Revolution in Egypt – Power is on the street

“The street is not being organised by the parties, it is not being
organised by the state. It is not controlled by anybody.” (Al Jazeera)

January 29th, protesters fraternising with soldiers. Photo: Philip Rizk.Following the events hour by hour I recalled the following incident from the French Revolution. On the 14^th
of July 1789, shortly after the fall of the Bastille, the French king
Louis XVI asked the Duke of Rochefoucauld-Liancourt: “Is this a revolt?”
To which the Duke delivered the immortal reply: "Non Sire, c’est une révolution !" – No, sir, it’s a revolution.

In Egypt we are witnessing a revolution in full swing. After five
days of colossal struggles, this fact has penetrated even the most
obtuse skulls. The popular revolt is spreading by the hour. It is like a
mighty river that overflows its banks and sweeps away all barriers that
were erected to contain it.

Overnight all police have disappeared from the streets of the
capital. Tanks and armoured personnel carriers are on the streets of
Cairo, where fires from the previous day’s violence are still
smouldering. Mobile phone services have been restored in the city, but
the internet remains down.

Meanwhile, the death toll has reportedly risen to 53 since the
January 28 protest. In Suez, where at least twenty people have been
killed, the bodies of the martyrs were carried through the streets as
the people shouted revolutionary slogans. In Cairo the political
prisoners have taken control of a jail. In Giza the people have burnt
the police station and are attacking the police. Burning police vehicles
have become a common sight on Egyptian streets. In one case, a group of
protesters tried to push an armoured vehicle into the River Nile.

After the withdrawal of the police there have been many reports of
looting. The people suspect that this has been deliberately organised by
the regime in order to create the impression of anarchy and chaos. It
is clear that the prisons have been opened to let out the criminal
elements who have been armed for this purpose. Egyptian television has
shown scenes of destruction of precious artefacts in the historic Cairo
museum.

It is an open secret that this is a manoeuvre to destroy the
revolution. The large numbers of armed police who yesterday were
shooting at unarmed demonstrators are now nowhere to be seen as armed
lumpenproletarians go on the rampage.  Several of the looters who were
caught by protestors turned out to be undercover policemen.

In response neighbourhood committees have been set up in Suez and
Alexandria to keep order and prevent looting. In some places the
committees are even directing the traffic. There is an urgent need to
generalise the committees and to arm the people. We must remember the
slogan of the French Revolution: “Mort aux voleurs!” (Death to thieves!)

Mubarak’s speech

“Power tends to corrupt,” the saying goes; “Absolute power corrupts
absolutely.”  The President is suffering from the same delusions of
grandeur that affected the mental capacities of every Roman emperor and
Russian tsar in the past. Last night’s speech of President Mubarak, far
from calming the situation, has thrown petrol on the flames.

January 29th. Photo: Philip RizkThe
people’s message is loud and clear. But the President does not hear it.
He is blind and deaf and has lost the use of reason.  A man who has got
used to being surrounded by a camarilla of servile courtiers hanging on
his every word loses all contact with reality. He begins to believe in
his own omnipotence. The border line between reality and fantasy is
blurred. Such a state of mind is akin to madness.

Watching Mubarak speak, one had the impression of a man who has lost
all contact with reality and is playing out his own fantasies. He
promises that everything will be better from now on, if only the people
will trust him. He will dismiss his government and he will graciously
appoint another one. He will make the necessary changes. But he will not
tolerate chaos and disorder. Anyone who disobeys can expect no mercy.

This is the voice of the Father of the People, the harsh but
benevolent Pharaoh who decides every question for the benefit of his
children. But the people of Egypt are not little children and have no
need of a Pharaoh who has to send his army onto the streets to keep them
obedient.

The government has duly resigned and a “new” government has been
appointed (by Mubarak). The prime minister will be Racheed Mohamad
Racheed – a millionaire and the former minister of investment, commerce,
and industry. Rachid is identified with the so-called “neoliberal”
reforms that have contributed to the hardship of the masses: high and
rising prices, unemployment and poverty.

This appointment is sufficient to reveal the precise physiognomy of
the “new” government. It is a provocation to the people on the streets.
Since then Omar Suleiman, the 74-year old head of the state intelligence
services has been named vice-president. Since Suleiman is one of
Mubarak’s main stooges, this is an even more blatant provocation to the
masses. It shows how far out of touch with reality Mubarak is.

