It is said that an old Arab woman in the first half of the twentieth century lived her life in financial distress. She used to ask the educated people in the village: When will this hardship end? They answered her: When the occupation leaves and independence comes.
Then independence came, and weddings were held, and people rejoiced, and rejoiced in many good things, but what happened was the continuation of distress and the continuation of the misery that the old woman and the country suffered from. Instead of wondering: When will independence come, her question became: When will independence end?
The old woman did not realize that colonialism left behind two things: challenges greater than the capabilities of the people, and then elites who were unable to build capabilities sufficient to overcome the challenges.
Developing the idea of colonialism
These elites that followed colonialism inherited the tyranny of colonialism, then increased it and made great strides in it, which colonialism was reluctant to do. Moreover, these elites – due to their recent emergence – did not possess the colonial cunning in governance, politics and administration. When tyranny rules without cunning and intelligence, the results are two things: the first is more oppression, and the second is more poverty.
Since France preceded other European powers and inaugurated the wave of modern European colonialism with Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt and the Levant, and until this wave culminated in the establishment of Israel on the land of Palestine in the middle of the twentieth century, since these two dates, the peoples of this region have been struggling on three fronts: liberation from colonialism, freedom From tyranny, freedom from exploitation; That is, independence, freedom, and social justice.
The only achievement that has been achieved is that European colonialism has ended, but it has been replaced by American-European hegemony. The occupying forces left, and the direct or indirect rule exercised by the occupier stopped, but the relations of domination and control continued, whether due to the objective superiority of the West, or because the newly independent countries needed Western aid, from food to weapons, or because some of the elites who replaced The West had tendencies to reconcile with the West or cooperate with it, and whoever deviated from this rule, his attempt was defeated, then he was defeated, and then he was succeeded in ruling by those who integrated into the bowl of renewed Western hegemony.
American-European hegemony was able – without direct occupation – to develop the idea of colonialism without provoking the dignity of peoples or compromising their nascent independence. The countries of the region were surrounded – without physical coercion – with military, security, economic and information agreements, which competently and efficiently replaced old colonialism, and enriched it.
Hegemony has become a familiar habit under which people live and live without provocation, and this provides cover for the two parties that benefit: the first party; It is the West, whether governments or companies, then the second party; They are the rulers and the classes and groups around them who benefit – economically and politically – from the exchange of benefits between the forces of external hegemony and the forces of internal exploitation.
Marginalization of the people
The forces of external hegemony and the forces of internal exploitation were noted in the first Egyptian constitution after the revolution of July 23, 1952 AD, and after the evacuation agreement between Egypt and the British occupier on October 19, 1954 AD, and after the evacuation itself was achieved and the last British soldier departed on June 13, 1956 AD. This constitution was published on January 16 1956 AD, after a transitional period that lasted three years, and a popular referendum was held on June 23, 1956 AD.
It is stated in the preamble of the constitution: “We are the Egyptian people, who have taken away their right to freedom and life, after a continuous battle against aggressor control from without, and exploitative control from within.
We are the people who took matters into their own hands, and took control of their affairs in their own hands, the day after the great victory they achieved in the revolution of July 23, 1952 AD, and which crowned their struggle throughout history.
We are the Egyptian people, who have drawn inspiration from their past, drawn determination from their present, and have charted the path to a future: free from fear, free from need, free from humiliation, building through their positive action a society of prosperity, and under its shadow, the elimination of colonialism and its aides. Eliminating feudalism, eliminating monopoly and capital’s control over government, establishing a strong national army, establishing social justice, and establishing a sound democratic life.
We are the Egyptian people, who believe that: every individual has a right to his day, every individual has a right to his tomorrow, every individual has a right to his belief, and every individual has a right to his idea, rights over which no one has any authority other than the mind and conscience.
We are the Egyptian people, who sanctify dignity, justice and equality as the authentic roots of freedom and peace.”
These texts were expressive of the demands of the Egyptians seven decades or more before the occupation, and they are – today – valid for expressing the demands of the Egyptians seven decades after independence.
The difference is that the Egyptians were able to criticize the occupation, criticize tyranny, and criticize exploitation in a greater and stronger way than their ability to criticize during the era of independence. The capabilities of citizens, their rights, and the margins of their movement towards the national authority that succeeded and followed the occupation were reduced.
If these texts were rewritten in the preamble of a new constitution to be written in the year 2056 AD; That is, one hundred years after the first constitution of 1956 AD, it will be an expression of the aspirations of a people whose suffering continued under independence, in various forms, and under national justifications and pretexts. They were not liberated after seven decades of independence, they were not liberated from fear, they were not liberated from need, they were not liberated. He is liberated from humiliation. All that has been done is to replace control with control, and to develop forms of exploitation while its implications remain.
