Activism

Wael Ghonim at Harvard: a key figure of the Egyptian revolution speaks truth to U.S. power

Wael
(Photo:  Khaled Desouki/AFP)

Hailed as a hero of the Egyptian revolution, Wael Ghonim is the Google manager who went missing during eleven days, early in the revolution, as a result of creating a Facebook page that fueled mass mobilization against Mubarak’s regime. One year ago, the page “We Are All Khaled Said”—in honor of a young man from Alexandria who tragically died at the hands of the police—rallied millions of Egyptians online and in the streets. Ghonim spoke to a packed and policed room at Harvard’s Kennedy School earlier this month, in the midst of turmoil in Egypt and escalating tension with U.S. aid agencies, to talk about his recent book, Revolution 2.0.

The moderator, David Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership (CPL) at Harvard, reminds us of the current events surrounding Ghonim’s visit: the day before, 74 Egyptians were killed in Port Said following a football match, with several witnesses reporting that the violence was orchestrated by the police. Gergen asks the audience—seated in the building’s amphitheater-like entrance hall, predominantly composed of young students—to stand in a moment of silence.

As we all know, a great deal of change is underway in Egypt: the Muslim Brotherhood won the parliamentary elections last December, and presidential elections are scheduled for June. But a year after the revolution, Egypt is still experiencing social unrest and the military, which insists on managing the transition, is facing strong demands to give way to a civilian rule.

Meanwhile, Egypt-U.S. relations are suffering from a dispute over American non-governmental organizations. Members of pro-democracy groups such as the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are brought to trial in Egypt and the U.S. is threatening to cut $1.5 billion in foreign aid. The involvement of these groups in the aftermath of the revolution points to yet another attempt at promoting a U.S.-centric conception of democracy abroad, one which is not well received in Egypt.

This visit is a chance for Wael Ghonim to “contribute,” he says. He insists that he is not speaking on behalf of anyone else—but in spite of this disclaimer, he is irresistibly, in the eyes of the audience, the quintessential insider. When a young student, standing first in line for the Q&A, asks Ghonim about the role of America in the revolution, he boldly reminds the audience of Hilary Clinton’s repeated statements of support for Mubarak, in the first few days of the uprising. “The U.S.,” he says, “was betting on the winning horse.” On U.S. interference in Egypt’s future, he is unequivocal: he wants the US to stay out of it and to do nothing. Ghonim is probably not the only Egyptian who feels that way—he tells us that the public is sensitive to U.S. interference and resents being told what to do by the superpower. Now, he goes on, he hopes that the U.S.’s relation with Egypt will be transformed into a relationship among equals. Perhaps recognizing the bravery of speaking with such honesty, in a place that breeds the country’s foreign policy-makers, a forceful round of applause ensued. Is that enough to indicate that the Harvard audience took serious note of what he had to say?

Ghonim insists several times on his uneasiness with being depicted as the hero of the revolution. For him, “change should not be personalized.” This is why he remained anonymous while managing the Facebook page, until he was detained and his identity was revealed.

This was also an occasion to address misconceptions about the Muslim Brotherhood. Rising to ask a question, one member of the audience, an older scholarly type, suggested—to sum up roughly—that Western political philosophy should guide Egypt’s transition away from fundamentalism and towards progress. Ghonim, to his great credit, replied with patience. Drawing from examples of colonialism, he explained that change cannot—that is, should not—be enforced on people. The Islamic party now needs to respond to Egyptians’ demands. If they do not deliver—especially in the economic realm, which is the greatest challenge ahead—then they will be replaced, Ghonim affirms.

He urges us to recognize that the biggest achievement of the revolution has been to allow for democratic turnover to take place. It is essentially irrelevant whether the Muslim Brotherhood or ElBaradei is in power—”Change should not be personalized.” And it is not for someone at Harvard, or anywhere in the U.S., to decide.

Being careful to note that it is easier for him to analyze his actions in hindsight—and insisting that there was no “master-plan”—Wael Ghonim provided some lessons on strategies of non-violent activism. He opted, he tells us, for non-confrontational actions—having people gather for “silence stands” in front of government buildings for example—to defeat the regime’s attempts at picturing its opponents like extremists. “We’re going to get all of our rights by being non-violent,” he continues, “by showing them that they are ugly (…) and we are civilized.” For him, these Ghandi-inspired tactics allowed the number of protesters to swell. It brought more people into the mainstream: “You should not try to avoid the mainstream, you should try to get the mainstream to adopt your ideas.”