If the President’s speech was intended to calm things down, it had
the opposite effect. Last night BBC television spoke on the telephone to
a man who had been on the streets all day: “I intended to go to bed for
a few hours and then continue demonstrating tomorrow, but after I heard
Mubarak’s speech I immediately phoned all my relations to come out and
demonstrate, and I went back on the streets.”

The “Islamist menace”

The western media is constantly repeating the idea that the Moslem
Brotherhood is behind the protests, and that they are the only
alternative to Mubarak. This is false. The fact is that, just like all
the other political parties, the Moslem Brotherhood has been completely
caught unawares by this movement. Initially they did not even support
it, and their role in organising the protests has been minimal.

The Muslim Brotherhood recently subtly changed its message ahead of
the latest protests. The deputy leader Mahmoud Izzat spoke encouragingly
of the protests: "People are demanding freedom, the dissolution of this
invalid parliament. From the beginning this is what the young people
have been shouting and we are with them," Mr Izzat told the al-Jazeera
news channel. And he went on to criticise "the excessive force" of the
security services.

However, the Brotherhood did not organise the protests and on the
demonstrations one sees very few bearded fundamentalists.  The majority
of the activists are young, many of them students, but there are also
many unemployed youth from the slums of Cairo and Alexandria. They are
not fighting for the introduction of Sharia law but for freedom and
jobs. .

The fact of the matter is that these reactionaries did not want this
revolutionary movement and are mortally afraid of it. The people who
streamed out of the mosques to demonstrate on the streets of Suez after
Friday prayers did so in spite of the fact that the imam told them not
to participate in the protests. The reactionary role of the
fundamentalists is shown by the influential Islamist al-Qaradawi who,
according to AlJazeera, “urges people not to attack state institutions."

The Brotherhood Itself is split and has declined. Hossam el-Hamalawy told Al Jazeera:

“The Brotherhood has been suffering from divisions since the outbreak
of the al-Aqsa intifada. Its involvement in the Palestinian Solidarity
Movement when it came to confronting the regime was abysmal. Basically,
whenever their leadership makes a compromise with the regime, especially
the most recent leadership of the current supreme guide, it has
demoralised its base cadres. I know personally many young brothers who
left the group. Some of them have joined other groups or remained
independent. As the current street movement grows and the lower
leadership gets involved, there will be more divisions because the
higher leadership can’t justify why they’re not part of the new
uprising.”

International repercussions

If the government and all the political parties have been taken by
surprise, this is still more the case with western governments. Having
denied any possibility of an upheaval in Egypt only one week ago, the
leaders of the western world in Washington now stand with their mouths
open.

Obama and Hilary Clinton seem to be having difficulty keeping up with
the situation. Their public declarations show that they have not yet
grasped the realities on the ground. They express sympathy with the
protestors but are still in favour of maintaining a friendly dialogue
with the government that is shooting and gassing them. This desire to
ride both horses at the same time may be understandable, but it is a
little difficult to do when both horses are running in opposite
directions.

President Obama, as everybody knows, specialises in facing all
directions at once. But his chief speciality is in saying nothing but
saying it very nicely. He advises Egypt to introduce democracy and
provide its citizens with work and a decent living standard. But neither
he nor any of his predecessors had any problem about collaborating with
Hosni Mubarak, although they knew he was a tyrant and a dictator. Only
now, when the masses are on the point of overthrowing him, do they
suddenly begin to sing the praises of democracy.

Obama’s request for more jobs and improved living standards in Egypt
sounds particularly hollow. It was the United States that was behind the
economic “reforms” of 1991. That pushed Egypt into the kind of
“liberalism” that resulted in huge inequality, obscene wealth for a few
and poverty and unemployment for the vast majority. More than anything
else that is what has created the present explosive situation in Egypt.
In this context, Obama’s advice is the worst kind of cynicism.

Washington’s concern is not motivated by humanitarian or democratic
considerations. It is motivated by self-interest. Egypt is the most
important Arab country in the Middle East. By comparison, Tunisia is a
small and relatively marginal country. But historically whatever happens
in Egypt tends to communicate itself to the entire region. That is why
all the Arab ruling cliques are worried and that is why Washington is
worried.

They are right to worry. But the Israeli ruling circles are even more
worried. Mubarak was a useful tool of Israeli foreign policy. As a
“moderate” (that is, a western stooge) he helped to keep up the illusion
of a fraudulent “peace process” which kept the Palestinian masses in
check while the Israelis consolidated their positions. He propped up the
equally “moderate” Abbas and the other leaders of the PLO, who have
betrayed the aspirations of the Palestinian people. He supported the
so-called war on terror.

