I Told You So (Egyptian Edition)

A few weeks ago, I posted a piece warning anti-Morsi protestors that egging on the military to overthrow a democratically-elected government, however bad, would rebound spectacularly.

the people of Egypt are deluded if they see an army coup as a necessary stage in the pursuit of democracy. Morsi was a bad president but he wasn't a dictator. The demonstrators should sup with a very long spoon: supporting a coup against someone you don't like tacitly authorises the next coup, which might be against someone you do like. 

Ask yourself this: how many times have military coups lead to democratic governments?

It's not, of course, a simple matter. The Morsi government was elected democratically, but it was hardly governing in that spirit. Democracy is more than installing an dictatorship with a mandate for a fixed period of time and letting them get on with it (though this is of course the British system: the current coalition is behaving as though it has an enormous mandate for radical change). 

One of my friends, a leading Socialist Workers' Party thinker, had a chat with me about this. He thinks I called it wrong and that the strength of popular feeling on the Egyptian street indicated a brighter future than I thought.

But now hundreds of people are being murdered every week by the military in the name of security and the people who overthrew Mubarak are loudly cheering them on.

But what's this? President Morsi has been charged with criminal offences against Mubarak's military dictatorship (imagine the West German state trying postwar politicians for resisting the Nazi regime?) and Mubarak is being released by the military government. If I were an Egyptian democrat, I'd be looking from the pigs to the men and finding very little difference indeed. And then I'd be packing my bags and quietly heading towards the exit.

Democracy, Army Style

So the Egyptian military has overthrown the democratically-elected government of Mohammed Morsi, arrested the President and many of his senior supporters, suspended the constitution and taken control of the state, supposedly in response to the cries of the people whose revolution has been betrayed by the government.

I guess this is what counts as complicated. Morsi's government was democratically elected, but wasn't behaving in a particularly democratic way, if like me you believe that democracy is more than elections allowing the majority to impose its will on minorities. It's true, too, that the Morsi government was very keen on locking up journalists and very poor at fixing the economy. One of its lesser-remarked failures, however, was its total refusal to deal with the army's massive economic role: it apparently controls at least 15% of the economy through a network of businesses, and certainly wasn't going to countenance the suggestion that armies are the servants of the people embodied in the state.

The other problem with the Egyptian army is that it's a creation and client not of the Egyptian people, but of the United States, which provides it with massive amounts of money and materiel. As usual, the Western powers talk a lot about democracy but never, ever, mean it, particularly with regard to the Arab and Eastern worlds. What the West wanted in years gone by was anti-communist dictatorships which kept the oil flowing to the West and stopped the Arab man in the street from declaring all-out war on Israel. The anti-communist bit has been dropped but the rest remains central to global realpolitik. In pursuit of these aims, the democratic impulses of the East, the rights of women, religious minorities and ethnic minorities have been deliberately ignored. Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi (sometimes), Assad and many others were the beneficiaries of a policy which traded human rights for geopolitical aims. I remember Tony Blair making a stirring speech about bringing democracy to the East, as part of the build-up to war. So I wrote to my MP asking when we started bombing Saudi Arabia, which had a far worse human rights and democratic record than Iraq (it still does). The reply was a contemptuous brush-off.

So anyway, my feeling is that the Western states are very happy to see this coup. They'll have advised the Egyptian army to employ some rudimentary PR: a few populist gestures here and there, some journalists released, some bread subsidies, perhaps unmask a few convenient Islamist Terrorist Plots so it looks like the aims of the Egyptian street and that of the army are aligned, but the shine will tarnish pretty quickly. The army doesn't want democracy for the same reasons as the West: it assumes that Egyptians are religious zealots, and it doesn't want to destabilise the cosy global order, or lose its privileges.

So I think the people of Egypt are deluded if they see an army coup as a necessary stage in the pursuit of democracy. Morsi was a bad president but he wasn't a dictator. The demonstrators should sup with a very long spoon: supporting a coup against someone you don't like tacitly authorises the next coup, which might be against someone you do like.

