(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."
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
Dan,
I don’t get your point. I think Aurores account was fair, commending Wael for his bravery in front of the Harvard students.
Well, first off — this is “the guy” who the american establishment finds acceptable to come to harvard, be interviewed on Charlie Rose etc — that alone should raise our suspicions.
Egyptians are in the street, but we’re here talking about one guy. thats number two.
thirdly, the writer, who is coming right out of the Ivy league – gives the NDI and IRI credit for being “pro-democracy” when they are anything but – they are institutions of the counter revolution, and are understood as such.
Im actually surprised Ghonim wasnt talking about how much gene sharp inspired him…..
there are so many gaping holes in the piece, its not worth getting into it…..
Dan,
Of course we should always be suspicious. But I think you should make a distinction here between Ghonim and his wider audience.
He himself says that this is not about him, and change should not get personalized. Apparently, he donates all proceedings from his book to a charity.
So if we see him as the face of the revolution, its not his fault.
Again, us talking about him while Egyptians are in the street is not his fault. Maybe he disregards the fact that the revolution is still ongoing, but that comes not through in this interview.
Concerning American NGOs, we don’t get a quote from him on that. The piece just says “On U.S. interference in Egypt’s future, he is unequivocal: he wants the US to stay out of it and to do nothing”. I think the author, Aurore, paints NDI and IRI on a too bright light, but judging from the piece alone, Wael does not.
So, I should have been more clear – while i do think maybe just maybe this kid is a tiny bit full of it, my beef is with the article. The language the author uses is entirely inappropriate, misleading and condescending, frankly. like i said in my intial comment.
I think it takes some real empathy, sympathy, and imagination to stand in the shoes of an Egyptian individual who, for his whole life until very recently, there was not a single crack in the sky between his despotic government and America–when he/she is being asked in public about his/her country by any American media person, mainstream or not.
He didn’t point out what he did about Hillary Clinton for nothing.
Dan,
thanks for the clarification. I also realized that I read this part of your comment wrong:
“thirdly, the writer, who is coming right out of the Ivy league – gives the NDI and IRI credit for being “pro-democracy””
I thought you were talking about him, not about her. Sorry.
Finally, the naive characterization of the NDI and IRI as “pro-democracy” is the only thing I can really fault Aurore for. So we disagree, but thanks for the discussion.
No worries Justice – happens all the time.
As’ad Abukhalil is my point man on a lot of this stuff — his BS detection capabilities are second to none:
link to angryarab.blogspot.com
And Dissident Voice is always worth a read:
link to dissidentvoice.org
“But Judith McHale, former under secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department, gave a more honest assessment in March 2011 of what’s driving the State Department’s new initiative, stripped of the flowery and misleading language of freedom and democracy.
“New media and connective technologies enhance our ability to listen…Social media provides new ways for us to keep our ear to the ground,” said McHale. “Of course, we are not interested in developing social media platforms for the sake of having them. We are interested in applying social media to promote our strategic objectives.”
——————————
The above quote is illustrative of why I am skeptical of anyone heralding the egyptian protests as a “facebook revolution” — if facebook leads to social change, why – everyone needs a page, right?? ha. That would make some very very happy
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.
PIOTR- “Civic organizations in “imperfect democracies” can use some help.”
Ah, the white man’s burden endures. Is there no rest fot the weary?
I think I described the situation precisely. Political parties, governments and private fundations in US and Europe fund a number of “good causes” and governments get irritated when those activities are thwarted in various “undemocratic ways” which includes Israel.
NGOs (as opposed to QUANGOs) usually operate on the margins of Western establishments, but they are supposed to present a more ethical side of our civilization and have decent connections to media and governments. BDS operates further from establishments and from what I read, with hardly any money. I think that there is an important continuum.
Concerning prosecution of “American stooges” in Egypt, authorities there have a rich record of ridiculous prosecutions, e.g. “Maspero investigation”, and if they get into some hot water over that, I do not see anything wrong. Same for Israel (although here I should use future/conditional).
RE: “… perhaps some more meaningful standards will be required from Israel in the near future?”
Did I miss something, like the US is threatening to withdraw US aid to Israel (population 7 M) of $3B annually as it has threatened to withdraw $1.5 B aid to Egypt (population 80M)?
Overall about 44.4% of the Egyptian population are in the range of extreme poor to near poor. Most US aid to Egypt is devoted to its military.
In Israel, the percentage of families living in poverty is 18.9%, and in the USA, 1/3rd of Americans comprise the extreme to near poor. As in Egypt, so it is in America that the poorest are those who live in rural areas. The figure for Israel does not break down the percentage in terms of Israeli Jews versus Israeli Arabs.
About army still calling the shots. There is a reasonable hope that this will end this year.
PIOTR- “There is a reasonable hope that this will end this year.”
Egypt is a US vassal state and will likely remain one, outward appearances notwithstanding.
This is an oversimplification. First, if you know medieval history, you would agree that the level of support vassals were giving to their lieges was extremely variable, including cases when a lord was killed by his own vassals. Vassaldom is an inherently unstable form of relationship.
Just for info.
Here’s another Israel errand and bill to pay on the US To Do for Israel list.
Fri 17 Feb 2012 | 20:33
Reuters..