He was thus very useful to both the Americans and the Israelis. His
services were well rewarded. The USA subsidised his regime to the tune
of around $5 billion a year. Egypt is the fourth largest recipient of
American aid, after Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel. Most of this money
went on arms expenditure, a fact that will have been painfully brought
home to the protestors when they read the labels on tear gas canisters
with the words “Made in the USA” written on them. These messages from
Washington speak to the protestors with far greater eloquence than the
speeches of Mr. Obama.

The removal of Mubarak will therefore remove one of the most
important elements on US foreign policy in the Middle East. It will
further undermine the “moderate” (pro-American) Arab regimes. Already
the mass protests are growing in Jordan and Yemen. Others will follow.
Saudi Arabia itself is not safe.

The imperialists look on aghast. Overnight all their schemes are
coming undone. Malcolm Rifkind, a former Conservative British Foreign
Secretary, when asked for his view of the situation on BBC television,
said: “Well, this has been prepared for a long time. Whatever government
comes to power in Egypt will not be pro-western. But there is not a lot
we can do about it.”

The army

January 29th, people on tanks. Photo: Philip RizkThe
army is now all that separates Mubarak from the abysm. How will the
army react? The army has now replaced the police on the streets. The
relationship between the soldiers and the protestors is uneasy and
contradictory. In some cases there is fraternisation. In other cases,
there have been clashes with protestors.

In order to put an end to the revolt, it would be necessary to kill
thousands of protesters. But it is impossible to kill them all. And
there is no guarantee that troops would be prepared to obey the order to
fire on unarmed demonstrators. The army officers know that one bloody
incident would be sufficient to break the army in pieces. It seems very
unlikely that they would be prepared to take the risk. Today the BBC
website speculated about the army’s role:

“Broadly speaking, Egyptians respect their army, which is still seen
as a patriotic bulwark against their neighbour Israel, with whom they
went to war in 1967 and 1973.

“But the black-clad riot police, the Central Security Force (Amn
al-Markazi), belongs to the interior ministry, and has been in the
forefront of much of the violent confrontations with protesters.

“Poorly paid and mostly illiterate, they number around 330,000 when
combined with the Border Force. They themselves rioted over low pay in
the early years of President Mubarak’s rule and had to be brought under
control by the army.

“The army has a similar strength – around 340,000 – and is under the
command of Gen Mohammad Tantawi, who has close ties with the US (he has
just been visiting the Pentagon).

“When Mr Mubarak ordered the army onto the streets of Cairo and other
cities late on Friday, his aim was to back up the riot police who have
been heavily outnumbered by the protesters.

“But many of them are hoping the army will take their side or, at the
very least, act as a restraining force on the police who have been
acting with excessive brutality throughout this protest.

“Hence the cheers that greeted the columns of army vehicles as they drove through Cairo on Friday night.

“Up until now, President Mubarak has enjoyed the support of the armed forces.

“He was, after all, a career air force officer suddenly catapulted to the presidency when Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981.

“But if these protests continue and intensify there are bound to be
senior voices within the military tempted to urge him to stand down.”

The days of the Mubarak regime are numbered, and this must be clear
to the army chiefs who must think of their own future. Even if security
forces manage to put down protests today, how will they put down the
ones that happen next week, or next month or next year? Power is in
effect lying in the street, waiting for somebody to pick it up. But who
will do so? If a party like the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky
were present, the conquest of power by the working class would be on the
order of the day. The problem is that such a party does not yet exist

In the absence of a revolutionary party and leadership, the present
situation can end in deadlock. In such situations the state itself, in
the shape of the army, tends to raise itself above society and become
the arbiter between the classes. In Egypt and other Middle Eastern
countries there is a long history of such things, beginning with Abdel
Nasser. It is possible that a section of the army leaders will decide to
dump Mubarak.

The mass movement is strong enough to overthrow the old regime. But
as yet it lacks the necessary level of organisation and leadership to
constitute itself as a new power. Consequently, the revolution will be a
protracted affair, which must go through a series of stages before the
workers are in a position to take power into their hands. There will be a
series of transitional governments, each more unstable than the last.
But on a capitalist basis none of the fundamental problems can be
solved.

However, the fall of Mubarak will open the flood gates. The working
class has been awakened to struggle. For the last four years there has
been a wave of labour strikes in Egypt. The workers will take advantage
of democracy to press their class demands. The struggle for democracy
will open the way for the fight for socialism.