I write this short essay friends on the premise that Egypt is a nation state with a flag, and not a piece of land comprised of feuding Islamic tribes, each with its own flag.
Egypt stands at the most significant crossroads since the era of Mohamed Ali, and maybe even the era of the Pharaohs.
Egypt needs an almost complete overhaul of its culture, and I say almost because there are many aspects and attributes that should survive and thrive. The overhaul cannot be gradual or incremental, because its momentum has to be strong enough to overcome the prevailing culture with its quicksand syndrome, or at best its running in place historical outcomes. The momentum must be forceful enough to overlap current culture which has at its disposal many a setback to interject against any positive process.
The overhaul must embrace -- in the constitution, in the laws of the land, in Egyptians' expectations of elected officials, in their judiciary and in the government -- the basic principles of modern nations. It is important to note that no nation today has achieved perfection in its system of living for its people, that is and always will be a work in progress. But modern nations, by an informed definition of enlightened societies, by widely recognized standards of government, by non-negotiable human rights, learn from what is available in their history or the history of other nations and with dogged determination embark with speed and agility to set themselves on the desired path, the correct trajectory, to get there, to the much preferred and highly appropriate state of affairs for its people -- all of them.
I say this because history has taught us that building a democracy is a long process and is built on the history and traditions of a country. The founders of the United States had almost two thousand years of English history behind them when the United States was being established. This meant that Americans were accustomed to the struggles between the nobility and the king (The Magna Carta 1215), the nobility and commoners (The English Revolution, Oliver Cromwell, and the Civil War 1641-1642 and after that the loss of power of the king and nobility and the rise of the House of Commons) and the concept of the rule of law and other precedents.
Egypt is not so fortunate, in its recent history, it has gotten accustomed to dictatorial rule. So, one faction after another takes power and intimidates the rest. The faction on top begins immediately to govern, resorting to mob rule when all else fails. This comes with no leadership, vision, or program for the nation.
Also, to have a democracy, Egypt would need a literate public. In the US, the citizens of the colonies were the most literate in the world and could understand the language in the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine's Common Sense...One can read tracts by common laborers written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that were highly sophisticated even by today's standards.
Another most critical factor, leadership:
- America, back in the 18th century, was unusually and most astonishingly fortunate to have strong, intelligent leaders who wanted a democracy, who wanted a special society.George Washington (and I will not talk about the other incredible founding fathers this time around) could have been king. He refused to be called Your Excellency and, not wanting an imperial presidency, he stepped down after two terms, ceding power to the opposing party. Gamal Abdel Nasser, second President of Egypt, if not for his premature passing in 1970, would still be Egypt's President to this day!!!
- In South Africa, they had the extraordinary being, Nelson Mandela, a human who can minimize the gap between his ideals and his actions. Mandela led the struggle to replace the apartheid regime of South Africa with a multi-racial democracy. Democracy in South Africa is safeguarded by one of the world's most progressive constitutions, an independent judiciary, a free press, media freedom and access to information. Mandeladid not seek a second term as South African president.
- In India, following a century and a half of English rule, with English language and traditions, the country became an independent nation within the British Commonwealth in 1947. Nationalist leader Jawaharlal Nehru became the first Prime Minister of India, but the most powerful moral leader Mahatma Gandhi accepted no office. The new constitution of 1950 made India a secular and a democratic state. India has a Hindu majority, a large Muslim minority, and numerous other religious minorities including Sikhs and Christians.
In Egypt, there is need to define, very soon I hope:
- Who are the Egyptian people, they are not, for certain, only Egyptian Muslims.
- Who is welcome in Egypt, all world ethnic groups I hope, for business or pleasure.
- What freedom means, in regards its people's life pursuits, including religion, expression, media and peaceful assembly.
- In particular, what does freedom of religion means. The Constitution should make it unquestionable that freedom of religion extends to any and all religions practiced in the world today, and not just the three Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). Freedom of religion means a citizen is free not to have a religion.
- What does liberty mean in regards people's ideologies and values within the confines of the laws of the land.
- What does justice mean in Egypt.
- What separation of religion and state means.
- What equality of women means.
- What role / responsibility / accountability a citizen holds, man or woman, vis-a-vis the nation.
- What does "the laws of the land" mean, it most emphatically should mean laws that are clear, fair and applicable to ALL Egyptians, living at home or abroad, Muslims, Copts, Jews, Bahá'ís, agnostics, atheists, even those very few of the Ancient Egyptian religion. That would exclude the Shari'a law, advocated by a negligible percentage of the 1.6 billion worldwide Muslims.
- What does the concept of "the rule of law" mean, everyone must be equal before the law, no preferential treatment to anyone, the law must be accessible to all who are subject to it, and everyone has a right to a fair and timely trial.
- What an educated populace means, is 100% literacy rate (currently it stands at 72%) clearly stated in the government's 5- or 10- or 20- or 100-year plan.
- What dissemination of information means.
- What would unify the people.
- What is the role of the army.
Above definitions are lacking in many ways, and attempts to have them have been muddy and invariably subverted by those who believe that Egypt's resources are scarce and that they'd better appropriate most of it for themselves.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, Egypt, now more than ever, desperately need a new birth of freedom, anchored in an unshattered belief that Egypt's government is now and henceforth government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Egypt needs to start this process of an overhaul of its culture, with a sense of urgency, and not succumb to current norms where the strongest faction wins and then rules to its benefit and its benefactors' benefit, with little or no regard for the benefit of those of other groups.
The people of Egypt must be made to understand the need for such an overhaul, then demand it. This is not as impossible as the naysayers would have us believe.
A strong, intelligent and thoroughly patriotic leadership must materialize if Egypt is to position itself on the road to development, progress and modernity, again, for all of its people.
Hussein
"When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet, at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it -- but all that had gone before." Jacob Riis
