Let's just get one thing straight:

There Has Been NO Revolution In Egypt.

That country is under Military Rule.

Mubarak was an army general.

Tantawi, the new ruler, is a field marshal!

What has happened in Egypt is equivalent to Babangida ''stepping aside'' under public pressure, to allow Ernest Shonekan (in Egypt's case,  Omar Suleiman) to rule briefly before Abacha kicked him to the kerb, seizing the reins of government.

So please, please, please, can people STOP saying there has been a ''revolution'' in Egypt.

Thank you.

May I suggest you look up the meaning of the word REVOLUTION to gain personal understanding of how you are not only wrong, but also why what you have above screams of "DISHONESTY" on your part?

I too know everything , SMH

Kobojunkie said:

May I suggest you look up the meaning of the word REVOLUTION to gain personal understanding of how you are not only wrong

Well I took up your offer. Here's what I found:


A revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution


An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolution


I'm sure you will agree that neither of these definitions remotely equates with what happened in Egypt.

but also why what you have above screams of "DISHONESTY" on your part?

Do fill me in. 

How long before the army clamps down on the opposition and protesters??

They could orchestrate a delay in calling elections and handing over to a civilian regime. They can always order the IBB handbook on tenure elongation. 

could be a handover i guess.

a real revolution is always accompanied by much bloodshed, since both leaders and huge sections of the general populace are eliminated in the bloodbath.

mubarak was forced out of power, more or less.

How long before the army clamps down on the opposition and protesters??

the protesters have been ordered to go home or face arrest.

rossike is very right here.

tpiah said:

the protesters have been ordered to go home or face arrest.

So where is the revolution?  

In a real revolution, nobody can order the people not to demonstrate or congregate.

That country is still a bloody dictatorship!

The thing is the Egyptians have been under dictatorial rule for so long that they themselves seem not to know what it means to be free.

i'm not sure what they want to be free from, actually.

tpiah said:

i'm not sure what they want to be free from, actually.

''Egyptians have been living under an Emergency Law since 1967, except for an 18-month break in 1980. The emergency was imposed during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and reimposed following the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. The law has been continuously extended every three years since 1981. Under the law, police powers are extended, constitutional rights suspended and censorship is legalized. The law sharply circumscribes any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organizations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners run as high as 30,000.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#Egypt

That's what the Egyptians wish to be free from.

So far it's not happened.

So where is the revolution?

@OP,
You have it down pat.
A real revolution would be somewhere along the lines of Lenin's Bolshevik revolution, or Mao's revolution. Replacement of an incumbent hierarchy or social structure by a totally different system of government, a total swap in rank.

This Egypt debacle smacks of arrangee. Mubarak is no fool, he would have rigged the whole outcome, while sacrificing his incumbency. Sooner or later, one pretender will show up.

Or maybe some smart alecs used the people to do what they couldn't have done themselves: topple the government. Once a vacuum is created they step in under the pretext of 'saviours of the nation'. Though it is looking more likely that isn't the case.

Rossike you are correct!!! If you check CE on page 19 of the thread that was runing throughout the whole issue(cairo on fire), After I heard his first speech to the demonstrators I told them there that he was looking for a violence response from the people so he would have a reason to hand over to the Army and That this would also appease the US, Isreal and Saudi and most Importantly for him (If you are 82), a respectable funeral,

EzeUche_:

You are wrong on this issue. A revolution in the simplest of terms, mean a change of regime. The President has stepped down and the Egyptian Parliament has been dissolved. That seems like a revolution to me.

Was there a revolution in Nigeria in 1993, when IBB stepped 'aside' and handed over to Shonekan? Or when Abacha took over from Shonekan? Abacha did dissolve all the elected structures up till that point, didn't he?

^^^ IBB never stepped aside BECAUSE of the Protest. He was slated to do so as part of the power hand over time table(I believe back in November 1992, the date was set for him to leave after the democratic government was sworn in, in August/September or so). But there was sort of a Revolution, only people did not push as far as to ensure the results were obtained, I think.

