Third, by announcing the formation of the National Association for Change, Dr. ElBaradei made a shrewd political move, and I expect that hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Egyptians will join this association, though it is not yet open for membership. People in Egypt and abroad want to join ElBaradei but they do not know what to do. They must be given more of a chance to take part, beyond writing the endorsements now being collected. The broad support ElBaradei enjoys has gathered around him a group of the best minds and talents in Egypt, and they are all looking forward to the moment when they will be called on to perform any mission for the sake of their country. We expect Dr. ElBaradei, as soon as he returns from abroad, quickly to choose a headquarters for the association, start enrolling members, and set up specialist committees to take advantage of all this talent in order to achieve the reform we all desire.
Fourth, we expect Dr. ElBaradei to be ready for violent confrontation with the current regime. ElBaradei has gone beyond the role of political reformer to the role of political leader, and it would be natural for the despotic regime to defend its privileges with great ferocity. So there is no point in avoiding or postponing confrontation because it is inevitable. It has already started: as in the last week one of ElBaradei’s supporters, Dr. Taha Abdel Tawab, was summoned to the State Security Prosecution headquarters in the province of Fayoum, where he was stripped, beaten, tortured, and humiliated in a horrendous and inhumane manner. This crime, which takes place daily in State Security offices, takes on new significance this time. It is a message from the regime to those who demand change that no one is immune from abuse by the authorities even if they enjoy a high position in society. Dr. ElBaradei is aware of that and when he was in Korea he issued a press statement strongly condemning the assault on Dr. Taha Abdel Tawab and declaring his full solidarity. But this horrendous incident is just the beginning of the war against ElBaradei, a war in which the regime will use every weapon, legitimate and illegitimate, in order to eliminate Egyptians’ hopes of freedom. We expect Dr. ElBaradei to use his extensive experience of international law to prosecute the executioners who detain the innocent and use torture, and bring them to trial before international courts.
Fifth, from the start Dr. ElBaradei has firmly refused to be a presidential candidate through one of the recognized political parties. He has also refused to submit an application to form a new party to the Parties Committee. Last week news leaked about a secret deal between the regime, the Tagammu and Wafd Parties, and the Muslim Brotherhood by which they would refrain from supporting ElBaradei in exchange for some seats in the People’s Assembly in the next rigged elections. This unfortunate deal shows the level to which some politicians in Egypt have sunk, but it equally proves to us how wise and far-sighted ElBaradei was when he refused to deal with them. This has enabled him to retain his clean image among the public, away from the corruption of the regime and of those who pretend to oppose it while in secret colluding with the regime against the rights of the people. Egyptians look forward to Dr. ElBaradei sticking to his principled position, rejecting any kind of negotiation or compromises. What Egyptians are asking for is not a limited adjustment in policies but comprehensive, radical reform. Every Egyptian who signs an endorsement for ElBaradei and for changing the constitution is at the same time saying he or she is withdrawing confidence from the current system. So there is no point in appeals and in composing petitions, because rights are not granted but won. Our ability to bring about justice is always tied to our willingness to make sacrifices for its sake. A hundred eloquent petitions to the regime will not convince officials of the virtues of democracy, but if a million demonstrators went out on the streets . . . only then would the regime find itself finally forced to answer demands for reform. While all Egypt awaits the return of Dr. ElBaradei from his trip abroad, I thought it my duty to convey to him what is going through the minds of the Egyptians who love him, have pinned great hopes on him, and are fully confident—as I am—that Mohamed ElBaradei will never let them down.
Democracy is the solution.
March 15, 2010
When Will President Mubarak
Grasp This Truth?
Mohamed Reza Pahlavi, the late shah of Iran, ruled the country from 1941 until 1979 and had close ties to British and United States intelligence, to whom he owed his restoration to the throne after his prime minister, nationalist leader Mohamed Mosaddegh, forced him into exile in 1953. The shah ruled through violent repression of his opponents, and the Iranian secret police, Savak , was responsible for killing or torturing hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the years before the Iranian revolution in 1979. By any impartial and objective standards, the shah of Iran was a vicious dictator whose hands were stained with the blood of Iranians, and a pawn, in the literal sense of the word, of the United States and the West. Two years ago I met his widow, Farah Pahlavi, at the home of some mutual friends in Cairo. I was impressed by her open, pleasant, and modest personality and struck by her sharp intelligence and superior education. We had a long talk and she told me she was writing her memoirs, and promised to give me a copy when they came out. She did send me a copy recently, published by al-Shorouk. When I started reading them, I was taken aback to discover that the former empress of Iran sees the late shah as a national hero who brought great benefits to Iran, and that she views the Iranian revolution as just a conspiracy by a bunch of riffraff and malcontents. Describing the last moments before the revolution forced her and her husband to leave Iran, she writes, “We were leaving with heads held high, sure of having worked ceaselessly for the benefit of the country. And if we had made mistakes, at least we had never thought of anything but the general good.” I was surprised at what she said and wondered how this cultured and intelligent woman could ignore or overlook the horrendous crimes the shah committed against his country. It may be that a wife’s love for her husband always blinds her to his faults, but here we are not talking about personal flaws but horrific crimes against millions of Iranians. It is even stranger that the memoirs are full of indications that the shah of Iran himself believed that he had done his country great favors, sacrificing his comfort and his life for the sake of the country.
That leads to the question: How do autocratic rulers in general see themselves? History teaches us that all autocratic rulers consider themselves great heroes and live in such a state of perpetual self-delusion that they are able to justify all their misconduct and even the crimes they perpetrate. This constant dissociation between the autocratic ruler and what happens in reality is a phenomenon that has been carefully described in international literature and is known as ‘dictator’s solitude.’ The dictator lives in complete isolation from the lives of his compatriots and does not know what is really happening in his country. After he has been in power for years, a group of friends and rich relatives forms around him and their extravagant lifestyle keeps them apart from the way of life of ordinary people, and so the dictator loses any awareness of the poor and has absolutely no contact with real life. An image of it is conveyed to him in reports by various security agencies, but these agencies always think it is in their interest to put a gloss on the bleak reality to avoid angering the dictator. They often compete with each other for the trust of the dictator and write conflicting reports. Sometimes they make up imaginary conspiracies they claim to have thwarted in order to convince the ruler of their importance. On top of that, the ministers who work with the dictator are not elected and hence have no interest in what people think of them. Their only concern is to retain the approval of the ruler who appointed them and who can dismiss them at any moment. They never confront the ruler with the truth, but always tell him what he would like to hear. In an autocratic system the ministers rarely venture to express their real opinions; they merely