WHY DO THEY SLAP PRESIDENTS?

I want to talk today about the slap, witnessed by the whole world, to the face of the French president Macron. Of course, I don’t support anyone slapping anyone else or any other kind of physical violence. Such conduct is barbaric and unacceptable.

But what happened to Macron has lessons for us (in Egypt). The man who slapped Macron was wrestled to the ground. The charge against this man, who slapped the president of France in view of the whole world, was not violence against the great leader of the people, or the father of the nation, or an insult to the symbol of the nation, or contact with a terrorist organization. The charge against him was obstruction of a government official in the performance of his duty! It was the same charge that would have been levelled against anyone who slapped an ordinary government official.

The matter was transferred to the court on this charge. The law in France says that if Macron had sustained an injury that prevented him from working for more than 8 days the punishment would have been 3 years in prison. But Macron was not injured and continued his campaigning.

The accused (the slapper) told the prosecutor that he did not intend to hurt Macron but was angry with his policies and when he saw him in front of him, he could not restrain himself. On this basis the prosecutor excluded the charge of premeditation and recommended to the judge a punishment of 18 months in prison. The judge ordered imprisonment for four months with a suspended sentence for the remaining period. This means that in the event of a recurrence, the suspended sentence would be added to the new punishment. So the man who slapped the President of France in the face was sentenced to 4 months in jail.

But it did not end there. The law in France says that anyone who is sentenced to less than two years in prison can apply to have his period of imprisonment converted to community service for the period of his sentence. And so this ‘slapper’ will not spend any time in jail!

This is not the first time that such an incident took place in France. In 2017 the then Prime Minister Manuel Valls was also slapped by a member of the public while meeting people. In this case the slapper was more fortunate. He received an initial sentence of 3 months and this was converted to 150 hours of community service on appeal. Can you imagine – a man slaps the Prime Minister of France in public in front of the whole world and is punished to 150 hours of community service?!

And this is not all. It is customary for politicians in the West to have rotten eggs thrown at them by people unhappy with their policies. In the last 20 or 30 years there has not been a single Prime Minister in the UK who has escaped having a rotten egg thrown at him. I was in London once and the Prime Minister had an egg thrown on him by a woman who shouted, “You promised this that and the other, and you didn’t do it, you are a fraud and a liar here take this!”. Pictures on TV showed the egg dripping down the face of the Prime Minster.

And I was in London wondering what kind of a strange world is this? The woman was not jailed because the judge said there was no basis to charge her. He held that throwing an egg does not cause injury to anyone and to restrict her from doing this would be tantamount to limiting her freedom of expression!

We must understand democratic nations of the West to understand ourselves. Are all the Presidents and Prime Ministers in the West objects of derision? Are we the only nation on Earth with a respected President? Imagine, if in Egypt you threw an egg on the face of President Sissi because you disagreed with his policies – May Allah have Mercy on you and not just on you, but on your wife, your family, your neighbours and all those of your contacts on your phone!

Don’t you see that there is a great difference here? But the difference in what? The difference is in the understanding of the nature of the office of president. Let’s return to the matter of Macron. The court said that he was an ordinary official. That’s all. It was not said that he was a symbol of the nation, or the father of the nation, rather just an ordinary official. But in our case the president is not an ordinary official; he is the great leader, the rightly guided leader, the father of the nation, the symbol of the nation. So that’s how they think. And this is how we think.

Now you will tell me that we in Egypt are oppressed and hence afraid. Whereas here in the West there is no oppression. An ordinary man can slap the president and be sentenced to a few hours of public service. But because of this oppression we cannot do the same. But let’s be objective. The matter is not just related to oppression. I understand that people are oppressed and afraid and so cannot express their views. But the real problem is that people themselves do not see any problem with the existence of a dictator in our country. This is the real issue.

And I repeat, what I have often said earlier, all these videos which I make are because I have discovered that the problem is with the way we think. The way we think is what allows us to accept dictatorial systems and it is what allows us to accept fascist Islamic political parties. So, any effort that I make which changes the thinking of only two people I consider it to be a success for me. The problem with us is what I call the ‘culture of submission’ which is absolute obedience. There is no submission in the West: You can speak to the president like he is any other government official.