@EzeUche is correct. The people of Egypt simply wanted and demanded over and over for an end to the Mubarak regime, and that is what they got after 18 days. Democracy, they know, and we all know, will take longer than that to achieve, and they are now in the second phase of the revolution to achieve just that. If the second or third phase fails, that does not negate the fact that the first did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#Lead-up_to_the_protests

The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 (الثورة المصرية 2011 al-Thawrah al-Miṣriyyah 2011), sometimes called the 25 January Revolution (ثورة 25 يناير Thawrat 25 Yanāyir), the Revolution of the Youth (ثورة الشباب Thawrat al-Shabāb) or the White Revolution (الثورة البيضاء al-Thawrah al-bayḍāʾ) is a revolution that began in Egypt on 25 January 2011, characterised by a series of street demonstrations, marches, rallies, acts of civil disobedience, riots, labour strikes, and violent clashes; the date was selected to coincide with the National Police Day. The protests were largest in Cairo and Alexandria, with significant activities in other cities of Egypt.[11] [size=13pt] At times over a million people were protesting to demand the overthrow of the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, an end to corruption and police repression, and democratic reforms of the political system.[12][/size] The demonstrations and other actions in Egypt in this period were part of a campaign of civil resistance, a technique of struggle relying primarily on non-violent methods. On 11 February, Mubarak resigned from office as a result of determined popular protest.[13] While localized protests had been common in previous years, the 2011 protests have been the largest demonstrations seen in Egypt since the 1977 Bread Riots and unprecedented in scope,[14] drawing participants from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds and religions.[15]

The demonstrations, part of the 2010–2011 Arab world protests, started in the weeks after similar events in Tunisia, with many protesters carrying Tunisian flags as a symbol of their influence.[16] Grievances of Egyptian protesters have focused on legal and political issues[17] including police brutality,[11] state of emergency laws,[11] lack of free elections and freedom of speech,[18] and uncontrollable corruption,[18] as well as economic issues including high unemployment,[19] food price inflation,[19] and low minimum wages.[11][19] The primary demands from protest organizers are the end of the Hosni Mubarak regime, the end of Emergency Law (martial law), freedom, justice, a responsive non-military government, and management of Egypt's resources.[20] Labour unions were said to play an integral part in the protests.[21]

AjanleKoko:


Was there a revolution in Nigeria in 1993, when IBB stepped 'aside' and handed over to Shonekan? Or when Abacha took over from Shonekan? Abacha did dissolve all the elected structures up till that point, didn't he?

Well there are differences between the Nigerian episode and that of Egypt.

We went from Military Dictatorship -> Interim Civilian government -> Military Dictatorship.

Mariory:

Well there are differences between the Nigerian episode and that of Egypt.

We went from Military Dictatorship -> Interim Civilian government -> Military Dictatorship.

The difference my friend is that in Egypt, the people forced it to happen. I dont recollect anything close to what just happened in Egypt, in 1993 Nigeria.

Kobojunkie said:

^^^ IBB never stepped aside BECAUSE of the Protest. He was slated to do so as part of the power hand over time table(I believe back in November 1992, the date was set for him to leave after the democratic government was sworn in, in August/September or so). But there was sort of a Revolution, only people did not push as far as to ensure the results were obtained, I think.

@EzeUche is correct. The people of Egypt simply wanted and demanded over and over for an end to the Mubarak regime, and that is what they got after 18 days. Democracy, they know, and we all know, will take longer than that to achieve, and they are now in the second phase of the revolution to achieve just that. If the second or third phase fails, that does not negate the fact that the first did not.

Sorry, but revolutions, by their very nature, are not compatible with ''phases''.

You are mistaking transition for revolution. Big difference.

^^^^ I don't believe that is factual.

http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/2_1.html

http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh/amh-03.htm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mosaic.html


But again, the revolution was to remove Mubarak, and that was accomplished. Now the Egyptian people want to see democracy and so are working on that now. If you play back any and all the videos on what happened, you would note the chants were not "Mubarak give us democracy", it was more "Mubarak must go", and he is gone now. I am not certain why you want to take that away from them.

