COMMENT Eighteen days of disciplined and peaceful protests by millions of Egyptians have forced one of the West's favourite tyrants in the Middle East to resign, 30 years after assuming power.
Suddenly, February 11 is regarded the unlucky date for tyrants. Jubilations and widespread celebrations in Egypt last night were a repetiton of what took place in Iran excatly 32 years ago, on February 11, 1979, when the Shah dictator-monarchy finally collapsed to give way to the establishment of the first civilian government there in a thousand years.
FLASHBACK ... Millions of youths in Iran protesting against the Shah in 1978-79
With all its weaknesses and shortcomings, Iran, until then considered an unquestioning ally of the West, soon rose to become the only working Muslim democracy in a Middle East ruled by kings, emirs, 'elected' presidents and sheikhs. It was a revolution which proved to be a nightmare for the West and Israel for decades to come.
Between Iran 1979 and Egypt 2011
How does one compare both these 'revolutions' of February 11?
For a start, Iran's Islamic revolution is arguably more comprehensive. It marked the complete dismantling of the evil monarchy system represented by the Shah, who was armed to the teeth by the US to become a bulwark nation for Israel, not unlike present-day Egypt.
THE FINAL COUNTDOWN ... Khomeini's return on Feb 1, 1979 marks the countdown to Shah's downfall 10 days later
The Islamic revolution in Iran did not happen overnight, certainly not within 18 days, nor was it left leaderless, however one may argue about the beauties of having a leaderless movement. It was a culmination of hundreds of years of conflict between the Shi'ite ulama who had hitherto shunned politics and those who called for greater role of the ulama beyond the mosques and centres of learning.
Ayatullah Khomeini achieved a feat no Muslim leader could have achieved in modern history. An exiled leader, having no access to media or non-existent tools like Internet, Twitter or satellite news channels to give voice to the people, and an entire West that supported the corrupt Shah regime financially and militarily. Against this backdrop, it would seem ridiculous to even dream that a revolution could be achieved there, much less to overthrow such a regime!
Yet, the Islamic Revolution in Iran achieved exactly that, and more. Not only did it overthrow the Shah, it also completely dismantled the repressive Iranian state apparatus, its brutal army's chain of command and its notorious Mossad. It established a modern and creative Islamic political system, and revamped Iran's social and education systems, which are geared toward crass Westernisation and de-Islamisation. All of which gave a new dimension to modern Muslim political thought.
Defining a revolution
Fast forward to 2011 in Egypt, and events were being replayed. Once again, February 11 has come to haunt the West. This time, aware of their mistakes in 1979, Western leaders rushed to change their tune almost immediately after Mubarak conceded to people's demands. Suddenly leaders found 
their voice, and many broke into a litany of democracy and reforms.
NO MORE FEAR ... Egyptians from all walks of lives displaying unprecedented courage
Yet, the 'Egyptian revolution', if one could call that, is far from complete. This statement, of course, is made at the risk of being called a killjoy.
A revolution must effect complete change. A revolution takes place when every facet of a nation, whether political, social, religious or economic, is in need of dire repair. One that leaves even small fractions of legacies of the past system is bound to fail.
The French Revolution in 1799 achieved that, with the coffin of the 'invincible' and 'divine' French monarchy never to be opened again. So did Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979. Both revolutions have had results which are contradictory with each other and both may even contribute to the conflict between Islam and the West in the decades to come. The French revolution almost removed religion altogether from the equation, shaping modern Europe for centuries to come. The Iranian revolution, on the other hand, ensured a greater role for religion and transformed the entire landscape of not only Iran but also the Muslim world. Yet, the fact is that both would fit into the definition of a revolution.
With the army now taking over from Mubarak, the unfinished business of the 'Egyptian revolution' appears to be left to the army rather than representatives from the people who have fought so hard, some with their lives, to achieve the greatest hurdle of pushing out a stubborn tyrant.
Will the generals bite the hands?
Contrary to fears expressed by right-wing leaders in Western capitals, it would now appear that the end of Mubarak's reign has yet to translate itself into a complete tragedy for his former masters in Washington, and its blue-eyed boy Israel. One should not have any illusion that Washington gives two hoots for the aspiration of the people of Egypt.
This is proved when among the first statements by president Barrack Obama is a call on the Egyptian military to ensure the continuation of the country's peace treaty with Israel. This acts like a sick joke on those who sacrificed their limbs and life to achieve Mubarak's demise. It was the need to protect this treaty that the West had been propping up Mubarak all along. It was this same treaty which made Egypt a pariah in the eyes of the Muslim world losing all respect from Arabs, only to be redeemed 30 years later by the resolve of the youth during the past 18 days.
But how long can the Egyptians hold their heads up high over their proud achievements? February 11 in Tahrir Square: people power it certainly is, but revolution?
Now that power is securely in the hands of an army which has been built with billions of dollars of aid from Washington, the weeks to come will show who will become the real casualty of the past 18 days - the corrupt system left by a Zionist ally, or the people themselves.
In a way, the patience and restraint shown by the army since January 25 did earn it respect and trust to lead the country's tranformation, but whether or not the Egyptian generals would ultimately bite the hands that fed it all this while, remains to be seen. After all, Obama has repeated what his predecessors had always emphasised: Israel's security is sacrosanct.
http://en.harakahdaily.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2267:the-incomplete-revolution-of-february-11&catid=36:headline&Itemid=70
No comments:
Post a Comment