Egypt's people power - the year-long struggle

by Lin Abdul Rahman
Photo courtesy of MSNBC
The Sputnik, Winter 2012, Issue 11

Millions of Egyptians gathered at Tahrir Square to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the January 25 uprising and to demand the resignation of Hussein Al-Tantawi from his post as Chief of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

On January 25, 2011, the air in Medan Tahrir was ebullient and heavy with hope. Millions of Egyptians congregated there – and in many other public spaces across Egypt – with one deceptively simple goal: to demand Hosni Mubarak’s resignation through country-wide peaceful resistance. And they succeeded.

After days of enduring rubber bullets, tear gas canisters, live rounds and attacks by Mubarak’s machete-wielding thugs on horseback and camels, the Egyptian people finally loosened Mubarak’s 30-year death grip on the country. As a victorious roar swept across the square, people all over Egypt and all over the world joined in the triumphant celebration as though the heavy weight of dictatorship had been lifted off the world’s collective shoulders.

Egypt’s Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) was put in charge as an interim government – it had gained popular support by refusing to obey Mubarak’s orders to brutally clamp down on protesters – and was set to hand over power following Egypt’s democratic election later that year.

There was a minor disagreement between the Muslim brotherhood and political parties that were less than organized to face an election in such short notice. Despite that, an election was carried out and Egyptians hit the polls. The country’s future was as yet unclear but it was full of promises and optimism nonetheless.

Now, one year later, Tahrir Square is again occupied by protesters. This time, they are demanding the resignation of Husssein Tantawi, the head of the military council. Staffed with many of Mubarak’s former thugs, SCAF has in effectively revived Mubarak’s strong-arm tactics of forcing civil compliance.

Egyptian protesters are once again fending off rubber bullets, tear gas canisters and thugs in uniform. Protesters are still being beaten and harassed, bloggers are still being aggressively silenced with intimidation and arbitrary detention. One journalist remarked that the media is now operating under much harsher conditions than when Mubarak was in power. Most recently, Al Jazeera’s bureau in Cairo was shut down by SCAF after being accused of operating and reporting on live events without a license.

Egyptians now have legitimate fears that the military council will interfere with the country’s new constitution, thereby boosting its power and effectively turning Egypt back into an autocratic regime under the guise of democracy.

Egypt’s current predicament is a far-cry from the optimistic forecasts made by the political intelligentsia a year ago. Tahrir Square – now the 21^st century’s proverbial symbol of people power – is once again the site of resistance and continued struggle. Whatever happened to the potential and promises that came with Egypt’s return to democracy? If this sterling example of good’s triumph over evil is unable to fulfill its democratic ideals, is there hope for other democratic aspirants like Syria and Libya?

As bleak as the situation is in Egypt, the answer to that question is a resounding “yes.” The country is labouring to shape for itself a genuinely democratic state in which its members can live a fully dignified life – something that was unattainable during Mubarak’s rule. This development alone is a sign of hope and of progress.

Although there may be seemingly insurmountable roadblocks in Egypt’s road towards becoming a democratic state, they are no excuse to throw in the towel and surrender. After all, struggles and resistance are the hallmark of revolutions. From the 1989 Velvet Revolution which tore down the Berlin Wall to the currently on-going Occupy movement, history has shown that our rights as citizens in a democratic state is gained and expanded through battles fought and won.

The reality is that no government has ever willingly conceded power; and when people are prevented by formal authority from living a dignified life, resistance is the only way. As Mahatma Ghandi presciently put it, “The choice is no longer between violence and non-violence. It is either non-violence or non-existence.” So in order to peacefully exist, resist we must.

This page is now Occupied

by Lin Abdul Rahman
Photo by Deanna Budgell
The Sputnik, Fall 2011, Issue 6

On September 17, a group of protesters set up camp on Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street financial district to demand a reform to the US financial and economic system. Over the next few weeks, the number of campers swelled, media attention grew and the movement’s influence began to spread.

Although criticized as being leaderless, the movement’s goal of ending corporate greed and lobbyist control over government policies resonated across the globe.

