The Egyptian revolution of 2011, whether or not you like it, introduced radical change to Egypt. Change for the worse, a lot of people would argue. Those who were against the "revolution" from the get go claim that the change was for the worse because the revolution was malicious and ill-intentioned to begin with. Those who were for it, argue that the revolution was "betrayed" by various actors at various stages. I believe the revolution was a still birth. It killed itself. And the reason is, it was all built on a myth. The cause of the revolution was less solid than dragons.
The revolution was actually multiple revolutions. The Islamists joined it to start an Islamic state, the "revolutionary youth" started it either to start a democratic state or to get paid for footage or both, the military piled on to prevent the handover of power to Gamal Mubarak. Nobody betrayed the revolution, everyone worked to make their version of it work. None of the players managed to get anywhere.
The main causes given for the revolution of 2011 happening are actually the motives of the three main actors joining in. Other causes given are in fact catalysts. Preventing a Gamal Mubarak presidency, vying for an Islamic state, or looking for a Bush-esque democratisation of Egypt a la liberation of Iraq were all motives, but not causes. The revolution in Tunisia, the proliferation of cultural dissatisfaction among the rising upper middle class, and police brutality (alleged or real) were all catalysts that helped galvanise street movement.
Alone, the motives and catalysts were enough to cause the initial waves of protest and rioting on January 25th. However, what turned a sit-in into a revolution is a full blown civil disobedience and general strike that had its roots in a myth perpetuated by everyone.
"Egypt is a rich country"
The statement is a staple of every social studies book in Egyptian schools. Although the treatment of Egypt's geography in school books is professional an realistic. The axiomatic assertion that Egypt is rich is always maintained. But if Egypt is rich, why are Egyptians poor? The axiom and the question were internalised into almost every Egyptian of all walks of life. The answer to the question ranged between "Egypt is rich but its resources are mismanaged" to "Egypt is rich but Mubarak's elite steal all the money", the latter ironically pronounced more often by people who are themselves elite.
The axiom-question pair is what pushed hundreds of thousands of people to join protests and sit-ins between February 4th and 11th 2011. Perhaps they were manipulated by the "activists", perhaps they were being herded by the MB. But one fact remains, they knew fully well why they were going out to protest: They wanted the riches of Egypt to reflect upon them.
That's why the revolution has faltered. Because the real revolution was not based on the promise of a democratic state or an Islamic state, it was based on the promise of a rich state. And since Egypt being rich is a myth, the revolution has gone and will continue to go through spasms in which declining portions of the population join one side or another to remove one side or another because Egyptians aren't rich yet, and Egypt is rich, which means that the revolution is being betrayed.
Perhaps the spasms will die soon, or perhaps it will take some time. It all depends on how soon Egyptians realise a critical fact: Egypt is a resource-poor overpopulated country that was on its way to maximising its growth potential before 2011. Now we would be lucky to go back to the development path of January 24th 2011. Admitting this fact is bitter, it's also scary because the amount of intellectual terror that would be unleashed on someone as being regime ancien for saying this is significant. But facts must be faced if this country is to be saved.
Perhaps a point by point discussion of the arguments made in favour of Egypt being rich is warranted. Invariably, the arguments include: Egypt has a lot of land, most of it unused; Egypt has lots of mineral resources; population is an asset, look at Japan and Korea; we have a lot of sunshine lets produce a shitload of solar energy; we have a lot of natural gas and oil.
"Egypt has a lot of land, all of it unused, and Mubarak is stopping the youth from settling the land because he works for Israel," I was informed of that by a very serious looking scientist in 2005. He was fully convinced of what he was saying. The argument of Egypt's unused land is easily answered by the fact that most of the unused land is unusable. Egypt is one of the driest countries in the world, our agricultural activities are water-limited not land-limited, and we are already global trend-setters for productivity and efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Our grazing lands in the Sinai and coastal regions are among some of the most efficiently and ecologically soundly used in the world. Why don't you use a more efficient irrigation technique than basin irrigation in the Delta you say? Because otherwise the water table will drop and salinity in the Delta will lead to an ecological disaster.
Egypt doesn't have tonnes of precious metals. Egypt has moderate resources of some minerals, and it is making the most out of them. There really isn't a huge gold mine along the Wittwatersrand in South Africa, we don't have diamond mines either. We have a single gold mine that is just starting to be economic in terms of extraction. Nor do we have substantial oil or gas reserves. We barely have enough to cover our energy needs. In fact anything we have is immediately drowned by the every increasing population.
Which brings us to the most misleading argument of all: Population is a resource, Japan made use of it. True, population can be a resource. But this is only true when water and land resources are able to support the population. Population growth on the other hand is never a resource. Japan and Korea are often used as examples, nobody mentions the fact that both have had a fraction of Egypt's population growth in the past four decades, and that both now have nearly no population growth, and that in both cases this was an intentional policy and a welcome result. In fact, China managed to achieve economic growth only after instituting draconian birth control policies. Even Iran provides government subsidised birth control and has its Shiia clergy encouraging smaller families. In fact, even oil-rich Gulf countries are instilling in their peoples a sense that smaller families are better. Only in Egypt is their a sentiment that population growth is good based on no empirical or theoretical evidence. If population growth were universally recognised as an asset and Mubarak only tried to stifle it because Israel told him to do so, why did international pop-culture produce Dan Brown's newest marvel of alarmism "Inferno"?
We are a poor country. We need stability. Stability is not stagnation. Stability is tourism and foreign investment. Investment is not a bad word, it means jobs. Investors are not evil, they are taking a chance on us. Stop listening to second rate Twitter pundits and face the reality of Egypt and its revolution. Perhaps then we can start a new revolution based on work-ethic, fighting corruption and waste, institutionalism, and eradication of sexism and xenophobia. Something that can have more impact on the lives of normal people instead of an impact on the bank accounts of April 6th activists.
