Egyptians!!!!

February 11, 2011 Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak steps down from three decades of ruthless power. The people of Egypt faced him in a battle of wills and won. There are already many talking heads addressing "What next?" I decided that today I would avoid that. At this moment the Egyptian people deserve unadulterated praise from around the globe.

For years these people had to suffer under a crippling economy and threats of unthinkable torture in police dungeons. How often Arabs have been criticized for being fatalistic by Western thinkers. European and American politicians have continually condemned Arabs as inherently "medieval" while simultaneously supporting Arab dictators with weaponry and diplomatic immunity; reducing Arab populations to forced subservience. Two myths are now absolutely destroyed: 1) that Arabs are not freedom loving and 2) that the West is. In the year 2011 Tunisia and Egypt are now on the path to becoming democratic societies--not because of the West--but despite the West.

In the past few weeks Egyptian citizens figured out how to mobilize, resist, propagandize, and maintain their ground. The world was watching and they knew it. The true face of the dictatorship was made public. Mubarak's regime anticipated any violent or fanatical move by the protesters. Several images of so-called misbehaving was all that was needed to justify a military crackdown with US government approval. Instead, the people had signs calling for human rights and freedom. They gathered peacefully and refused to disperse. The majority asked not for his head but his departure. "Irhal!" They constantly shouted, "Go!" He said he would not leave. Finally he was forced to quit. Millions stood up to him victoriously! Today they can celebrate! The world now waits for the next tyrant to fall. The question I pose is not, "What's next?" but "Who's next?"

Tariq Ramadan and Slavoj Zizek on the Future of Egyptian Politics

Today in Modesto California a small group of us demonstrated in solidarity with Egyptians (and by further extension the Arab world). The response from the public was overwhelmingly positive. Our signs read "No more US aid to dictators. Down with Mubarak. Let Egypt and the Arab world be free." Others said, "Support freedom." This is what the revolution is about: freedom. People that do not support this freedom keep bringing up the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood. I argue that the ideology and potential for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power is irrelevant at this point. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, once wrote "We do not have a choice between purity and violence but between different kinds of violence." In other words, a revolution has violence, but a dictatorial regime is itself secured through violence. Yet, in the case of Egypt, the revolution has mainly been peaceful. It has been the pro-Mubarak forces that lashed violence and terror on the public for thirty years and they are the ones continuing it still. The Muslim Brotherhood is not Egypt, they are a part of it. On the Riz Khan (al Jazeera English) program Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood, and Zizek share interesting points on this topic.

Hallward and Zizek on North Africa

Both Peter Hallward and Slavoj Zizek have published pieces (here and here) on the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt in the "Comment is Free" Section of The Guardian.

Hallward argues that:

Routine reference to "the will of the people" has long been one of the most formulaic turns of phrase in the modern political lexicon. The actual mobilisation of such a will, however, is less easily dismissed. Ongoing protests in Egypt – and in Algeria, and Yemen, and Jordan, indeed throughout the Middle East – may well oblige their governments to decide fairly soon whether they mean what they say.

Of course, if you read the comments section for this article (at your own risk!), Hallward's claim that in the streets of Tunisia and Egypt we see the will of the people is driving plenty of conservatives and parliamentarian liberals crazy (viz. 'how do you know!?'). I suppose they think that you've either got to be standing there interviewing however many hundred-thousand people there, or maybe taking a poll with a ballot box or two. His fundamental point is correct: we know it's the will of the people when every reformist gesture and every so-called concession brings more people out into the street, reinforcing the revolutionary and collective practice of the uprisings. Hallward again, with reference to Fanon:

Rejecting all distraction through "negotiation" or "development", Fanon insisted on decisive action here and now – the goal was not to reform an intolerable colonial situation over an interminable series of steps, but to abolish it. The "fundamental characteristic of the struggle of the Algerian people", Fanon maintained, is suggested by their "refusal of progressive solutions, their contempt for the 'stages' that might break the revolutionary torrent, and induce them to abandon the unshakable will to take everything into their hands at once". The fate of their revolution depends on the people's "co-ordinated and conscious" participation in their ongoing self-emancipation.

In today's Tunisia and Egypt, as in 1950s Algeria, to affirm the will of the people is not to invoke an empty phrase. Will and people: rejecting the merely "formal" conceptions of democracy that disguise our status quo, an actively democratic politics will think one term through the other. A will of the people, on the one hand, must involve association and collective action, and will depend on a capacity to invent and preserve forms of inclusive assembly (through demonstrations, meetings, unions, parties, websites, networks). If an action is prescribed by popular will, on the other hand, then what's at stake is a free or voluntary course of action, decided on the basis of informed and reasoned deliberation.

