Hosni Mubarak abdicated the rule of Egypt after 18 days of demonstrations that swept the country, those demonstrations that began at noon on the 25th at the invitation of a group of political movements, especially the Kefaya Movement and the April 6 Movement, members of the Khaled Saeed page, and a few political parties to protest against the internal practices that were involved In recent months, he has been involved in many human crimes.
The demonstrators demanded the dismissal of the Minister of Interior and the purification of the police apparatus – it has not yet been done – events developed by the will of the masses or by the will of fate to reach Mubarak’s abdication of power and the assignment of the military council to manage the affairs of the country, according to the statement of Omar Suleiman, Vice President of the Republic at the time, and joys broke out and spread throughout The Egyptian country to step down and assign.
For the first time, a president stepped down from power under popular pressure, and far from the circumstances of this stepping down that need a careful reading to understand them, Mubarak in that year had entered his thirtieth year in several months in the rule of Egypt, 30 years and Mubarak ruling a country the size of Egypt, and in the second half of twentieth century and the first decade of the new century.
When the demonstrations, which were destined to be several thousand, took place, their organizers had no ambition to overthrow the regime, or to step down the President of the Republic, perhaps it was a dream of a few young people. Five presidential terms and Mubarak is ruling. The idea of elections and competitions for the president was only proposed in the last round of 2005 under American-Western pressure (for the same purpose as Jacob).
None of the Egyptians involved in politics thought of competing with Mubarak in the third or fourth round in 1993 and 1999, but the only time was under Western pressure.
Why did the Egyptians let Mubarak rule for so long? Was this state of Egyptians’ awareness of the insignificance of perpetuating the ruler new to Egyptian history, both modern and ancient?
The observed reality confirms that the Egyptians coexist with the rulers, regardless of their authority or not, as if they are an inescapable destiny until God’s destiny comes, which is at times death, and at other times a military coup, or the end of a state and the resurrection of another. These events are general for the ruling in Egypt, even if small movements appeared calling for the removal of the ruler or his stepping down.
The most influential popular revolution in modern history (March 1919) did not come close to the rule of King Fuad, who ruled the country from 1917 to 1936. For two decades, Fuad ruled Egypt, and a huge popular revolution did not approach his throne, calling for independence and the evacuation of the occupation. The one who rules under the king’s shadow and did not approach him. She called for a liberal and democratic life and parliamentary elections, and she did not say that Fouad, who was content to live and the English lived in the country as they wanted, would abdicate power, and Fouad II continued to rule until he passed away after 19 years of rule.
Al-Mustansir God is the eternal child
Was Fuad I an exception? Of course not, most of the sultans and kings of Egypt lived on the throne in most of the countries of the Islamic caliphate in this way, except for Khurshid Pasha, the governor of Egypt, in the aftermath of the revolution of the sheikhs of Al-Azhar and the Egyptians against him under the leadership of Omar Makram, and the Egyptians brought Muhammad Ali. The strangest thing about Muhammad Ali is that he ruled for 43 years. The Egyptians did not revolt against him, and after him his son Ibrahim Pasha took over for months until his death. Throughout this period, the Egyptians were satisfied with the constructive governor who rebuilt Egypt according to his vision (the article is not subject to discussing his rule).-
As for the strangest thing that happened in the rule of Egypt, it was the rule of Al-Mustansir Billah, the Fatimid caliph. Al-Mustansir took over the rule of Egypt after the death of his father, Al-Zahir Li-Din Allah, when he was a child who did not exceed eight years of age. Al-Mustansir’s rule lasted for 59 years from 1036 to 1095.--
Throughout this period, the caliph ruled Egypt, and it was not the length of the period nor the severe crises that the country was exposed to during his rule, and perhaps the famous Mustansiriya intensity was the extreme degree of the crisis, which caused the ruler to change or the Egyptians revolted against him. The child who began his rule under the umbrella of his powerful minister, Abi al-Qasim Ali bin Ahmed al-Jarjarai, and was saved from distress at the end of his reign by his minister, Badr al-Din al-Jamali, did not stir the wrath of the Egyptians until his death after more than half a century of rule.
From Farouk to now
An inevitable fate, this is how the Egyptians see the rulers, demonstrating in protest against. The occupation is yes, but the king or the president who thrives in his shadow should not. They pretend to drown in the Nile by opening the bridges in 1936, but the king is far from that, for he is our Lord.
This is how their master Farouk al-Muazzam came after the death of his father to take over the rule of Egypt from 1936 to 1952. Farouk rules under the auspices of the British, and they force him to change the ministry under tanks in February 1942, and the Egyptians call him the Great King. Farouk falls in a military coup, then a blessed revolution, then a new ruler for two years, Muhammad Naguib, then a new ruler for 16 years, Farouk left power after 16 years, and after that he lived 13 years until his death in 1965 in Italy, so if it had not been for the July 1952 revolution, would he have remained a ruler? Yes, such is the history of the Egyptians.
Naguib came in passing, and then Gamal Abdel Nasser assumed power. Despite my belief in the Nasserite experience and my vision of his rule, I also wonder: If Gamal was defeated in 1956, as his critics say, why didn’t the Egyptians revolt against him? If Gamal nationalized lawful money – I do not agree with any of the statements mentioned here – why did the Egyptians not depose him? If it was Gamal who was defeated in 1967 and stepped down from power, why did Egyptians cry in the streets for the return of the defeated leader? Far from my Nasserite affiliation, in which my faith increased with the days, but I wonder: Why do Egyptians always feel that the ruler is the father or guardian of the people?
This is how Nasser continues to rule until his death in September 1970. Do we have to re-read history and restore our concepts of governance in order to cross into the future? We must consolidate the idea of a president who is employed by a fixed-term contract, not eternal, in order to change the corrupt and tyrannical, and also change the just, constructive, or democratic, and revolutionary one. The discussion here is not about the validity or incompetence of the ruler, his justice or his injustice. When will we get used to a specific presidential term?
Gamal Abdel Nasser died as did Fouad, as did Saeed, Tawfiq, and Ismail as ruler, and Anwar Sadat was also killed as ruler. Anwar Sadat, the owner of the decisions of economic openness and the beginning of the sales journeys, Anwar Sadat, who began raising subsidies during his reign, the author of the saying “He who does not build wealth during my reign will not die.” Ghaniya,” the owner of the fragmentation of the Arab nation by visiting Jerusalem and the peace agreements with the Zionists, was not changed by a popular revolution, no protest attempt reached to demand his change, but the Sadat era ended with the bullets of the platform whose mystery has not yet been solved.
The rule of Egypt is still life-long, Pharaonic, Mamluk, Ayyubid, republican, military, until now. One of the leaders of the January 25 movement or demonstrations told me, when I said that it was a failed revolution and that it was half a revolution, he said, “It was not a revolution, nor a leadership, nor a plan for after Mubarak. Habib Al-Adly’s practices and their purpose is his dismissal.
Those were the aspirations of the great and great event experienced by a generation that is now on the cusp of sixty years of age, meaning that Mubarak the President did not take into account the leaders of January, and if he had dismissed Al-Adly, Mubarak would have remained ruler until his death. Will the wind come in contradiction to the patriarchal history of the ruler in Egypt? I wish, but this needs a concerted effort to change the concept of the eternal ruler.