Wind of Change

This is an incident I witnessed myself a few years ago. I was walking in downtown Cairo and stopped to buy some newspapers from the woman who sells them there. I found the newspapers and books spread out on the pavement as usual but the woman wasn’t there. I thought she must have gone off on some errand and would come back so I stood around waiting for her. But I soon noticed a sign placed on top of the newspapers, written in large crooked letters. The woman said in the sign that the police had arrested her unfairly at the instigation of the owner of the shoe shop nearby and that she supported her orphaned children with the money she made selling newspapers. She asked customers to take whatever newspapers they wanted and put the money in a cardboard box with a slot cut in the top, placed on top of the newspapers. I took a newspaper and put the money in the slot, and then I had the idea of watching what other customers would do. I moved away and observed what happened for a full half-hour. Several customers came along, looked surprised, hesitated a moment, then took the papers they wanted and put the money in the slot. One person behaved differently: after taking a newspaper he opened the box, took out some of the money, put a large banknote inside and then closed the box, in other words he used the money in the box to make change for his banknote. Later I thought about what happened. These were ordinary Egyptians who suddenly found themselves unmonitored. Any one of them could have taken for free as many newspapers and magazines as he wanted, or even taken the cash from the box, but they all behaved honestly and made sure they paid the woman in full. I also thought that these same passers-by, despite behaving honourably in the case of the woman selling newspapers, might behave quite differently in other situations. If, for example, they could avoid paying their taxes, they would not hesitate for a moment. What is it that made the same people honest with the newspaper woman and then find devious ways of evading taxes? The reason is that in the first case they faced a real and just cause: a woman struggling to bring up orphans and unjustly arrested by the police. But the state’s taxes they see as a specious cause because they know how corrupt the government is and that in Egypt it is the poor who pay their taxes in full while the rich and powerful usually resort to big accounting firms which help them evade taxes by legal means. They also know that taxes are rarely spent on services for the people. Those simple passers-by make up a sample of the great bulk of the Egyptian people. Members of the ruling National Democratic Party, people affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood, political activists and members of all political parties put together account for no more than five million Egyptians at the very most. That means there are 75 million Egyptians who make up the silent majority in Egypt, completely withdrawn from political life. The reasons for this withdrawal are threefold, in my opinion:

Firstly, Egyptians do not trust anything the regime does or says. In fact, they read official statements in the sense opposite to the sense intended. For example, if the Ministry of Health announces that a certain disease is not present in Egypt that confirms to them that the disease is indeed present. If the government denies it is going to put up prices they are certain that it will out them up. This legacy of mistrust between Egyptians and the government means they always prefer not to deal with the government because all they expect from it is lies and iniquity.

Secondly, Egyptians cannot see anyone in the opposition who is persuasive and credible, and they see most opposition parties as no less corrupt and hypocritical than the government.

The third reason why Egyptians have withdrawn is that they face a bitter daily struggle, which saps their energy, to feed and educate their children. But the withdrawal of most Egyptians from public affairs does not at all mean they are passive, cowardly or uninterested in what is happening in their country. On the contrary, they have their way of assessing events and dealing with them. These silent people are those who demonstrated by the thousands across Egypt and underwent beatings, detention and torture, in order to protest at the U.S. attack on Iraq and to sympathize with the victims of the Gaza massacre. They are those who organized hundreds of strikes and came out to block the highways in protest at the inhumane conditions in which they live. Simple Egyptians often have a sound political instinct that enables them to make better judgments than some academics and intellectuals. In 1970 President Gamal Abdel Nasser died, after suffering a humiliating defeat which led to the occupation of Egyptian territory. Since that day the intellectuals have been embroiled in a long debate, which still continues, over the positive and negative aspects of Abdel Nasser. But ordinary Egyptians came out in their million at Abdel Nasser’s funeral to say farewell to the leader in an iconic scene unprecedented in Egypt except in the case of nationalist leader Saad Zaghloul. Egyptians forgave Abdel Nasser his defeat and his regime’s faults because they understood through their common sense how sincere, honourable and magnanimous he was.