In our case, submission means that there is a great man and all of us are very small. This is what is known as a hierarchy. Hierarchy is a system in which there are several layers. With one person at the top and all those below him submitting to his will. We see this system in the military and religious organizations.

There are three important factors (that contribute to our submission). The first of these is military rule. This is because the military – not just the Egyptian military – is based on absolute obedience. And this is as it should be. If the military were democratic the country would be doomed. So let’s say these days (in light of the dispute over the dam), the military leadership decides to attack Ethiopia. If the military were democratic, low level officers could say we don’t agree. Please ask the supreme commander to convince us. Let’s discuss it and vote on what to do! Of course, this cannot be. I’m not criticising the Egyptian army it, like all armies, is based on absolute unquestioning obedience. And this is how it should be.

The problem comes when this army starts to run the whole country with the same culture of absolute obedience. This is the problem. The political system becomes one of submission. So that the ‘small’ must listen to the ‘big’. And this system gets transferred to the organs of state, to society in general and finally to the personal lives of the people. This is the first issue.

There is another power that competes with the army in Egypt. And since 1952 It joins forces with it at times and opposes it at times. What is this power? It is the Ikhwan al Muslimeen. The Ikhwan also are based on absolute obedience. So, if anyone wants to join the Ikhwan they must take an oath of absolute obedience to its leadership. So here you have on one hand the army based on absolute obedience and on the other an organization (the Ikhwan) also based on absolute submission. Both compete at times and cooperate at times.

There is a video, which I have written about earlier, that is absolutely astonishing. In it leaders of the Ikhwan – people of distinction, university professors, doctors other respected professionals – shove each other to be the first to bring the ‘Murshid’ (supreme leader of the Ikhwan) his shoes. What is going on? University professors vying with each other to see who will be the first to bring the Murshid his shoe and put it on his foot.

And the Murshid? In the video he does not seem to object or protest. In fact, he aligns his foot so that the winner of the scrum has the honour of putting his shoe on his foot! It seems the Murshid is in fact pleased with what is happening!

What does an organization like this teach the people? Not just submission but absolute submission. So, we have a ruling organization (the army) and another organization (the Ikhwan) which is with it sometimes and against it sometimes both with the same culture.

Add to this that the ordinary citizen is under the influence of religious leaders. Religious leaders – Muslims and Christians – control the lives of most Egyptians. I hope I’m wrong. But, because we are a dictatorship, there are no reliable surveys. So conduct a simple experiment: Ask someone: What would you say If I told you that a Sheikh (don’t name him) has told the President of the Republic in front of Parliament on TV: “By God if it were in my hands, I would elevate you (the President) to a place where you would not be answerable for whatever you do.”?

Put this question to any Muslim on the street and he will say: “The Sheikh is not God. He cannot decide who should be above questioning. Whoever is saying this is a hypocrite.” Then tell the same person that the Sheikh in question is Sheikh Al-Shirawi and a video of him saying this exists. And lo and behold the same man will hurl insults at you. He is not able to accept any criticism of Sheikh Al-Shirawi and so the easiest thing for him to do is to insult whoever criticises Al-Shirawi. Even though this is not criticism but reality.

Now ask one of your enlightened Coptic friends: You Copts and those who are enlightened in Egypt have been demanding the separation of religion from state. Yet Pope Tawadros plays a role in politics. He supports Sissi and issues political statements on all issues. How is this? Should politics only be separated from Islam? Or should it be separated from religion in general? This argument will not carry much weight with them.

Now ask him: It is your right, as a Copt, to demand a review of the accounts of the Coptic Church. Why do you not do this? With all due respect to the Church, it gets a lot of money. It owns lands and is involved in disputes over these lands. But this will never happen. Why? Because religious leaders have control over wide swathes of the Egyptian population.

So, we have three reasons for the submission of the Egyptian people. One, the Army which has brought its culture of submission and control to politics. Two, the Ikhwan, who govern themselves on the same principle of total submission to authority. And, three, the ordinary citizen is controlled by religious leaders.

The question becomes: Is there a congenital defect in us Egyptians that we are born submissive? Of course not. Twice in its history Egypt has shed the culture of submission. This was during the revolutions of 1919 and 2011. What they call the ‘revolution’ of 1952 was not really a revolution. It was a coup in which overnight the military removed the king and installed one of their own (Jamal Abdul Nasir) as the leader. I do not call this a revolution.