State trap
The gap still exists and widens between constitutions filled with the spirit of freedoms, rights and duties, and a bitter reality, in which what is existing is worse than what came before, and what is to come is worse than both.
A reverse law governs the development of freedoms, rights, and duties. As time passes, conditions deteriorate backward instead of moving forward. Thus, every new stage is worse than the previous one.
From the first constitution after the 1919 Revolution in 1923 AD, then the first constitution after the July 23 Revolution, 1952 AD, to the last constitution in 2014 AD and then its amendments in 2019 AD, in one hundred years of constitutional life 1923 – 2023 AD, the Egyptians enjoyed wonderful constitutional texts that were quoted from the best constitutions on earth.
But this theoretical constitutional development was not accompanied by a similar development in reality. That is, in the relationship between power and the people, the people still – as Saad Zaghloul said in the first speech of his government in January 1942 – look at their rulers like a hunter looks at the hunter, not how a soldier looks at the leader.
In the eyes of the citizen, the state is still an ambush, a trap, a trap, and a prison that he must avoid falling into. It is neither a fence of safety nor a place of reassurance. It is a source of doubt, fear, and mistrust.
The Constitutional Hundred Years 1923 – 2023 AD: Thirty of them were under occupation and kings from the dynasty of Muhammad Ali Pasha (Fuad and then Farouk), and seventy of them were under independence and presidents under the republican system.
The difference between the two periods: The first period, with the blessing of the 1919 revolution, summoned the people’s resolve and the spirit of the people. As for the second period, with the military nature of the July 23 Revolution, it excluded the people.
The presence of the people – as a community of voters – continued in the first; Because it was based on parliamentary democracy, with periodic elections between parties.
The presence of the people – as a political force – in the second faded until it disappeared; Because it was based on a presidential system in which the president is not elected by competition between more than one candidate, but by referendum on only one candidate.
This one candidate – from his position as president – chooses the members of Parliament, then the members of Parliament nominate him, and here there is no meaning to the people’s participation other than fulfilling the form in its most superficial and veneer manifestations, amounting to the point of triviality.
Then the one-candidate system developed into a system in which the candidate chooses several nominal candidates alongside him. They are not candidates on their own behalf, but they are nominal candidates, chosen by the one and only candidate, who sets limits for them on what they say and do, and whoever deviates from his decree is punished.
Summary of the difference between the two periods: The first period, 1923-1953 AD, increased the citizen’s ability to exercise the right to choose those to govern him. While the second period, 1953 – 2023 AD, increased the rulers’ abilities to choose themselves, by dictating their will to the institutions that they created themselves, and then the institutions were responsible for storing the rest, whether a few or many voters attended. There is no difference between a weak or heavy attendance. In both cases, the election results are known. And pre-ordained before you even start.
The most dangerous dates of Egypt
On December 10, 1952, the Free Officers announced the fall of the 1923 Constitution – the only constitution under whose umbrella Egyptians practiced the game of democracy – Major General Muhammad Naguib declared: “There is no escape from a new constitution so that the nation can reach its goals and be – truly – the source of authorities.” .
Veteran politician Ali Maher Pasha – who accepted to be prime minister under the command of officers, who used him and then threw him – said: “The 1923 constitution expressed the democracy of the nineteenth century, and it is no longer fit to remain in its state in the modern era.”
Like that old woman who did not realize that the national rule that followed colonialism was no better than colonialism.
The Major General did not realize that the nation would not be the source of powers, nor did he imagine that the president would be the first and last source of powers.
Likewise, Ali Maher Pasha did not realize that the alternative to the 1923 constitution would not be a democracy developed from the democracy of the nineteenth century, but rather a dictatorship of the twentieth century.
In order for the transition from a parliamentary democracy with flaws and shortcomings to a presidential dictatorship to be extremely powerful to be justified, sacred patriotism had to be invoked to cast its robe over this innovative presidential tyranny and give it popular legitimacy.
In 1956 AD, Egypt experienced its most dangerous contemporary history:
1- The evacuation of British forces on June 13, 1956.
2- The referendum on President Gamal Abdel Nasser with a percentage of “99.9” as President of the Republic on June 23, 1956 AD.
3- Nationalization of the Suez Canal, June 26, 1956 AD.
4 – The tripartite aggression – Israeli, British, French – against Egypt, October 26, 1956 AD.
Between these four dates, the historical moment was prepared for the birth of sacred national tyranny.
This is the topic of next week's article, God willing.