[size=13pt]Revolution 2.0, phase two[/size]
http://mondediplo.com/blogs/revolution-2-0-phase-two

A long week ago (7 February), Egyptians had watched a young man weep on their TV screens.

Wael Ghonim wept because he had just emerged from 12 days’ detention by state security. Because he hadn’t slept for 48 hours. Because he had been anxious about his parents and his wife, who had no news of his whereabouts, or condition, all that time. And because he had just learned of all the people who had been killed during the brutal repression of the protests which, as Admin of the "We are all Khaled Said" Facebook page, he had helped to trigger.

Egyptians watched him weep, and many wept with him. And the following day, the largest crowds yet descended on Tahrir Square, including many newcomers who were inspired by Ghonim’s tears to get down off the fence and join the protesters.

Even at the time, the “Ghonim moment” seemed a decisive turning point. As political commentator Nabil Shawkat put it, “It went through the entire country like wild fire. Up till then, no one was expressing any emotion. The regime seemed to be composed entirely of military robots, and even the opposition were too level-headed. Ghonim’s story enabled ordinary people to connect with the revolution at a deeper level. He’s beautiful, he’s young, he even stutters and stumbles when he speaks. He is our Abdel-Halim Hafez” (the popular singer who became the emblem of Nasser’s Egypt, and whose patriotic songs featured largely in the Tahrir Square occupation).

Ghonim’s TV appearance came at a crucial moment, just as the danger of the country being split in two was beginning to seem real. And he used it to call for unity among all Egyptians – symbolised by his opening statement that all those who had died in the past two weeks were martyrs, whether they were protesters, policemen or soldiers – while totally rejecting any accommodation with a regime which had made the Egyptian people feel like foreigners in their own country.

As Wael Ghonim wept and spoke and wept again, Egypt seemed to find the icon its revolution had been lacking. Ghonim made this possible by simultaneously acknowledging, and evacuating, any substantial political content from the movement’s immediate programme. Instead, he offered in its place the image of his suffering as Egypt’s loyal son, who only wants what is best for the nation.

In so doing, he destroyed two weeks of counter-propaganda by a government that had sought to convince both itself and the Egyptian people that only foreign-backed agitators would seek to bring such "chaos" to their country. And he seemed to many to have crystallised the next stage of the revolutionary process, not around any idea or ideology, but around his own image, which he held up as a mirror to the sufferings not only of his Facebook followers but of the entire country.

As democratic as it gets

Ghonim’s tears certainly played a crucial role in bringing many people, particularly middle-class Egyptians, down into the streets last week. But they cannot directly account for the massive wave of labour unrest which erupted in the days that followed, and which may have played the decisive role in transforming the emotions of the protesters into concrete gains.

Labour activists had proclaimed the creation of an independent trade union federation as early as 30 January, and the city of Suez, one of Egypt’s economic lynchpins, was at the heart of the struggle from day one. (Some believe that when all is finally known, it will be Suez too which has paid the heaviest price for its resistance in terms of dead and injured.) But the initial call for a general strike seemed at first not to find an echo outside one or two areas of the country. And it was not until as late as the middle of last week, when 24,000 workers at the Mahalla Textile Company downed tools, that labour seemed to throw its full weight behind the revolution.

Mahalla has been the epicentre of industrial action in Egypt for much of the last decade, and once the textile workers there had called a strike, it was not long before action spread to encompass armaments factories, public transport networks, universities and hospitals, oil companies, even the actors’ syndicate.

Continuing what has been the hallmark of recent Egyptian labour activism, these actions combined bread-and-butter demands about working conditions and living standards, with attacks on corruption in both management and the official trades unions, and more explicitly political calls for the end of the regime and expressions of solidarity with the protesters in Tahrir Square.

