the voters, and does his utmost to retain their trust and their votes. If a minister there disagrees with the president he submits his resignation immediately because he knows he will regain his position if he wins in the next elections. But in a despotic system the minister does not care at all what people think because he does not obtain his position through his competence or his work, but through his loyalty to the president, and so his whole political future depends on a single word from the president. In Egypt you will never find a minister who disputes anything the president says or disagrees with him or even expresses reservations about a single word he says. They all glorify the president and praise his genius and his great achievements, which we Egyptians cannot see or feel (simply because they don’t exist). Some years ago I saw a prominent state official and economist assert on television that although President Mubarak did not study economics he was gifted with an “economic inspiration,” which enabled him to have brilliant and powerful economic ideas that eluded academic economists themselves. The way officials are appointed in Egypt automatically rules out qualified people, natural leaders, those who have self-respect, and those who care about their dignity, while official positions are usually given to losers, partisans, sycophants, and those who cooperate with the security agencies. This has brought conditions in Egypt to rock bottom in most fields. The moment when Aisha Abdel Hady bent down to kiss the hand of Suzanne Mubarak symbolizes how Egyptians have lost their rights at home and abroad. When there is real democratic reform, elections will bring to power competent and respectable officials who do not kiss hands and do not flatter the president and his family. Only then will Egypt prosper.
Democracy is the solution.
December 2, 2009
The Chameleons Attack ElBaradei
The story began in an ordinary way. A dog in the street attacked a passerby and bit his finger. The man shouted out in pain and people gathered around him. A policeman happened to be passing, looked into the incident, and decided he should arrest the owner of the dog and charge him with leaving his dog loose without a muzzle and putting people’s lives at risk. The policeman asked whose dog it was and one of the bystanders said it belonged to the general, the governor of the city. The policeman looked embarrassed and quickly his attitude diametrically changed. Instead of talking about arresting the dog’s owner, the policeman turned to the injured victim and started to tell him off. “Listen,” he said. “It’s a gentle creature, very docile and well-behaved. It’s you who provoked it. It’s you who blew smoke in its friendly face, which forced the poor dog to bite your finger in self-defense. I’m going to arrest you on a charge of provoking the dog.” That’s the gist of a wonderful story called A Chameleon by the great Russian writer, Anton Chekhov (1860–1904), and the message of the story is that some people, for the sake of their narrow little interests, change their color like chameleons and without embarrassment switch their position from one extreme to the other. I remembered this story while following the savage campaign the regime’s scribes have been waging in recent days against Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei. For years this man has been the object of official honors, so much so that the Egyptian state awarded him the Nile Medal, the highest decoration in the country. At that time the regime’s scribes vied to recount his virtues and accomplishments (all of them real), but as soon as Egyptians spoke out and called on ElBaradei to stand for the presidency, the scribes, like the policeman in Chekhov’s story, switched to the opposite extreme. They heaped curses on ElBaradei’s head, and tried to minimize his importance and tarnish his reputation. Leaving aside their professional and moral degradation, there are several reasons why the regime’s scribes are so terrified of Mohamed ElBaradei.
First, it’s now hard for Egyptians to find a better presidential candidate than Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who is highly educated (a doctorate in international law from New York University) and has more international and political experience than President Hosni Mubarak had when he became president. He has widespread international connections and enjoys respect throughout the world. He has won several major international prizes besides the Nobel Peace Prize. More important than all that is the fact that in his great success ElBaradei has not depended on connections or relatives. He has proved himself by his hard work, his talent, and his dedication. That makes him a real model for millions of young people in Egypt.
Second, in all situations ElBaradei has shown that he says what he believes and does what he says. He stood alone against tremendous pressure from the United States and in 2003 issued a report in which he told the United Nations Security Council that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he headed, had found no trace of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, thereby removing the cover of legitimacy from the U.S. attack on Iraq. He exposed another outrage by the United States when he asked what had become of 377 tons of explosives that disappeared from Iraq after the U.S. occupation. After that he took the same honest and courageous position against war on Iran. All this made the United States strongly oppose renominating him for his post in 2005. As for Israel, it accuses him of loyalty to Arab and Islamic states.
Third, after ElBaradei reached the pinnacle of professional achievement, he could have gone into comfortable retirement and lived with honor and esteem in Egypt or abroad. He could have flattered President Mubarak with a few words, as many others do. The regime would then adore him, embrace him, and maybe give him a senior position in government. But ElBaradei showed that his love for his country and his commitment to his principles are greater than any personal considerations or interests. I have heard from witnesses how ElBaradei met senior officials of the Egyptian regime and did not hesitate to tell them what he thought of their wretched performance and how he resented the depths to which the country has sunk. Because of his attitude he was excluded after that from meeting senior officials. This moral integrity puts ElBaradei above many men in Egypt who would never dare to oppose President Mubarak or anyone from his family (even in matters of football). The fact that ElBaradei has not held any official position in Egypt for twenty years adds greatly to his credit, because he has not taken part in corruption, his hands are not soiled with dirty money, and he has not helped deceive Egyptians, rig elections, or oppress citizens. He has not been hypocritical or refrained from speaking the truth. Despite living outside Egypt he has never lost touch with the country. He follows what is happening to Egyptians and feels their suffering and problems. Suffice it to say that he donated his share of the Nobel Peace Prize, an amount of more than five million Egyptian pounds, toward the welfare of orphans in Egypt.
Fourth, something in the character of Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei makes him acceptable to Egyptians—a mixture of humility, composure, logical thinking, self-confidence, and dignity. In the minds of Egyptians ElBaradei makes a paternal impression of the kind that made them like their great leaders, men such as Saad Zaghloul, Mustafa al-Nahhas, and Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Fifth, the appearance of ElBaradei on the political scene drives the final nail into the coffin of the plan for President Mubarak to bequeath power to his son, Gamal. The ‘inheritance project’ depended on two ideas that have been promulgated incessantly for some years. The first is that there is no alternative to Gamal Mubarak as president of Egypt, and then suddenly ElBaradei proves that there are much better alternatives (in fact it is quite inconceivable to compare Gamal Mubarak with Mohamed ElBaradei with respect to experience and competence). The second idea, which the regime has habitually presented to western countries, is that there are only two choices in Egypt, the Mubarak regime or the Muslim Brotherhood. ElBaradei has also proved this idea to be fallacious, as a man who has won the affection and admiration of Egyptians while staying as distant as possible from both the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sixth, Mohamed ElBaradei will not easily fall prey to the Egyptian regime’s usual conspiracies. The regime will not be able to frame him with a fraud charge or a sex scandal, and will not be able to throw him in jail on a charge of damaging Egypt’s reputation or inciting chaos. The Egyptian regime has often used all these depraved methods to get rid of its opponents, but they will not work with ElBaradei, who already has a spotless reputation and is protected by the widespread international admiration he enjoys.
Last, just
