CAIRO: Holding banners high, chanting slogans protesting local or regional matters and getting attacked on the street is a lifestyle that many Egyptians now gladly adopt.
Throughout the past six years, demonstrations have made their way back onto the Egyptian streets. Gradually, it has become customary to organize a march, a sit-in or a demonstration to protest just about anything from canceling a concert to an increase in prices to presidential elections. The goals vary from rallying public opinion to exerting pressure on the government.
TV newscasts and newspapers report demonstrations on Egyptian streets on a regular basis now. The yellow banners of the Kefaya movement have become a familiar sight.
Although demonstrations are still illegal in Egypt, citing articles 10/1914 and 14/1923 of Egyptian laws, political parties and movements have forced the culture of demonstration on the system, activists say.
“It’s still illegal, but it is a de facto now, says Wael Khalil, a socialist activist and a member of Kefaya.
“I think that the system, for the first time in Mubarak’s rule, is facing increased internal pressure, says Gasser Abdel Razek, member of the board of trustees of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.
Citing political, economic and social mishaps that have affected the country, Abdel Razek says the ruling system has lost its legitimacy, making concessions inevitable, including tolerating demonstrations.
“What were known before as red lines [and] unacceptable by the system . were crossed, adds Abdel Razek.
According to article 10 of the year 1914, the gathering of more than five people is a punishable crime. Article 14 of year 1923 states that permission can be acquired for organizing any type of gathering, including demonstrations.
Security forces, however, have the right to attend these gatherings or deny permission.
The law was modified in 1929 to stress that the violation of any of the rules, either by organizing a demonstration without a permit or going through with a rejected demonstration, is punishable. Prison sentences, according to the law, shouldn’t exceed six months and the fine should be over LE 100.
These are laws that were created during World War I and under British occupation, says Abdel Razek. Noting that the situation now is much different from that of the first quarter of the twentieth century, he calls for wide legislative reform to eliminate similar laws.
“It is not just about eliminating the state of emergency, says Abdel Razek, explaining that emergency laws are often mistaken as being the ones against demonstrations.
Referring to the diversity of the existing laws, Abdel Razek says, “Even if the state of emergency was eliminated, there will still be problems regarding the right to demonstrate, adding, “At the end it is a political battle not a legal one. Even if demonstrators receive permission, there is no guarantee they will not be beaten up by security forces, he says.
Following the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, demonstrators with court permission were prevented from marching down the streets by security forces.
It was this invasion, however, that took local demonstrations to another level. After the years of “spontaneous university student demonstrations that were “very hard to sustain according to Khalil, Egypt’s streets saw organized protests.
This pro-demonstration culture was first ignited by the second Palestinian uprising.
“The satellite channels played a different role compared to the first uprising, explains Abdel Razek. “With the existence of Al Jazeera [TV] at that time, the daily hour-long coverage of what was happening in Palestine created a state of anger among Egyptians.
Abdel Razek believes that the ruling system was willing to tolerate these demonstrations because they were directed at regional mishaps and “it was a healthy outlet for public anger.
Khalil notes that lack of a recognized leadership working on organizing the solidarity movements, kept them from being intimidated. “This gave it resilience.
The demonstrations against the war in Iraq attracted more people from different age groups, political affiliations and social classes. By 2004, demonstrations had started addressing internal affairs. Gradually, demonstrations were organized for the sole purpose of protesting the status quo of local politics and economics.
Youth in their early twenties or late teens became familiar faces at demonstrations. Abdel Razek notes that the circle of activists kept growing; even the infamous 1970s’ activists, known for student demonstrations, returned to the scene.
Correspondingly, violence against demonstrators decreased, as did the time demonstrators spent in prisons without charges being filed.
“We were always beaten by police but there was never a loud assault on anyone in a demonstration but for a couple of occasions, says Khalil, adding, “I believe the state recognized the bad [public relations].
The worst violations in recent history have been the sexual harassment of women during a May 25, 2005 demonstration. The investigation of the incident was later closed without the alleged perpetrators being arrested, even though the women in question say they presented photo documents of their attackers.
Security authorities usually refute claims of violations against demonstrators. In a recent parliamentary session, when one of the members referred to certain violations, Ahmed Diaa El Din, assistant to the minister of interior, said security forces never used drain water to breakup protestors.
After citing the “gathering laws, Diaa El Din reportedly said there is a difference between expressing opinion and chaos.
Activists often translate this opinion as a conflict in the system. One day a demonstration is allowed, or more accurately, tolerated, while at other times security forces either stop the entire event or surround demonstrators with a cordon of police.