These strikes build on a recent history of labour activism that has grown since the early 2000s to be the most vibrant force for change in Egypt. Driven by the drastic deterioration in the living and working conditions of the majority of the Egyptian people that followed the regime’s compliance with IMF and World Bank demands for the privatization of state-controlled enterprises, the last decade has seen a constantly rising tide of grassroots workplace actions. And as that movement has spread and grown in confidence, its demands have become more and more explicitly political. As Mahalla strike leader Muhammad al-’Attar told a rally in September 2007, “I want the whole government to resign, I want the Mubarak regime to come to an end. Politics and workers’ rights are inseparable. Work is politics by itself. What we are witnessing here right now, this is as democratic as it gets.”

For Egypt’s workers, the revolution is not just about an image or an emotion. It is about concrete demands, based on their concrete experience of what it is like to go without food, to be unable to pay for their children’s education, and to witness at first hand the corruption that illicitly breeds obscene levels of wealth. And it is rooted in their experience of mounting countless “illegal” actions that have united their communities, built bridges with other forces within Egyptian society, and demonstrated many times over how sheer force of numbers could overwhelm the repressive apparatus of a regime that was looking increasingly neurotic and out-of-touch.

It is too soon to know what exactly tipped the balance at the end of last week, and convinced the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that the political and institutional superstructure of the Mubarak regime was now a liability, rather than an asset. But it is hard not to subscribe to the implications of one tweet sent by Egyptian microblogger Hossam el-Hamalawy (aka 3arabawy), which seemed to chime immediately with the hopes of many other cyber revolutionaries:

“#EgyWorkers strikes have started. The organized working class is now entering the arena. Mubarak, u r properly bleeped.”

Towards a permanent revolution?

One of the strangest aspects of Ghonim’s appearance on Dream TV was the stark contrast between his own raw emotions, and the manner of his interviewer Mona El-Shazly. Often described as Egypt’s Opra, El-Shazly’s saccharine and invasive intimacy with both her guests and her viewers goes hand-in-hand with an almost ancien régime deference to the rights and privileges of the wealthy and the influential.

Refusing to let her talk down to him, boost him, mother him, or even direct the conversation, the sheer force of Ghonim’s sincerity temporarily obscured any suspicion that he and El-Shazly might in fact turn out to be class allies. Yet, even if it was not natural for him to appear on her show while still in a state of such emotional distress, this was still not a wholly unnatural environment for a man who is also a Regional Marketing Manager for Google, and whose Facebook page lists Bill Gates among his inspirations, and singer Tamer Hosny (who was booed off Tahrir Square when he attempted to address the crowds there last Wednesday) among his musical tastes.

On Thursday, in the immediate run up to the great anti-climax of Mubarak’s last speech, in which he “stepped back” instead of stepping down, remaining as president while delegating power to Omar Suleiman, Ghonim tweeted to his followers in what seemed premature jubilation: “Revolution 2.0. Mission accomplished.”

History has in a sense proved him right, even if there was a 24-hour delay in the transfer of power to the army, doubtless due to Mubarak’s determination to try and put one last one over on the military establishment, who had by then determined to dislodge him and set the country on a new course. Ambiguity remains over what that course is likely to be, and how far either the army, or its soon to-be-designated civilian partners, will be prepared to go towards recognising some of the more substantial, less Facebook-friendly demands of the revolution.

Over the weekend, as the-traffic-hub-turned-anarchist-commune of Tahrir Square began to return to something like normal, industrial action continued across the country. Strikes by oil workers and railwaymen remained strong. Vets and forestry workers launched new protests, and actions of various kinds were reported in Beni Suef and Daqahliya, Helwan and Menufiya. Workers at Assiut Fertilisers came out on strike, while their comrades at Assiut Cement cut the road leading to the New Valley to protest against their own low salaries.

Journalists prepared for a Monday meeting at which they planned to impeach the head of the Press Syndicate, while teachers, microbus drivers, bank workers and police officers continued to revolt against inhuman working conditions and the grotesque corruption of their managers. Meanwhile, the official union federation ETUF, which has long functioned as a tool of repression in the hands of the regime, launched a counter-attack against the independent union movement, which has sought to have ETUF head Hussein Megawar investigated for corruption.

Then, on Sunday 13 February, Reuters reported that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces would shortly issue a decree banning meetings of labour unions and professional associations, and effectively outlawing strikes. (This pre-announced move remains unconfirmed at the time of publication.)

