The new expression of political authority in Egypt is beginning to unfold, even as Hosni Mubarak and Omar Suleiman refuse to cede power to the people. Whether credible or not, the regime’s mounting “concessions” are beginning to demonstrate the real political authority of the Egyptian people, whose right to decide what is legitimate for their government is beginning to be recognized at home and abroad. The “perpetual session” of the military’s leadership council, and their “Communique 1″ and “Communique 2″ suggest the military would like to guide events with language of their choosing.
It could be said that this clumsy and contentious jostling for influence is a new discussion paradigm, in which major interests, including the people broadly, offer their view for the consideration of competing interests. Though the regime remains in place, and many suspect a crackdown is in the planning, this discussion paradigm is a major innovation in the history of Egyptian politics, and could presage the kind of coalition that will govern during a comprehensive transition to democracy.
At present, it is clear, the pro-democracy demonstrators are eager to move the nation toward a stabilization of this paradigm for transitional government, but with the current leaders of the regime excluded from the discussion, and removed from power. It has been their initiative, that of the demonstrators, and their persistent and determined adherence to principles of nonviolent civil disobedience, which has led to this new paradigm for negotiation of legitimate authority emerging, but there is clearly a role for political representatives and for military leadership in guiding the period of transition.
The fundamental question must be: how long will it be before both Hosni Mubarak and Omar Suleiman grasp the major transition in the political culture of Egypt which is taking place, and in so doing recognize the need to relent in their use of unwarranted power, and step down. This discussion paradigm mirrors the atmosphere of the American revolution, in which years of political protest were meant as pressure to persuade the crown to relinquish its stranglehold on power, but ultimately the revolutionary movement had to take legislative action to coordinate a response to the tide of violence.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, in one of the less celebrated opening phrases of the Declaration of Independence, that “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that [the pro-democracy movement] should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”. In 1776, that separation was from the rule of King George III of Great Britain; in 2011, it would be a separation from the rule of Hosni Mubarak and his regime.
Jefferson was signaling that indeed the need for discussion on the matters at hand was crucial to establishing the legitimacy of the cause. In Egypt, the demonstrators have consistently recognized and upheld this principle; Hosni Mubarak and his regime have been flippant, dismissive and arrogant in their response to the suggestion that the people broadly have anything whatsoever to say about what constitutes legitimate authority.
By now, the instances in which Mubarak and Suleiman have embarrassed themselves and their nation by appearing to equate authority to themselves, as if by definition, are well known and much ridiculed. The gap between their view of legitimate authority and that held by the people of their nation —and by the ethical sense of things common to most decent people everywhere— is so vast, and so clearly so, that analysts on Arabic language news networks have begun discussing whether they are psychological in tune with reality at all.
This dynamic clearly stems from the fact that for 30 years, they have been celebrating themselves and their endless and unashamed wielding of authoritarian power, while the people of Egypt have been reviling it, resenting it, and building up, intellectually and culturally, to a moment when it would be possible to confront the regime peacefully, massively, without fear and on moral grounds. For the people of Egypt, the logic of this uprising is obvious; for the regime, it is incomprehensible.
Disappointing as the latter half of this dynamic may be, it is not shocking to anyone. So it is remarkable to see how consistently, with how much principle and devotion, the people massing in the streets, even after coming under attack, being shot in cold blood, having firebombs thrown by regime agents into the crowds, even after the campaign of abductions, disappearances and torture, has come to light, how fervently they have sought to foster this new paradigm of political discussion, negotiation and legitimacy.
That the protest movement has remained nonviolent, even as it has expanded far beyond what anyone thought would be its out limit in numbers, in persistence, and in effect, is evidence that the undercurrent of this revolution is rooted in a real commitment to civility, to democratic order, and to the principle of a legitimate, negotiated political environment in which passion and propaganda matter far less than what is right.
The military has struggled, throughout this two and a half week ordeal, with how to be both responsible to the state and also to the people, how to support the new discussion paradigm without abandoning the regime in a way that might appear illegal, illegitimate or destabilizing. Now, the military council’s campaign of “communiques” appears designed to both stabilize the attitude of the military in the face of massive civil discontent.
Today, just after 6:00 pm Cairo time, it was announced by Vice Pres. Suleiman that Hosni Mubarak would fully relinquish power to the military council. Suleiman said “President Hosni Mubarak has decided to waive the office of the republic.” It is a sign that the discussion paradigm is working for the protest movement, though it may now be entering its most crucial phase, that of persuading the military leadership to abandon Suleiman’s view that Egypt is not ready for democracy and begin yielding power to a civilian coalition.