Backpage

IT is not often that we are privileged to watch history in the making. No one following the developments of the last few weeks could have failed to be moved by the stirring sight of Egyptians – men, women, children, from all sections of society, cutting across faith and sect – coming together in an unprecedented movement for change, for freedom, democracy and a chance to define their own lives and future, demanding an end to the tyrannical and corrupt regime of Hosni Mubarak.

Few gave them a chance. The Mubarak regime had after all survived for over thirty years through a combination of repression as also by ‘successfully’ claiming for itself the role as a guarantor of stability against radical Islamists, a role that won it the support of the West, in particular the United States. The large inflow of international aid, second only to Israel, also enabled it to buy the support of local elites and the military establishment, critical in a region and a country marked by serious conflict.

And yet, in a matter of weeks, the Mubarak regime was forced to capitulate. True, the military played a role, not the least in its refusal to crackdown on the protestors gathered in Tahrir Square. Equally, shifting international opinion, including that of the U.S., helped both restrain the military as also force Mubarak to realize that his time was up. But to read the developments in Egypt as inspired, if not facilitated, by the western ‘support’ for democracy would be a travesty of truth.

In essence, the Egyptian ‘ revolution’ was made by its own people, defying not only the real fear of decades but also in the process shattering the many stereotypes through which outside observers, and not a few Egyptians themselves, have so far viewed the region, Arab people and Muslim societies. For far too long they have been seen as a broken and defeated people, divided by faith and sect, prone to appeals of religious extremism and fanaticism – in brief, not quite grown up and ready for democracy.

Nothing captures this better than the hegemonic characterizations of the Arab woman – weak, submissive, imprisoned in the hijab. That women of all ages and persuasions were present, in large numbers, on the streets through the weeks of protest, often with their children, should hopefully bury such characterizations.

How these developments will play themselves out in the coming days and months remains uncertain. Mubarak, after all, has for the moment been replaced, not by a transitional civilian government which includes representatives of the opposition and civil society, but the military. True, it has promised that this arrangement is temporary and that it will set into motion processes leading up to a free and fair election. It has also appealed to protestors to return home and resume work, citing the need for stability and to rebuild the shattered economy. But whether it will respect the will of the people or seek to hold onto power remains an open question.

Nor should one underestimate the likelihood of the revolution turning sour. Sustaining mass mobilization to keep up pressure on governing elites is rarely easy. A combination of everyday requirements and a steady pressure from interested outsiders worried about the ‘contagion’ from Tunisia and Egypt spreading to other countries in the region and thus ‘threatening’ both oil supplies and a delicately balanced regional order could possibly overwhelm a nascent process. The demand for stability and a return to the familiar is seductive.

Even as one should not rush into romanticizing the Egyptian ‘ revolution’, or minimize the costs of protest, it should not be forgotten that the struggle of the people was in the main peaceful, restrained and orderly. The absence of a well-defined leadership did not, as many feared, lead to anarchy, as the protestors, despite provocations, especially by pro-Mubarak supporters, refused to resort to violent means. Intuitively and instinctively they seemed to have realized the potency of a withdrawal of legitimacy (shades of satyagraha). The overwhelming participation of the young, the imaginative use of new communication technologies to break the censorship of news, as also to invite all citizens to join in and, above all, the ability to break the climate of fear – all contributed to a redefinition of polities as conventionally understood.

Though the affected regimes have initiated some corrective measures, promising greater transparency and accountability, it may well be a case of too little too late. As the ground shifts beneath our feet and the urge for freedom and to recover agency takes root, there is little that unrepresentative and unpopular regimes can do to stave off the inevitable. Hopefully governments across the world, including ours, will draw the right lessons.

Harsh Sethi