Ask yourself this: how many times have military coups lead to democratic governments? I can think of very few indeed, though I'm hoping that you can provide some more. The oldest example is one that didn't really happen. In the aftermath of what's erroneously called the English Civil War, the Army began to feel that the Parliamentary leadership wasn't nearly radical enough (they'd even tried to settle with Charles I rather than overthrow the monarchy) , and in fact wanted to establish a Republic of the Squirearchy rather than a true, levelled democracy. They held a series of debates (including the Putney Debates), published pamphlets and proposals, and moved menacingly close to London, until Charles I's escape, coupled with a Cromwellian crackdown and the payment of wage arrears, closed down the rebellion, very sadly in my view.

The only recent democratic military coup was the Carnation Revolution of April 25th 1974, in which the Portuguese Army, radicalised by a cadre of leftwing, anti-colonial officers, peacefully overthrew the 40-year dictatorship of Antonio Salazar, Portugal's manifestation of Francoist fascism. The people flooded the streets in support of the Army, symbolised by handing them red carnations (for communism), and the Secret Police's resistance was quickly ended. Democracy was established within two years and Portugal's colonies set free.

Is this the glorious future which awaits Egypt? Don't hold your breath.

In defence of English

One of the side effects of the Arab Spring is a move towards academic freedom (ironically, while the government here is subjugating us to the brutish whims of the market).

In Cairo, the academics have elected their Deans for the very first time, and a woman won the race for Dean of Arts. And then a state-owned newspaper weighed in with a belated complaint about a short story on the English curriculum, one with a lesbian scene - and the twin joys of academic self-rule and democracy are suddenly in doubt.

As an aside, I suggested to our Vice-Chancellor that an academic senate would do a fine job, rather than the politburo of apparatchiks on a minimum of £100,000, given our recent history of redundancies and fines. The suggestion went down like the proverbial bucket of cold sick.

But on the main point, I really shouldn't have to reiterate the values of a humanist education. I really don't know whether the short story with a lesbian scene is any good or not: but I'd rather trust an academic than a politician or a hack.

I've had frequent brushes with censoriousness. Friends of mine have been dragged through the tabloids for taking an academic interest in sexual texts, as though talking about what a society generates, watches or bans is the equivalent of actually attaching the student to the pig's genitals. It gets the complainant a few headlines of synthetic outrage in the less reflective newspapers, but over the long term, simply closes off more avenues of human enquiry. What Egypt needs now is a cohort of students who don't recognise taboos: they've had generations of rulers telling them what not to think about: women's rights, democracy, religion, human rights, freedom, sex. Now it's their turn to examine the pressing issues of the day.

I recently attended a seminar on the notion of 'teaching offence', and was surprised to learn that most other universities avoid teaching anything controversial. Bezhti, the play which annoyed some Sikhs was mentioned: the theatre cancelled the performances and one academic nervously cited it as the kind of thing to be avoided. Sorry - we've done that one already. We have to assume that students are ready to examine their personal limits, safe in the knowledge that we're not gratuitously provoking them. I've taught Beauty to a first year class recently - a book I consider borderline racist. Half the Asian students hated it, the other half thought it authentically echoed their own experiences.

I've also shown the Laurence Olivier Othello: hammy blackface and all. I got complaints and learned from it. I'd show it again too - as a demonstration of the fact that cultural values change. Olivier and crew clearly never considered a black audience was possible, and that white audiences would be perfectly happy with the kind of crude stereotyping presented in that production.

Morel closely linked to the Cairo situation, I've taught an entire class on historical interpretations of Sappho's poetry, covering the construction of Sappho as a lesbian (as Butler et al. demonstrate, it's more complicated than you'd think), the censorship implicit in various translations, and the titillation adopted by others. We did this in an all-female first-year class, with my PGCE mentor taking notes. I expected some complaints based on the material, and on the situation in which a male heterosexuality lecturer talks to female students about female sexuality. The complaints didn't come: instead, the students launched into a confident and sophisticated discussion.

