the university’s problems and a guarantee of maintaining these reforms and facing down the previous regime, which maintained an unusual presence in the university.
Assistant Lecturer – College of Arts, ‘Ayn Shams University
Trial, Trial for the Gang That Was In Charge
This slogan, shouted by revolutionaries throughout the revolution, has many deep meanings. It confirms that in the past Egypt was ruled by forming a gang dependent upon mingling money with power in order to support the machine of tyranny and oppression that sought to loot the nation’s goods and riches and deprive the people of their rights and opportunities for development.
As the slogan demands, the trial of every individual involved in this gang is one of the goals of the revolution upon which we will not give up.
However, up until today, fifty days after the fall of the president of this gang, neither he nor other senior members in the organization, such as his right-hand, Safwat al-Sharif, or his left-hand, Zakariya ‘Azmi, or the coordinator of political corruption, Fathi, have been brought to trial. Instead, the sacrifice has been made, just like as happens in the drug trade, of some novice boys, with the most honorable among the friends of the president’s son absorbing all of the public’s anger.
Despite the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Military Council’s certainty that there are schemes to abate and abort the revolution—beginning with the scene of “the camels and horses” and continuing until today—being carried out by elements of what is known as the counter-revolution, the leaders of these elements, who are the symbols of the corruption of the old guard, have been left behind to carry out their natural lives in spite of the charges leveled against them.
This suspicious laxity on behalf of the government and the army in the trials of Mubarak and the high-ups who helped him as well as the leadership of the National Party and the leaders of the dissolved State Security Forces has excited many interpretations. They begin with the role of Marshall Tantawi in guaranteeing them a safe exit from power, considering that he was counting on that wing of the previous old guard. People also say that the Gulf nations are exerting pressure and threatening to expel Egyptian workers if Mubarak is brought to trial, while others say that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to convict them.
All of these theories and others like them ignore the role of this gang in corrupting political and social life and legalizing organized corruption and tyranny. Likewise, they also forget the legitimacy of the revolution, the price of which was paid by thousands of martyrs and wounded people, that requires the speedy trial of every element of corruption and tyranny. Leaving them at large currently represents the principle threat to the success of the revolution, the stability of the country, and the security of citizens. Capturing them and limiting their movements and their financial resources, for the sake of the people, is the only guaranteed way to send the rats of the counter-revolution back to their holes.
From Tahrir Square to the Alleys and Streets
The Experience of the Committee to Defend the Revolution in al-Ma’adi, al-Basatin, and Dar al-Salam
Organized political activity in the streets and neighborhoods was forbidden from the Egyptian people for decades as a result of successive governments’ repressive policies and repression of freedom. But the situation has changed thanks to the sacrifices of thousands of Egyptians during the revolution, which fractured—even if only temporarily—the tyranny and power of the police forces. Today we are able to carry out political work on the streets through conferences, marches, and statements as well people’s committees, which play an observatory role. In this article we will present the activities of one popular committee to defend the revolution—the committee of al-Ma’adi, al-Basatin, and Dar al-Salam—with the aim of sharing our experiences. This might be helpful to activists who want to form similar committees.
The Committee began its work shortly before Mubarak’s resignation on February 11, 2011. It organized its first public conference on al-Gumhuriyya Street in the popular neighborhood al-Ma’adi in order to honor the martyrs and discuss the post-revolution situation in Egypt. The Committee’s main message was to assure that the revolution would continue until its main slogan—“the people want the fall of the regime”—was brought to fruition. This meant not only Mubarak’s resignation, but also the fall of the legal and political system that caused widespread poverty and corruption throughout Egypt.
During the conference, a number of relatives of the martyrs from al-Ma’adi spoke. They made clear they did not want reparations but would prefer to see these murderers—foremost among them Mubarak—punished so that their martyrs’ blood will not have been shed in vain. For them, this punishment is crucial in achieving the hopes for which hundreds of Egypt’s sons were martyred. It was during this first conference that the Committee distributed its first statement, titled “The Revolution Continues.” Then the second statement, which emphasized the same idea, was distributed on the streets and in front of subway stations. It attempted to confront the counterattack which had developed at that time and which demanded calmness, patience, and a chance for Shafiq’s government.
The Committee’s second conference developed into something like a popular parliament. The people of ‘Ali ‘Abd al-’Aziz Street, near al-Ma’adi, spoke about their expectations for the revolution as well as their positions on Ahmad Shafiq’s government and the police forces. They were opposed to Shafiq remaining in office. There were a range of opinions among the local people; there were those who stressed the importance of continuing the revolution, and those who called for satisfaction with what was achieved, seeking a compromise. The majority opted to continue the revolution, thanks to a democratic dialogue in which Committee members’ participation was kept to a minimum. The people of the neighborhood did most of the talking.
