By Philip Whitfield
Elvis crooned: Wise men say only fools rush in … Like a river flows … some things are meant to be. Are we to believe that villainy preordained Egypt’s crepuscule, a dark place? Or may we take heart that after the miscreants are culled, virtuous people will open the windows to enlightenment?
Optimists like me prefer the latter. But we have to adopt new thinking.
Which is why Egyptians shouldn’t shy away from putting their thinking caps on. The problem is that thinking aloud, exercising cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I exist) rights is fuelling dissent.
This week there’s a raging argument on Twitter regarding Friday’s May 27 Tahrir demonstration. One tweet: There is no doubt in my mind that Mubarak and Adly must be executed by court martial for high treason after the civil suits are done with and we can get our hands on what was stolen from Egypt. Lest we forget, Mubarak and Adly killed more people in 18 days than Israel killed Palestinians in 40 days of ceaseless bombing; Can you imagine how many Egyptians were killed in 30 years?
Others are weighing up the pros and cons of another mass demonstration.
Some say the army might crack down ruthlessly. Another quotes Malcolm X: If you’re not ready to die for it put the word freedom out of your vocabulary.
One important point being debated: elections are still a vague issue and not set. First prepare the land then cultivate (the philosopher’s tree of life).
Let’s step back. Civilization’s originators on the banks of the Nile bequeathed humankind with a methodology to grow thinking into scientific discovery. Look skywards. The moon appears to be the same size as the sun. But science took that unproven thought and established a rational argument that we believe even to this day that the sun (1.4 million km) is 400 times bigger than the moon (3,475 km). We can’t prove it for sure.
But, we can believe it based on the science to hand.
Today, we have the encouraging spectacle of people all over the country articulating their thoughts. In Maadi we listened to a group from Tahrir Square bantering the pros and cons of this and that future for Egypt. We hear similar impromptu exchanges in Giza, Dokki and Mohandessin. No doubt you hear many more.
People are relishing their freedom to express themselves, without fear of being shut up in cells for daring to question the nobs. Rightfully, they discuss pragmatic ways to undo wrongs. They suggest new laws to be debated in assemblies. They want better wages, better housing, more food and more education for the kids.
This interregnum between revolution and rebirth, between January 25 and the elections in September is the opportunity to agree on the truth.
People are questioning everything they believed previously. The stick in the water that appeared crooked yesterday was straight all the while, distorted when examined under water. Our collective vision was impaired by lies and deception. Barbarous solecism has made skeptics of all.
The nation will be asked to find people to set the new course, the policymakers. And people who will execute the mission with integrity, the bureaucrats. This new partnership pits two into cohabitation where formerly one did both: minister/minder.
There can’t honestly be the same people establishing the regulations and regulating their own departments. Those who introduced laws to crack down on corruption fudged execution, enabling graft to go unchecked.
Mangled banknotes are swapped for fresh ones at the Central Bank kiosk downtown. You’ll need to slip a pound to a cop to park nearby and tip another to get ahead in the queue. Yet both baksheeshes are outlawed.
The new edifices should be built after society has established what we know for sure. Existentialists proclaim existence precedes essence; we are radically free to act independently; we create our own human nature through free choices. We are thrown into existence without a predetermined nature and only then do we construct our state through our actions. Think carefully what’s important to prevent the rogues returning.
What we’re experiencing is the limitation of public protest. January 25 was successful because the aim of removing the Mubarak regime was shared across the country. Everyone in Tahrir Square could show a shoe. The aims thereafter diverged, expressing views from right to left, from young to old, from poor to wealthy, from those of different religions and those with none.
The information embodied in their complaints and demands is critical to determining Egypt’s future. The new era must be rooted in fertile soil, an agreement that tolerance is the core of the revolution’s philosophy on which all other aspects of society can flourish.
The objective on Friday should be to elect a representative council from the mass of people in the square. However worthy, a wordy shouting match is unlikely to effect a result. Tahrir Square is not a parliament. It’s a place to come together in solidarity to show the powers that be that vox populi is a force to be reckoned with.
Choosing a representative council and giving them a mandate to consolidate their views is the political way forward. Neither should those who are so vociferous on the Internet shun the opportunity to join the council. They should put up or shut up.
The multifarious views can be consolidated into demands by which candidates for office can be benchmarked. That way the Tahrir protesters will not be shunned.
Friday’s demonstration should go ahead, proceeding with a definitive action plan that advances the process of democracy, not dissent.
Philip Whitfield is a Cairo-based writer. He can be reached at [email protected] or twittered @mohendessin.