Years later, when Anwar Sadat signed a peace agreement with Israel, Egyptians could not oppose the agreement but they undermined it in their own way, boycotting Israelis completely and not allowing any Egyptian to deal with them. The silent majority in Egypt is not in a coma and is not isolated from life but it has its own way of assessing events and dealing with them. During the regrettable events which took place recently between Egypt and Algeria because of a football match, regardless of the vicious reciprocal media war between the two countries, Egyptians felt that what happened was more than just football hooliganism and that the Algerian regime was implicated in an organized crime, using military planes to bring the thugs who assaulted the dignity and honour of Egyptians. They were angry, but some writers and intellectuals, as usual, did not understand their sense of humiliation. They looked down on the Egyptians and accused them of behaving like a mob. Last week the well-known Algerian resistance fighter, Djamila Bouhired, put out a statement announcing that she was short of money and needed to pay for medical treatment for various diseases of old age. An account was opened for donations to Djamila Bouhired and, according to the newspaper al-Youm al-Sabie, the donations from Egyptians amounted to 80,000 pounds in two days. That’s how Egyptians proved once again how civilized they are. They demand an official apology from the Algerian regime for the crimes it committed against Egyptians but at the same time they understand well the difference between the Algerian regime and the Algerian people. They also understand the difference between Algeria’s thugs and its heroes and martyrs. Although they were humiliated by what the Algerian thugs did they still thought it their duty to contribute as much as they could towards the medical costs of a resistance fighter whom they have long loved and considered a model of honour and courage. I don’t mean of course that Egyptians are a people without flaws. In fact the corrupt and oppressive regime which sits on top of Egyptians has brought about many behavioral defects which it is our duty to criticize and to remedy, but we do not have the right to look down on Egyptians, make fun of them or insult them. The real value of an intellectual is determined by his relationship with people. That’s what history teaches us – that intellectuals who grow apart from the people and despise them immediately lose their value and their influence, however gifted or cultured they may be. The latest lesson we have learned from the Egyptian people is its reaction to attempts to make the presidency hereditary. Over some years millions of pounds have been spent, dozens of seminars have been held and hundreds of articles have been written to portray Mr Gamal Mubarak as the next president of Egypt. But Egyptians are not at all convinced by all that, and as soon as Dr Mohamed ElBaradei appeared as a possible presidential candidate and Egyptians sensed his competence and his sincerity, they rushed to support him with enthusiasm. Egypt is now more ready for change than at any time in the past, but change will not come about unless we learn how to understand, respect and love the Egyptian people. Only then will Egypt arise.

Democracy is the solution.

On the back of Wednesday 2 December’s extraordinary meeting of the FIFA Executive Committee in Cape Town, South Africa, the President of world football’s governing body, Joseph S. Blatter, gave a press conference to go over some of the issues tackled. Alongside him was FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke who, with the Final Draw for the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ just days away, also wished to have his message heard.

FIFA.com brings you the key statements from a press conference which centred on incidents arising in decisive FIFA World Cup qualifying fixtures, irregularities in the football betting market and the issue of match control (refereeing).

Joseph S. Blatter (FIFA President)
On high-profile incidents in South Africa 2010 play-off encounters
“As we all know, there have been various incidents in the play-off matches which were part of FIFA World Cup qualifying. The matter came down to the Laws of the Game: in Africa, for example, an extra game between Egypt and Algeria was required, something which is difficult to organise. After detailed discussions about the regulations, the secretary generals of the various Confederations will assess a report which we will then analyse in March at our next meeting. There we will see if we introduce changes to the system used for the qualifying phase.”

About possible changes to how matches are controlled (refereeing)
“We spoke about what to do with refereeing in future. It’s clear that the main match official and his assistants cannot see everything that happens on the field of play. So, is it better to have more match officials or open the door to technology? We will have to evaluate this, though we did take one decision: even if the experiment with two additional match officials in the [UEFA] Europa League continues through to the latter stages (of the competition), there won’t be any changes for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. We will continue to use one main match official, two assistants and a fourth official. There’s no discussion on this, (the finals) are too soon for us to evaluate other possibilities.”