If you feel that Egyptian students should have the right to read, then accept or reject texts for themselves, write to:
Professor Dr. Hossam Kamel, President of Cairo University
El Gamaa Street
Cairo
Egypt

Spot the difference: Eastern edition

One of the interesting features of Egypt's semi-revolution was the United States's tortured negotiation between its pro-democracy rhetoric and its realpolitik which continues to require the installation of obedient puppet regimes (and yes, the UK is one of them) in furtherance of its global interests.

Today, protests continue in Iran, which is at least partly democratic, however flawed. Very instructively, Hillary Clinton is first in line with demands for liberation, almost exactly like she wasn't last week.

Hil(l)lariously, she takes the Iranian leadership to task for praising Egypt's revolutionaries while cracking down at home. Er, Hillary: I wouldn't cast any stones right now, given your craven attempts to 'manage' Egyptian politics in favour of strong-armed dictators.

Democracy, it seems, is a virus with which you infect your enemies, not your friends.

They haven't gone away, you know

Keep an eye on Egypt: the army is finding it difficult to adapt to a population demanding something like liberal democracy. Strike have been banned, broadcasters have been ousted from Tahrir Square and the signs are that the transition to democracy will be partial and/or slow.

Meanwhile, protests are continuing in Iran, Yemen and elsewhere.

My top list of plutocratic tyrants requiring defenestration:

Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Algeria
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
UAE
North Korea
Italy
News Corporation
Canada (where Prime Minister Harper suspends Parliament whenever he thinks he'll lose a vote).

This Charming Man…

Lord Sugar, plutocrat and all-round scumbag, isn't keen on democracy (perhaps he has a natural sympathy for unpleasant billionaire tyrants. But he is good on organised lying.

So today's a great day and a sad one, according to his Twitter feed:

Lord_Sugar Lord Sugar 

PR's: If u are advsing clients who are struggling to put out bad financial news or when to let a kiss and tell story out. Today is the day

Lord_Sugar Lord Sugar 

I hope this Egypt thing does not give people in other countries the idea to try to over throw govs.

Actually, Lord Sugar: it's Algeria next. One big heave. 

The blog is mightier than the sword

Clearly - as Ewar has pointed out - Mubarak couldn't handle my criticism of his regime and has quit.* One can only hope that another plutocratic tyrant, one Paul Uppal MP, is next to fall.

Slightly more seriously, it is a great day, and hopefully lays to rest the Western prejudice that only white Europeans are capable of democracy. On the other hand, we need to be realistic. Mubarak has handed power over to the army, which is seemingly split. It is essentially an army coup, and Suleiman, the Vice-President and a torture of the first water, is still on the scene. On the whole, armies like power and don't relish relinquishing it. Even in the UK, the Commonwealth was weakened  by the army's refusal to allow the Republic to become a democracy. I can think of very few military coups which have led to democracy: Portugal's fascist dictatorship fell in the Carnation Revolution of 1975 after a group of democratically-aligned army officers staged a coup in six peaceful hours (sticking carnations in their gun barrels to signify their peaceful intentions), transferring power to the first democratic government in 40 years after a single year of stabilisation.

I hope - but doubt - that this will happen in Egypt. The only sure prediction is that predictions will all be wrong. The military is embedded in the economy and in power - it won't give up easily, though it may allow a 'managed democracy' to emerge, as in Russia. Israel, the US and other international bodies will be pursuing their own interests, as will be every faction in Egyptian politics. That's the joy of it though: we can encourage and hope, but we can't dictate the future. It's a messy and joyful business.

*OK, some Egyptians may have helped.

A limit to peaceful protest?