But 1919 and 2011 were genuine revolutions brought about by people power. Whatever the school history books have told us about the revolution of 1919 is wrong. Abdul Nasir changed the history books to convince people that the period preceding his takeover was bad for them.

I’m not saying that this period (1919 onwards) was heaven. But it was a real example of liberalism. Examples? There are many examples: The constitution of 1923 was drafted by a committee. The Wafd (political party) wanted the members of the committee to be appointed by election. But King Fuad was afraid of the Wafd and so he nominated members of the committee. But in doing so he brought together to best minds of Egypt for the committee.

This committee decided to include a paragraph which stated that the freedom of faith (عقيدة) is guaranteed. But legal experts objected and said no. Freedom of faith means that Egyptians must subscribe to some faith or the other. Instead, they insisted that the phrase used should be: Freedom of belief (اعتقاد) is absolute. This meant that an Egyptian could be an atheist, an apostate, a Muslim, a Bahai or anything else. Al-Azhar objected to this change in wording. But the committee was firm. They insisted that an atheist or apostate is an equal citizen of Egypt! And the phrase in the final text of the constitution read: “The freedom of belief is absolute”

In 1937, a very prominent mathematician, Ismail Adham, wrote a book entitled “Why I’m an atheist”. This book was published and sold in book shops. In reply to Adham, the well known poet Ahmed Zaki Abu Shadi wrote another book with the title “Why I’m a believer”. And in reply also to Adham, an Islamic scholar, Mohammad Farid Wajdi, wrote another book entitled: “Why he (Adham) is an atheist”. So, in 1937, you could have walked into any book shop in Egypt and purchased all three of these books and express your opinion freely! There was no such thing known as submission. And the credit for all this goes to the revolution of 1919.

The component of religious submission was not there at the time. Nor was there any influence of the army because they were not ruling. There is an interesting incident that dates to 1929. Saad Zaghlool had passed away. Mustafa Al-Nahas was the leader. In 1929 King Fuad, wary of the Wafd, dissolved parliament.

It is reliably reported from many sources that at this point Mohammad Naguib (an army officer who later would join Abdul Nasir as the two main leaders of the 1952 revolution, and who would later be imprisoned at home by Abdul Nasir for 30 years) who has half Sudani and had a dark complexion, dressed up as a waiter and went to see Nahas. He told Nahas that he was an army officer and had been deputed to tell the leader that since the King had dismissed parliament, despite the Wafd having a majority, the army was ready to intervene to restore it. Nahas said “No, no, no – it is better that the army stays out. The benefit of getting the army involved in politics is very small compared to the damage it will do!” This was 1929.

Compare this to the Ikhwan and they are willing to do anything to get into parliament. Despite the lies of the Ikhwan who say that (Mohammad) Mursi was the first democratic ruler and such nonsense, the last fair elections in Egypt were in fact in January 1950. Mursi (may Allah have Mercy on his soul) was president by agreement between the Military Council and the Ikhwan We know about how the Ikhwan purchased votes with cooking oil and sugar. So all this talk of Mursi being the first democratically elected president is just that – nonsense.

We discarded submission for the first time in 1919. The second time we discarded submission, as we all know, was in 2011. There was an incident which I witnessed: The military council organized the referendum of 19th March 2011 to fool the people and thwart the objectives of the revolution. And, as usual, the Ikhwan were happy to be complicit in this plot to betray the revolution for the sake of getting into power.

This is what I saw: People were queued up to vote at the Garden City polling station. The governor of Cairo, ignoring the queue, started to walk directly to the booth. People in the queue objected – ordinary people. They knew that this man was the governor but there was no hesitation. “Where do you think you’re going?”, a man said, “Don’t you see there is a queue?” The governor said, “I have an appointment with Field Marshal Tantawi (leader of the Military council) so I need to vote quickly”. Notice his mentality: He thought that the mention of Tantawi would make the people tremble as in the past.

But the people were having nothing of it. An ordinary citizen told the governor: “If Tantawi himself wants to cast his vote tell him to come and we will make him stand in line!” It was a magnificent moment. In these moments the people of Egypt had freed themselves of the mentality of submission.

The battle is in the mind. You must free it from submission to free yourself from dictatorship. Democracy. Democracy.

Post Views : 346