Regarding illegal betting and global match-fixing
“I’m proud to announce that we’ve received the fantastic support of a new partner in the fight against situations like these. We can’t intervene in the law courts of individual countries, but INTERPOL will collaborate with us in our struggle and create an international task force to fight illegal and irregular betting on sport, and particularly football. Together, uniting the programmes that are already in place, we will work towards controlling transparency in football.”

On the play-off encounter between France and Republic of Ireland which took place on 18 November 2009
“The FIFA Disciplinary Committee has opened a case with regard to the behaviour of the French footballer Thierry Henry, and as a result will carry out an investigation as to what happened in that game. I don’t know what the outcome of that will be given that it is an issue for the Disciplinary Committee and not the Executive Committee. We should let them get on with their job.”

About the incidents relating to the matches in African Zone qualifying between Algeria and Egypt on 14 and 18 November
“At these games incidents occurred which were reported both by the referee and the official delegates. For that reason, the Disciplinary Committee has opened an investigation. What measures could end up being taken? They work with the [FIFA] Disciplinary Code, so all the possibilities are there within. What I can say is that the 32 teams which qualified for the FIFA World Cup earned their place on the field of play and will be in Friday’s Draw.”

Jerome Valcke (FIFA Secretary General)
On the parameters used to decide the seeded teams for 4 December’s Final Draw
“It’s very clear, as in agreement with UEFA we used the [FIFA/Coca-Cola] World Ranking for October 2009. The decision was adopted in order to comprise a period during which all European teams had played the same number of games. Had that not been the case, to give an example, France would have had an advantage over England due to having played two more official encounters, even though England had won all their matches. This decision was taken with UEFA and turned out to be the fairest one for everybody.”

Blatter Said:
“About the incidents relating to the matches in African Zone qualifying between Algeria and Egypt on 14 and 18 November
“At these games incidents occurred which were reported both by the referee and the official delegates. For that reason, the Disciplinary Committee has opened an investigation. What measures could end up being taken? They work with the [FIFA] Disciplinary Code, so all the possibilities are there within. What I can say is that the 32 teams which qualified for the FIFA World Cup earned their place on the field of play and will be in Friday’s Draw.”

NO COMMENT !!!!

 The wonderful Middle East Institute blogger Michael Collins Dunn noted the other day the passing of Amin Huwaydi, the former Egyptian Defense Minister and Intelligence chief.  But even he missed the passing of another iconic Egyptian:  Mustafa Mahmoud.  Who?  Mustafa Mahmoud. 

 

 

 Mustafa Mahmoud never held a government office as far as I know, and played no role in the great international diplomacy of the Middle East.  From what I can tell, his passing has received no coverage in the Western media.   I never got to meet Mustafa Mahmoud, who retreated from the public eye years ago while battling cancer.  But he did as much as anyone else to spread Islamist identity and ideology through the lower and middle classes of a rapidly urbanizing Cairo. 

 Mahmoud was the author of more than a hundred accessible cheap Islamic books which used to be available all over Cairo (and beyond). A medical doctor by training, he established the mosque and medical clinic which bears his name, which served as one of the leading examples of the kinds of Islamist social services which earned them such respect and support.  He became an Egyptian media star through his long running television program, “Science and Faith.” It is impossible to look around Cairo today without seeing his reflection:  the Islamicized public space and public discourse, the profusion of Islamist social services, the creative Islamist use of every new media technology.  

 Those Americans trying today to craft a new relationship with the Islamic world might ask themselves which of these men — the Defense Minister and Mukhabarat Director, or the media-savvy Islamic populist — ultimately had the greater impact on Egypt and the Middle East.  And they should ask themselves how American “strategic public engagement” with the Islamic world can respond to the world which Mustafa Mahmoud helped to shape.