If you saw yesterday's news, Egypt's President refused to step down, though he did vaguely suggest that he'd hand some powers to his new Vice-President, who has spent the past few decades overseeing the foulest torture chambers on the planet (hosting quite a few people handed over by the CIA and MI6 too). So that's all right.

Down in Tahrir Square, the people are angry. OK. What now? One of the most impressive features of their campaign has been the good-humoured liberalism of their approach. By and large, they seem like nice people making strong points in a persuasive way. It's noble, and admirable, especially from a comfortable office in the UK, where nothing seems that pressing. But is a noble failure enough? I don't think so: being right and being free are not the same thing.

Are there any other protest groups who've done that? The Tibetans perhaps. The Greenham Common anti-nuclear women. Native Americans. Tiananmen Square. Probably more. What links them? Failure. Niceness is all very well, but I'm no liberal pacifist. Force of arms is sometimes required. The Americans know this: they had 1776. Ireland's rebels tried many times, and finally succeeded in 1916 by forcing a crisis, after 80 years of constitutional nationalism had failed. The IRA in 1972 justified their campaign by pointing out that an apartheid state had not only failed to protect the lives or the rights of a significant proportion of the population but was actively killing and disenfranchising them with no prospect of reform, and they were right in the short term. The Poll Tax riots succeeded where merely being right failed.

So what are the conditions for armed struggle? In principle, self-defence, the use of armed force by the oppressive authorities (either actively or as a threat), and the certain knowledge that no other methods will succeed. In practical terms, only when success or at least a stalemate is possible. The IRA - despite drifting to the political right and losing most of the principles upon which it was founded, did fight the British state to a standstill and set the conditions for a negotiated peace (though not its objective of a united 32-county republic).

Should the Egyptians move to an armed resistance phase? In some ways, I wish they would: I don't want to watch the state mow down thousands of peaceful protestors. However, a symbolic violent action with no chance of success might only provoke massacres of peaceful civilians. There's still a chance of a 1989-style bloodless handover, especially if the international community continues to pressurise the Egyptian state. Moreover, I don't see how the rebels would arm themselves. Perhaps the Palestinians could lend them some light weaponry, or elements in the Egyptian Army might change sides, but it's a long shot, and the chances of victory are limited. The smaller the group, the more likely it is that symbolic atrocities become the tactic of choice, and (as the IRA learned when it started hitting civilians in the UK), this doesn't evoke fear but hatred in the enemy and horror amongst your potential supporters.

I'd love to see and Egyptian civilian militia overturn the Mubarak regime, but the conditions aren't right. Instead, I'd like to see a couple of things. Firstly, the Tahrir Square protestors should start a mass public constitution-writing debate, right there in the square, writing dictatorship out of existence in the glare of the international media. Meanwhile, the multitudes should start targeting the state's assets. It's been a dictatorship since 1952, and so the state controls massive sections of the economy. Everybody knows which companies, buildings and houses belong to the Army, the Secret Police or other state bodies. Start repossessing them: target the torture houses, the businesses and the storehouses. Empty the secret cells and the emergency supplies. Send a few thousand to stand outside each minister's private residence until he resigns. Turn every state news broadcast into a 'live studio audience' event in which each item receives an immediate critique from the people. Make it clear that the state owns nothing: the people own the state.

As one of my commentators advised us a while ago: 'run, but while running pick up a stick'.

Americans Against Democracy

Salon.com has posted a very useful guide to Dictator Mubarak's influential American friends.

For most of them it comes down to a simple equation:

Democracy v. American and Israeli interests (as though they're the same thing).

And it's an easy call: Egyptians' human rights are far less important than maintaining the status quo. Occasionally - but not always - hidden is the claim that Egyptians and/or Muslims in general are incapable of behaving moderately, democratically or sensibly: simple racism.

However: these loud outriders aren't the only ones. While most Americans are, I suspect, largely in favour of the freedom movement (echoes of 1776 and all that) the US government's response has been very slow and cautious: the State Department is well-versed in privileging superpower hegemony over idealism.