Ghonim is fascinated by the online world, and—admitting to this as a cliché idealistic statement—sees the internet as a way to change the world. It is widely accepted that social media was a mobilizing force in the revolution. Yet, the former Google executive who self-identifies as a tech nerd, insists that technology is only a tool. “I don’t trust any tool, I trust the people behind the tool.”

These reflections on technology and social change are developed in his book, which David Gergen presents as an “instructive tale,” one, he told us, which he hopes will be studied here at Harvard. It is worth noting that all the proceeds of the book will go to Egyptian non-governmental organizations—for Ghonim, the indecency of reaping profits from his book is unambiguous (“People die and I become a millionaire?”).

Ghonim chooses to stay an optimist. The greatest challenge for Egyptian democracy is now to institutionalize the political participation of young citizens—the youth must now run for office, he tells us. But for him the generational change is inevitable: a brighter future awaits Egypt. Those who made the revolution will be “those who are ruling you [and they] are going to be,” he promises us, “accountable.”

26 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ghonim is a very special…. leader. That’s right. I wish we had a few of those at OWS right now.

It looks as if, for the moment, political power in Egyptian democracy is not dominated — as USA’s is and perhaps much of EU’s is — by concentrated personal and corporate wealth. OWS has no better target (I cannot say it is at all attainable) than the removal of the very rich from political power by limiting corporate political spending to ZERO and limiting personal political spending so no-one can give a party or a candidate big money: not BIG-BANKs, not ADELSON, not all those $100,000 donors who make up the 0.0000063%. At a minimum, OWS can talk a LOT about the problem of purchased political power. “THE MARKET” should not be able to buy that.

“Members of pro-democracy groups such as the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are brought to trial in Egypt and the U.S. is threatening to cut $1.5 billion in foreign aid.”

Anyone who describes the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute as “pro-democracy groups” is not to be taken seriously. Both receive primary funding from the National Endowment for Democracy created by the Reagan administration to do overtly what the CIA previously did covertly.

“He urges us to recognize that the biggest achievement of the revolution has been to allow for democratic turnover to take place.”

What rubbish. The army is still calling the shots. The “revolution” has been successfully contained as was probably inevitable. The degree of control that empire exerts over Egypt is much too strong for an ad hoc uprising to succeed. A “revolutionary hero” Google manager giving a talk at Harvard should be a tip off.

Im really at a loss…..

Yea, Aurore, Ghonim “might not be the only Egyptian” that isn’t to enamored with the “US -centric conception of democracy”

So, a street revolution constitutes “strong demands”?? — there is a military junta running the country – the people are in the street!!!!!!

This is really disappointing to read here

About NDI and IRI: I prefer that they are engage in Egypt rather than fomenting military coups in Latin America. It seems that there is a fashion of political parties in the West to have their Institutes that propagate their values around the world.

The problem is that what is good for a goose, is good for a gander. Civic organizations in “imperfect democracies” can use some help. There was a major kerkuffle when Israel wanted to ban NGOs from accepting money from such organization, except for NGOs that receive at least 1 shekel from Israeli government. Jerusalem Post and similar publications were publishing articles attacking the concept of betraying Motherland for a fistful of Euros or kronor and foreign government, like Switzerland or Norway funding radical leftist 5th column. It turned out that these “radicals” receive money from a variety of political institutes, including those controlled by British Conservatives and German Christian Democrats. Much to the dismay of yahoos like Caroline Glick, the legislation was nixed.

It was also discovered (by reading info on their web page) that 972+ Magazine got 4000 euros from the Institute run by German Green Party. One troll commented that from that day on he will always suspect that that magazine will further the agenda of Green Party rather than interests of the people of Israel. Sadly, Israel has too many patriots funded by American extremists and too few stooges of Green Party.

From the complaints of the right wing one could conclude than these institutes may be a force for good (althought right wingers always whine and exaggerate, I wish that Radical Leftist would really rule the world, which they do after one includes Conservatives, Christian Democrats and American Democrats and Republican in the argument, I guess Gingrich and Santorum represent non-Radical Left for those people).

So it was fun to read in Daily Telegraph that the legislative proposal of Israel Beitenu seems to be copied from Belorus and Uzbekistan.

So in principle it would be good if Egypt followed standards required from Israel. Who knows, perhaps some more meaningful standards will be required from Israel in the near future? Israeli bashing of charities may charities may be a contributing factor.