So you want a revolution?

WHAT TWO DAYS AGO seemed to be a peaceful revolution, last night turned nasty as pro Mubarak supporters entered the fray. The spectacle was almost medieval as several horsemen and one camel charged the protesters in Tahrir Square, flaying erratically at the crowd with batons. But one after another, the horsemen were dragged from their steeds and suffered beatings from the anti-Mubarak demonstrators. It was a futile gesture paid for by Mubarak’s henchmen which I hope (if they are still alive) those quixotic cavalrymen with their broken lances, found themselves well rewarded for.

                This sudden lapse into bloodshed has been the christening that every revolution has to have, which is  just one of many reasons why they are not a good idea. Another is that you never know what will emerge from the maelstrom. - as many have found to their cost, what comes after is invariably worse than what went before.

                To the educated youth, revolution is a Byronic wet dream. The romance of the barricade and the noble principles that erect it, are the stuff of youthful idealism. But then, as we saw last night in Tahrir Square, those ideals suffer their first setback when the first blood is spilt.

                Revolution does not deserve the idealistic narrative given it by Marxists and anarchists. It is invariably a bloody business where, as we have seen in Egypt, law and order has been replaced by the DIY justice of desperate people who, without the protection of the law, have to form themselves into vigilantes in order to protect their homes.

                Revolution gives the phrase ‘taking the law into your own hands’ a rationality. It not only tares down the bad without guaranteeing something better, it also destroys what was good under the ancient regime - as it now threatens to do in Egypt.

EGYPT HAS BEEN A force for good in the Middle East since Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David  Accord in 1978 followed in 1979 by the Egypt-Israeli peace agreement. Since these two crucial periods in the history of the Middle East, Egypt has played the pivitol role between the Arab world and Israel, while acting to keep the Palestinians united…not an easy accomplishment as we have seen with the split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority  (PA).

                The West is right to be worried about the outcome of the present revolution in Egypt. No doubt Left-wing cynics will celebrate the demise of Mubarak and accuse him of being a puppet of the hated United States. But, in Israel, Mubarak’s name meant stability for the Middle East - if not the pursuit of happiness for his people.

                Be careful what you wish for is sound advice, especially when revolution stirs. Mubarak has to go. Of this there can be no doubt even amongst his closest advisors. For to continue on until September as he wishes, when he promises to stand down is not a credible proposition for a  tyrant to offer his people. For a tyrant does not have to hold on to any promise he makes, especially if, as  Mubarak hopes, things will have calmed down enough by then to allow him (or his son) to continue ruling Egypt.

                 There is another saying, ‘Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater’. If the price of getting rid of the Mubarak menace is to replace it with a government which rightly feeds its people and elevates their social condition, but takes a hostile stance toward Israel and the West, then what may follow will make the current bloodshed seem like a mere paper cut.

THIS IS WHAT THE WEST FEARS. It fears what comes next – after Mubarak. The elephant in the room as far as the West is concerned is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and what part they will eventually play in the governance of Egypt.

                It is said that the Muslim Brotherhood  is the opposition party with the greatest support in Egypt. The West however wants a secular society - for a kleptocracy is better than a Muslim theocracy that partners Iran. But the Muslim Brotherhood  may now have aspirations for Egypt that they never dared consider before the current events in Tahrir Square .

                Of all the computations the West has got to grips with following the demise of Mubarak, the one that suggests a popular Islamicist presence in government that (like the Bolsheviks in Russia) may seek to successfully engineer a victory for itself through any democratic mandate at a time of greatest dishevelment for the Egyptian people, is the most heart-stopping of scenarios.

WHEN MUBARAK GOES, what Egypt needs is a transitional period of leadership whose ultimate function is to pave the way for  democratic elections to take place, and for parties and politicians to organise themselves, and present candidates for office.

                I believe  Omar Suleman, the present vice president, to be  such a transitional leader who can lead Egypt toward democracy. He represents Egypt’s best chance of transforming a tyranny into a democracy. Omar Suleman, it is true, is not trusted by many Egyptians. But them, his true worth is not known to the Egyptian people.

                Omar Suleman has served Egypt and the Middle East well. It is he who has brokered and entered into negations on Egypt’s behalf with both Israel and the Palestinians. It is he who, if any single person can, lay claim to accomplishing  Middle East peace over the past two decades. Omar Suleman may have been part of Mubarak’s government, but his talent as a negotiator acting to resolve disputes on behalf of all conflicting parties is what is needed at this time in Egypt.

                If his gifts are to be dismissed because of his association with the ancient regime, then who will take control of this vital country? If there is no measure of transition to keep the country functioning while elections can be organised, then chaos will reign, with the best not coming out on top, but the most powerful seizing power.