Was it Civilian?
After a conflict that lasted for a long period of time with corruption, bribery, and favoritism during the monarchical period which ruled Egypt from the early eighteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century, a statement was broadcast to us, gladdening our hearts and giving us new hope in men who announced they wanted nothing but reform. These men confronted the king with a well-organized plan, seizing hold of the affairs of state as soon as possible without any losses. It was the July Revolution of 1952. After that revolution ousted the monarchical system and put an end to those trailing behind it and other remnants, Egypt began a new era in a republican system differing quite a bit from the system that preceded it, “the military system.” But was it really different or did it actually bear much similarity to the previous system?
The monarchical regime transferred power hereditarily and rule of the country did not leave the royal family. The ’52 regime transferred power hereditarily and the country’s rule did not leave the military institution…In the monarchical regime, bribery, corruption and favoritism spread and in the ’52 regime, bribery, corruption and favoritism spread, which gave birth to the new revolution…The monarchical system was accepting foreign hegemony and normalization, and the last ruler of the ’52 regime was one of the biggest normalizers…So what was that regime up to after the revolution against the king?
Was one of the greatest concerns the manner of ruling and the manner of hereditary transmission of rule, seeing as they were not sons of one family and blood and ancestry did not unite them as with the monarchical regime? Was the Revolution of 25 January against the Mubarak regime in particular or against that regime which reigned for six decades and did not give us anything other than a third world country where illiteracy rates are increasing, science is disappearing, and where words struggle, gasping for foreign aid? Do the slogans of the “civil state” express the denial of that regime and its way of managing the country? History tells us that military regimes deal with their people the way they do with their troops: everyone implements the order without thinking, the leader is the red line, and your loyalty is to your leader rather than any slogans (for they view them as a loss of control over affairs such as democracy). How could the leader accept criticism from the enlisted soldier? Social justice: how could the leader be equal to the enlisted soldier? A dignified life: how could the leader control enlisted soldiers enjoying the meanings of that which makes peoples civilized, valuable, which grows through them and raises them up? At that point, they will think about the leaders’ orders and consider whether to accept or reject them, and that shakes him from his throne if the soldier, i.e. the people, disagrees with many of the orders. That system was keen to control and dominate all parts of the country in order to make it difficult for anyone to remove the country’s rule from their hands. They did that by forming a state within a state with its own budget, industry (military industry), agriculture (military agriculture), a communications network, and health services and recreation such as hospitals and clubs. It also has companies which compete in the economy. Moreover, they also put people whose loyalty they are certain of at the centers of power like the ministries of defense, justice, interior and the presidents of the Constitutional Court and the Council of State. As for the civil state, it is a one which the people manage themselves. They create its laws according to their desires. We have many international models in which the civil state has risen up, such as Malaysia, Turkey, and Brazil. We now have two choices: we can accept the extension of the ’52 regime—which is a military regime, or we can create a real civil state which does not accept the domination or trusteeship of anyone.
The people know best how to manage their affairs. Their wish lives on and the struggle continues.
For the sake of stability, together for a civil state against the extension of military rule and hereditary transmission.
Acquired 12 December 2011
Translated by Stephen Kalin
Translation reviewed by Thomas Levi Thompson