US aid cut may force Israel treaty review: Egypt
Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:42pm GMT
CAIRO (Reuters) – The Muslim Brotherhood has warned that Egypt may review its 1979 peace deal with Israel if the United States cuts aid to the country, a move that could undermine a cornerstone of Washington’s Middle East policy.
Washington has said the aid is at risk due to an Egyptian probe into civil society groups which has resulted in charges against at least 43 activists, including 19 Americans who have been banned from leaving the country.
Egypt has been one of the world’s largest recipients of U.S. aid since it signed the peace treaty with Israel, and the Brotherhood, which does not yet hold the reins of power, said any decision to cut that aid because of the investigation would raise serious questions.
“We (Egypt) are a party (to the treaty) and we will be harmed so it is our right to review the matter,” Essam el-Erian, a senior Brotherhood leader, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
“The aid was one of the commitments of the parties that signed the peace agreement so if there is a breach from one side it gives the right of review to the parties,” added Erian, the deputy leader of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the biggest group in the newly elected parliament.
His remarks are likely to increase pressure on all sides to resolve one of the worst crises in U.S.-Egyptian ties since the treaty was signed. In similar comments, FJP leader Mohamed Mursi said in a statement that U.S. talk of halting the aid was “misplaced,” adding that the peace agreement “could stumble”.
He said: “We want the march of peace to continue in a way that serves the interest of the Egyptian people.”
The 1979 treaty made Egypt the first Arab state to forge peace with Israel and underpinned Washington’s relationship with Cairo during Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule, during which the Brotherhood was officially banned. Continued…
link to af.reuters.com
American, thanks for sharing the Reuters Africa link. Here’s more from it MW readers might want to see, but have little time:
“Tensions were further inflamed with the release of remarks made last year by Minister of International Cooperation Faiza Abul Naga in which she linked U.S. funding to civil society to an American plot to undermine Egypt. She spoke of what she called an attempt to steer the post-Mubarak transition in “a direction that realized American and Israeli interests”.
The rise of Islamist groups since Mubarak was ousted has caused deep concern in Israel. But despite their worries, Israeli officials do not believe the next president of Egypt will tear up the peace treaty.
A cleric seen as close to the Brotherhood said in an interview published on Wednesday that Egypt could not risk any military confrontation with Israel, adding that the country’s main concern must be its economic problems.
“Egypt cannot enter a struggle in the military sense and leave the affairs of building on the internal front,” Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian who lives in Qatar, told Shorouk newspaper. “Now the citizen cannot remain without work.”"
$250,000 of the $1.3 M aid to Egypt is for humanitarian purposes, not military purposes.
Mr. Ghonim is supposedly typical of the anti-Mubarak forces? Using new media to bring down a dictator? That’s the party line from the mainstream media.
In fact, many Egyptians are so poor that they don’t have reliable access to electricity. They just can’t afford it. Many Egyptians can barely afford food for their families.
And we are supposed to believe that typical Egyptians have smart cell phones? Malarky!
Mr. Ghonim, a Google manager, may be typical of anti-Mubarak protesters from Egypt’s small middle class. But the battle was over when then poor majority became engaged in the struggle.
It is significant that people like Ghonim became anti-Mubarak, because it shows how isolated Mubarak became, even among the middle class.
But the claim that Ghonim was typical? Oh, please!
You are right, Nevada Ned. I posted some factual support above on this thread for what you said before I read what you say here.
PS, in America, if you look at your cell phone bill, you will see there’s a charge there that’s not related to your usage–it’s there because our federal government charges all of us to give free cell phones and monthly free usage to all those meeting certain poverty standards–that answers the question, “Gee, if they’re so poor, why do they always have a cell phone in use?”
To get a free cell phone and 250 free minutes per month in USA, you must certify in your “lifeline” application:
I hereby certify that I participate in at least ONE of the following public assistance programs (select just ONE
program from the list):
Medicaid
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) – Free Lunch
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Federal Public Housing Assistance/Section 8
Bureau of Indian Affairs Programs (Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, Head Start Subsidy, NSLP)
Who wrote that Ghonim was “typical”? He was described as a “hero” which is not the same.
A regime needs a cooperation of a certain large minority and passivity of the majority, or some other combination that provides a sufficient base of support. One stable configuration is when a rather broad middle class supports government, however imperfect in their estimate, as a defense against anarchy that could take place if unwashed masses have their day. That could describe China or Egypt in its more stable days. Thus the insurgency of the “middle class” can be a key for change.
Intuitively, each political movement is lead by members of an elite, so the question is if it is a “nice” elite that is on top or “ugly”. The well dressed, well meaning, well educated people like Ghonim may be a “nice” elite, and definitely very far from power. But they can nudge the society in a better direction. [They are also ultra-nationalistic and authoritarian movements that evolved from such "nice elites", aesthetics are not everything. But doesn't Wael Ghonim cut a dashing figure?]
From what comes through in this piece, Ghonims ideas are spot on.
“he boldly reminds the audience of Hilary Clinton’s repeated statements of support for Mubarak, in the first few days of the uprising. [...] On U.S. interference in Egypt’s future, he is unequivocal: he wants the US to stay out of it and to do nothing.”
“change should not be personalized”
“You should not try to avoid the mainstream, you should try to get the mainstream to adopt your ideas”
Gonna check out his book.