On October 15^th, 900 cities around the world staged their own “occupations”. In Malaysia, over 200 people “occupied” Dataran Merdeka. In Spain, over 46, 000 people “occupied” Madrid Square. In Toronto, over 1000 people gathered at the corner of King and Bay Street and marched to St. James Park. Later, “occupations” sprang up in Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, London and Windsor.

Despite the movement’s growing popularity, authorities have shown little sympathy and no sign of acquiescing to occupiers’ demands. The occupiers, meanwhile, show no signs of leaving. Mainstream media attention has been largely pessimistic while critics question the movement’s ability to sustain itself. After all, these occupiers are just rabble-rousing anarchists and hippies without clear objectives, right?

This image seems to be at odds with the movement’s growing influence and my curiosity was naturally piqued. I decided to visit St. James Park myself.

It quickly became apparent to me that a lot of planning and organization had occurred even before the October 15 March took place. As soon as the contingent arrived at the park, various areas were cordoned off for specific purposes. The camping area came with family-friendly and female-only sections. The Sanitation Committee had prepared rows of port-a-potties and hand-washing stations. The Medic Committee put up signs saying “no photos” around the medic area, as would be the normal procedure in medical facilities. The Media Committee kept occupiers and everyone abreast on everything occupation-related. There was also a “free occupy library” with free reading materials and an occupation “must read” list.

There was no shortage of what society calls “hippies” but they were mostly involved with the basic mechanisms that kept movement running smoothly. There were trained marshal teams patrolling the park in the evening to keep it safe. The Sanitation Committee keeps the park clean. The Facilitation Committee keeps discussions going and ensured the movement remained as participatory as possible.

There was little semblance of anarchy at the park, except maybe for the multitude of signs hung on trees and tucked among bushes. – signs that cleverly and clearly articulated the need for change.

These signs highlighted problems regarding a myriad issues: inadequate health care; rising tuition fees and student debt; lack of citizen participation in government; infringement upon native, minority and immigrant rights; violation of workers’ rights; a failed capitalist economy; increased military spending; the list goes on.

To the movement’s critics, this underscores its lack of focus. To me, this illustrates one simple fact: there are so many things wrong with our system today that it’s hard to pinpoint one single problem that can be easily addressed. The global economic and political system has become so corrupt that it is harming rather than serving the interests of the people, also known the “99%”.

Evidently the Occupy movement’s slogan, “we are the 99%” is not an oversimplified concept designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. A research team at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich developed a complex model which demonstrates how a few transnational corporations (TNCs) own disproportionately large chunks of the world’s economy. Simply put, there is a small network of 1318 corporations worldwide, each owning several other corporations and businesses, each of which have ownerships in several other businesses. This multiple ownership gives these corporations control over 60% of global manufacturing revenues.

This means that most of the world’s wealth is going to top tier of this network, which largely comprises of financial corporations like Barclays Bank and the Goldman Sachs Group.

Hence, it makes perfect sense for the movement to begin on Wall Street and spread to Ontario’s financial hub on Bay Street and elsewhere on the globe. Our political and economic systems are closely linked and the problems we face are multi-faceted. Instigating change, therefore, will require a global effort.

While the movement has mobilized people from diverse backgrounds, it appears to attract a lot youths in particular. This is not surprising as the younger generation’s future hinges precariously on the stability of today’s economy, whether they are entering post-secondary education or the job market. Nonetheless, it is contingent upon society as a whole to ensure that there is an economy for youths to graduate into.

Students in Chile took this to heart when they protested against increasing privatization of universities and rising tuition fees. Over 80% of Chile’s population responded in support of the students, forcing the government to replace its Minister of Education, negotiate terms with the student movement and reform Chile’s education system.

Perhaps it’s time for us to do more than just gripe about our own rising tuition fees and increasingly unsatisfactory educational experience. If there’s anything we can learn from Chile and the Occupy movement it is that we all have a voice and, when we speak in unity, that voice will be heard.