When this news hit the wires, Hossam el-Hamalawy told his readers: “Remember when army took over in 1952, 1st thing they did: executing 2 strike leaders in Kafr el-Dawwar.”

On Monday, the army seemed to have backed down; the decree was replaced by a televised appeal for people to return to work for the sake of the economy. But as some of the protests showed signs of turning into physical confrontations, the immediate outlook for relations between the army and the country’s workers remained unclear.

The Facebook youth’s "revolution 2.0" may be over already. But for many Egyptians, the second phase of their revolution is just beginning.

Arent we getting a bit ahead of ourselves. I believe there is a stipulated time for the transition to democracy. 
Rossike why being cynical,  it is afterall Egypt and not Nigeria.

Kobojunkie said:

^^^^ I don't believe that is factual.

http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/2_1.html

http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh/amh-03.htm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mosaic.html


But again, the revolution was to remove Mubarak, and that was accomplished. Now the Egyptian people want to see democracy and so are working on that now. If you play back any and all the videos on what happened, you would note the chants were not "Mubarak give us democracy", it was more "Mubarak must go", and he is gone now. I am not certain why you want to pretend what happened was not real.

Fair enough.  But I'm not sure why you're pulling up the French revolution and so on. We know the autocracy there wasn't replaced by a military regime or a more unrepresentative form of government. The system of government moved from absolutism to a form of representative constitutional monarchy in less than a week, with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen following quickly on the heels of the upheavals. Major changes to the system happened in under a month.

In Egypt, the system has actually become LESS representative following their ''revolution''. A ''Declaration of Rights'' bill is not even on the radar. The constitution remains suspended. And the military has announced they'll be in power for at least another 6 MONTHS.

So I really don't know where you see revolution in Egypt.

You simply cannot define the removal of the incumbent  as a revolution. That's an overthrow. The repressive structures are still intact.

ROSSIKE:

Kobojunkie said:
Fair enough.  But I'm not sure why you're pulling up the French revolution and so on. We know the autocracy there wasn't replaced by a military regime or a more unrepresentative form of government. The system of government moved from absolutism to a form of representative constitutional monarchy in less than a week, with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen following quickly on the heels of the upheavals.

The examples were to show you that indeed, revolutions can be phased!

ROSSIKE:

In Egypt, the system has actually become LESS representative following their ''revolution''. A ''Declaration of Rights'' document is not even on the radar.
You simply cannot define a revolution by the removal of the incumbent. That's an overthrow.

Please stop trying to move the goalposts on what constitutes a revolution and what does not. There is no such requirement on revolutions.

[size=13pt]A revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.[/size]

[size=13pt]An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.[/size]

As you were able to glean from the dictionary, a revolution is what the world saw these weeks in Egypt. Again, let us be honest and be happy for them!

Revolution can be defined in Political and Sociological terms. In the former it is "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed" while in the later its "a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence".

French revolution retains both definition but the Egypt's case was strictly political.

IBB was never taken out by the people so that doesn't fall into the camp of revolution.

shotster50:

The difference my friend is that in Egypt, the people forced it to happen. I dont recollect anything close to what just happened in Egypt, in 1993 Nigeria.

Oh I dunno. . .I remember the shit-storm (riots) in Lagos. Didn't people refuse to go to work or something?

Mariory:

Oh I dunno. . .I remember the poo-storm (riots) in Lagos. Didn't people refuse to go to work or something?

And somehow that is the same with what has been going on in Egypt!!! What planet are you on?

lol

shotster50:

And somehow that is the same with what has been going on in Egypt!!! What planet are you on?

Only you can know how you came to that conclusion. For clarity, the two situations are different except for the fact that in both cases, the incumbent dictatorships were forced out by popular civil action.

^^^ Do you have any evidence to show that the reason IBB stepped down in August 1993, in accordance with the original timetable for handover, is because of June 12th protest by the people?

^^Is that question a joke?

^^^ No it is not! I am serious about that question. What makes you believe that the only reason IBB vacated the seat was because of the june 12th protest?