On March 1st, a statement titled “Why organize a sit-in in Tahrir Square” was distributed widely among residents of al-Ma’adi as an answer to concerns about the sit-in at Tahrir Square. The statement clarified that demonstrating, staging sit-ins, and strikes are the only leverage the people have in order to achieve the revolution’s final goals. The Committee succeeded in convincing a number of the neighborhood’s inhabitants to participate in the sit-in, which ended with Shafiq’s government stepping down.
When an accident happened in al-Ma’adi, in which a microbus driver was shot in the neck by a police officer, a number of Committee members quickly participated in an unplanned vigil. On the same day, the Committee published a statement and distributed it widely. The statement’s main idea was that the police forces’ tyranny will continue as long as the criminals amongst them—the ones who tortured, injured, and killed thousands of Egyptians before and during the revolution—have not been and the National and Central Security Forces have not been dissolved. In the statement, we also demanded the resignation of the Interior Minister Mahmud Wagdy.
When sectarian events occurred at the Atfih church and in Manshiyat Nasir, the Committee hurried to publish a statement encouraging national unity against the revolution’s enemies: “Muslim… Christian… we all are Egyptians.” Similarly, the Committee successfully organized a demonstration march in support of national unity, together with hundreds of other neighborhoods. The march started in front of a mosque after Friday prayer and ended in front of a church.
As concerns its position on the constitutional amendments: the Committee organized its third public conference to discuss the amendments and explain its reasons for opposing the amendments. It also prepared three statements on this subject. Tens of thousand copies were handed out throughout the week before the referendum, in addition to posters rejecting the constitutional amendments. Several Committee members also took on roles as observers during the referendum.
During the one and a half months since the Committee to Defend the Revolution was founded, it has managed to organize three public conferences—each with an average participation of two hundred people—and a march attended by approximately five hundred citizens. It has published more than six statements—of which tens of thousands of copies were distributed—which provided the people of the neighborhood with an opportunity to enter into political discussions with the Committee members, the ones distributing the statements. This means that the political publicity successfully reached a high number of people in the neighborhood. This success led to the extension of our membership; what began as fewer than ten individuals ended up as a group with hundreds of members.
This is not to say that the Committee has not faced certain difficulties, among them: how to administer democratic dialogue amongst this growing membership, how to productively profit from these energies, how to raise funds for printing the statements and organizing the conferences. All of this has made us consider splitting up the Committee into specific groups, so that each can effectively accomplish its assigned duty.
(A group for public relations, a group for communication, memberships, and finances, a group for internet and publicity, a group for publishing and distributing the statements, a group for legal issues and research to study upcoming matters on the square, and a group which follows the issue of the injured and martyrs…)
As it moves into a new phase, the Committee hopes to secure the people’s observatory role in the various national apparatuses (police districts, neighborhoods, provinces), helping them organize in a way that puts political pressure on these apparatuses, in order to guarantee that they carry out their duties and serve the citizens. The Committee will also continue to spread political consciousness during the parliamentary and presidential elections and in all matters that arise in the square.
To Contact, Join, and Give Your Suggestions
Facebook: al-Ligan al-Sha’biyya li-l-Difa’ ‘an al-Thawra al-Misriyya [The Popular Committees for the Defense of the Egyptian Revolution]
[Logo text: The Popular Committees for the Defense of the Revolution]
Central Telephone: [redacted]
al-Haram- Faysal- al-‘Umaraniyya: [redacted]
Bulaq al-Dakrur: [redacted]
al-Ma‘adi – al-Basatin – Dar al-Salam: [redacted]
al-Sayyida Zaynab: [redacted]
al-Shaykh Zayid – 6 October: [redacted]
al-Qanatir al-Khayriyya: [redacted]
East Cairo: [redacted]
al-Saff – al-Badrashin – al-Hawamdiyya: [redacted]
Port Sa‘id: [redacted]
Kafr al-Shaykh : [redacted]
Bani Suwayf: [redacted]
 This is an expression that means “obsolete,” similar to “old news” in English.
Translated by Yasmeen Mekawy
Translation reviewed by Emily Drumsta
Translated by Emma Moros
Translation reviewed by Emily Drumsta
Translated by Sarah Layton
Translation reviewed by Thomas Levi Thompson
Page 4, “From Tahrir Square to the Alleys and Streets”
Translated by Alina Mülhauser
Translation reviewed by Emily Drumsta
“To Contact, Join, and Give Your Suggestions”
Translated by Thomas Levi Thompson