Zizek, without any references to movies or chocolate laxatives, attacks the hypocrisy of Western commentators:

What cannot but strike the eye in the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt is the conspicuous absence of Muslim fundamentalism. In the best secular democratic tradition, people simply revolted against an oppressive regime, its corruption and poverty, and demanded freedom and economic hope. The cynical wisdom of western liberals, according to which, in Arab countries, genuine democratic sense is limited to narrow liberal elites while the vast majority can only be mobilised through religious fundamentalism or nationalism, has been proven wrong. The big question is what will happen next? Who will emerge as the political winner? [...]

Here, then, is the moment of truth: one cannot claim, as in the case of Algeria a decade ago, that allowing truly free elections equals delivering power to Muslim fundamentalists. Another liberal worry is that there is no organised political power to take over if Mubarak goes. Of course there is not; Mubarak took care of that by reducing all opposition to marginal ornaments, so that the result is like the title of the famous Agatha Christie novel, And Then There Were None. The argument for Mubarak – it's either him or chaos – is an argument against him.

The hypocrisy of western liberals is breathtaking: they publicly supported democracy, and now, when the people revolt against the tyrants on behalf of secular freedom and justice, not on behalf of religion, they are all deeply concerned. Why concern, why not joy that freedom is given a chance? Today, more than ever, Mao Zedong's old motto is pertinent: "There is great chaos under heaven – the situation is excellent."

Revolution, People, Revolution

A new blog to keep an eye on: "The people want to bring down the regime", which is a collection of "comments, contributions and visual media from the Egyptian uprising." Especially interesting is the post of graffiti (which, now that I think of it, is like the original twitter) from the uprising with translations. Here's one example:

Revolution, people, revolution

The Western media has been trying hard to spin this around the themes of caution and concern about the fate of the Egyptian people, as if they have much of a stake beyond echoing Western political self-interest. It's really about curbing the spirit of discontent that extends much farther than Egypt-- about, as Rancière would say, the hatred of democracy and egalitarian mass movements. A local example from The people want to bring down the regime:

As soon as I arrived I realised why state media has ramped up the looting and pillaging rumours which on Saturday prompted protestors to leave Tahrir Square; it is a desperate effort to break spirits and get them out. People are not frightened of tear gas or bullets any more; the old tactics no longer work because they have discovered the strength of numbers, and of camaraderie.

How, in this regard, is the Western media any different?

(Hat tip to Progressive Geographies).

The North African and Middle Eastern Revolutions: Which Side are You On?

Today CNN published an article titled "Egypt protests draw mixed reaction in region." The wrong reaction is only coming from sources or supporters of African and Middle Eastern dictatorships. What happened in Tunisia, what is happening in Yemen, Jordan,Algeria, and Egypt (more to come?) is straightforward: people are calling for basic human rights they have long been denied. Most of these dictatorships have been and are heavily supported by the US government and other nations. If a person or group does not unequivocally support these revolutions, the Egyptian one in particular,then that person or group sides with slaughter, torture, and all forms of oppression. Here is what the article shows:

Saudi Arabia "strongly condemns" the protest, it said. Mubarak assured the Saudi king "that the situation is stable" and that the protests "are merely attempts of groups who do not want stability and security for the people of Egypt, but rather they seek to achieve strange and suspicious objectives..."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called Mubarak and "affirmed his solidarity with Egypt and and his commitment to its security and stability," according to the official Palestinian news agency, Wafa...

Benjamin Ben Eliezer, a member of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, told Israel's Channel 10 that he recently spoke with Mubarak, who told him that "this is not Beirut and not Tunis" and suggested that Egyptian authorities had prepared the army in advance...Ben Eliezer is known to be the Israeli politician with the best personal relationship with Mubarak...

What is the US position? Vice President Joe Biden said on PBS News Hour, "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator."

The most horrid comments come from John Bolton on Fox News!!! Then watch Gibbs mumble his garbage about Obama's position. By the way, unlike what Bolton said, Islamists have played a very small roll in all this.

I want to encourage all supporters of freedom to mobilize and demonstrate, call politicians, or whatever, to side with the Arabs against despotism. Lets be on the right side of history!