The revolution was actually multiple revolutions. The Islamists joined it to start an Islamic state, the "revolutionary youth" started it either to start a democratic state or to get paid for footage or both, the military piled on to prevent the handover of power to Gamal Mubarak. Nobody betrayed the revolution, everyone worked to make their version of it work. None of the players managed to get anywhere.
The main causes given for the revolution of 2011 happening are actually the motives of the three main actors joining in. Other causes given are in fact catalysts. Preventing a Gamal Mubarak presidency, vying for an Islamic state, or looking for a Bush-esque democratisation of Egypt a la liberation of Iraq were all motives, but not causes. The revolution in Tunisia, the proliferation of cultural dissatisfaction among the rising upper middle class, and police brutality (alleged or real) were all catalysts that helped galvanise street movement.
Alone, the motives and catalysts were enough to cause the initial waves of protest and rioting on January 25th. However, what turned a sit-in into a revolution is a full blown civil disobedience and general strike that had its roots in a myth perpetuated by everyone.
"Egypt is a rich country"
The statement is a staple of every social studies book in Egyptian schools. Although the treatment of Egypt's geography in school books is professional an realistic. The axiomatic assertion that Egypt is rich is always maintained. But if Egypt is rich, why are Egyptians poor? The axiom and the question were internalised into almost every Egyptian of all walks of life. The answer to the question ranged between "Egypt is rich but its resources are mismanaged" to "Egypt is rich but Mubarak's elite steal all the money", the latter ironically pronounced more often by people who are themselves elite.
The axiom-question pair is what pushed hundreds of thousands of people to join protests and sit-ins between February 4th and 11th 2011. Perhaps they were manipulated by the "activists", perhaps they were being herded by the MB. But one fact remains, they knew fully well why they were going out to protest: They wanted the riches of Egypt to reflect upon them.
That's why the revolution has faltered. Because the real revolution was not based on the promise of a democratic state or an Islamic state, it was based on the promise of a rich state. And since Egypt being rich is a myth, the revolution has gone and will continue to go through spasms in which declining portions of the population join one side or another to remove one side or another because Egyptians aren't rich yet, and Egypt is rich, which means that the revolution is being betrayed.
Perhaps the spasms will die soon, or perhaps it will take some time. It all depends on how soon Egyptians realise a critical fact: Egypt is a resource-poor overpopulated country that was on its way to maximising its growth potential before 2011. Now we would be lucky to go back to the development path of January 24th 2011. Admitting this fact is bitter, it's also scary because the amount of intellectual terror that would be unleashed on someone as being regime ancien for saying this is significant. But facts must be faced if this country is to be saved.
Perhaps a point by point discussion of the arguments made in favour of Egypt being rich is warranted. Invariably, the arguments include: Egypt has a lot of land, most of it unused; Egypt has lots of mineral resources; population is an asset, look at Japan and Korea; we have a lot of sunshine lets produce a shitload of solar energy; we have a lot of natural gas and oil.
"Egypt has a lot of land, all of it unused, and Mubarak is stopping the youth from settling the land because he works for Israel," I was informed of that by a very serious looking scientist in 2005. He was fully convinced of what he was saying. The argument of Egypt's unused land is easily answered by the fact that most of the unused land is unusable. Egypt is one of the driest countries in the world, our agricultural activities are water-limited not land-limited, and we are already global trend-setters for productivity and efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Our grazing lands in the Sinai and coastal regions are among some of the most efficiently and ecologically soundly used in the world. Why don't you use a more efficient irrigation technique than basin irrigation in the Delta you say? Because otherwise the water table will drop and salinity in the Delta will lead to an ecological disaster.
Egypt doesn't have tonnes of precious metals. Egypt has moderate resources of some minerals, and it is making the most out of them. There really isn't a huge gold mine along the Wittwatersrand in South Africa, we don't have diamond mines either. We have a single gold mine that is just starting to be economic in terms of extraction. Nor do we have substantial oil or gas reserves. We barely have enough to cover our energy needs. In fact anything we have is immediately drowned by the every increasing population.
Which brings us to the most misleading argument of all: Population is a resource, Japan made use of it. True, population can be a resource. But this is only true when water and land resources are able to support the population. Population growth on the other hand is never a resource. Japan and Korea are often used as examples, nobody mentions the fact that both have had a fraction of Egypt's population growth in the past four decades, and that both now have nearly no population growth, and that in both cases this was an intentional policy and a welcome result. In fact, China managed to achieve economic growth only after instituting draconian birth control policies. Even Iran provides government subsidised birth control and has its Shiia clergy encouraging smaller families. In fact, even oil-rich Gulf countries are instilling in their peoples a sense that smaller families are better. Only in Egypt is their a sentiment that population growth is good based on no empirical or theoretical evidence. If population growth were universally recognised as an asset and Mubarak only tried to stifle it because Israel told him to do so, why did international pop-culture produce Dan Brown's newest marvel of alarmism "Inferno"?
We are a poor country. We need stability. Stability is not stagnation. Stability is tourism and foreign investment. Investment is not a bad word, it means jobs. Investors are not evil, they are taking a chance on us. Stop listening to second rate Twitter pundits and face the reality of Egypt and its revolution. Perhaps then we can start a new revolution based on work-ethic, fighting corruption and waste, institutionalism, and eradication of sexism and xenophobia. Something that can have more impact on the lives of normal people instead of an impact on the bank accounts of April 6th activists.
No comments:
Post a Comment