I'd add another to this list of oligarchic tyranny cheerleaders: Tony Blair, who threw his largely discredited weight behind Mubarak.

Oh, and Silvio Berlusconi, who called him 'the wisest of men'. You can tell the quality of a man by the company he keeps - and that works both ways.

Scenes from a revolution

Before the forces of reaction turned Tahrir Square into a battleground, the Egyptian democracy movement seemed to be getting their way via the means of being nice and having a party. Here are some pictures taken by a friend on the spot.

News from Egypt

More from my friend in Cairo. She's an astute observer and definitely reliable:

We are very depressed at what is happening. I have heard from several sources who have spoken to the Mubarak supporters, that these were indeed paid for their 'services'. They are very aggressive and, in contrast to the protesters of yesterday, are carrying weapons. When we walked onto the square yesterday, I was checked by civilians.  Mubarak and his people have thought this through very well. They are staging escalation to force the army to get in and to simultaneously demonstrate that he is needed to keep the city safe. 

Follow it live here.

Geography for American Conservatives

What's wrong with this image?

That's right. 'Egypt' is actually Iraq. You may have heard of it. Egypt is actually in Africa.
(Thanks to Neal).

The middle-east's only democracy?

One of the claims Israel makes for itself is that it's the area's only functioning democracy. It's a dubious claim: military leaders habitually become politicians, large numbers of indigenous Palestinians can't vote, unlimited immigration (Jews only) makes sure that Zionist parties are always assured of the numbers, and parties fracture and merge like a kaleidoscope. But still - they have elections and the results are observed.

It turns out now, that the Israeli government and commentariat are far less keen on democracy than on their continued unchallenged and illegal annexation of Palestine. The government has ordered its ministers to keep silent about Egypt for fear of enraging the Egyptian people even further. Into the void steps the newspaper columnist. They don't like democracy, not one bit, because they know that Egyptians - for good or ill - don't like Israel. They'd much rather the Americans Imperium upheld the dictatorship:

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled "A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam". It accused Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president ... an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?"

"The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations ... is painfully naive."

I doubt the average inhabitant of an Egyptian torture chamber would describe Mubarak as the voice of sanity. 

Writing in Haaretz, Ari Shavit said Obama had betrayed "a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation".

To win popular Arab opinion, Obama was risking America's status as a superpower and reliable ally.

"Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo. Everyone grasps the message: "America's word is worthless ... America has lost it." 

Astonishing. Why on earth should the head of an independent state be 'loyal' to another state? Shouldn't, in fact, a government intend to win 'popular opinion'? 

Don't worry, I'm only being deliberately naive. In the real world, the US must continue as the Empire, never question Israel and never allow the desires of mere citizens interfere with realpolitik. Democracy is just something to drop on your enemies, not your puppets. 

Meanwhile, meet the new Vice-President of Egypt. What a nice man:

Suleiman took a personal interest in anyone suspected of links with Al Qaeda. As Habib had visited Afghanistan shortly before 9/11, he was under suspicion. Habib was repeatedly zapped with high-voltage electricity, immersed in water up to his nostrils, beaten, his fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks.

That treatment wasn't enough for Suleiman, so:

To loosen Habib's tongue, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a gruesomely shackled Turkistan prisoner in front of Habib – and he did, with a vicious karate kick.

Mubarak 'not a dictator' says US Vice-President

You and I may think that being 'elected' by banning all other candidates in 4 out of 5 votes (the fifth was rigged and the only opposition candidate was sent to prison), running the country under 'Emergency Law' since 1967 - extended police powers, constitution suspended, censorship imposed, freedom of assembly banned, political parties banned, habeas corpus suspended, 30,000 political prisoners, parliamentary elections banned - might constitute dictatorship.

The Vice-President of the USA begs to differ. He thinks that the man to whom the US gives $1.2bn in military aid is a cuddly chap, mostly because he's friendly to Israel:

 "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with - with Israel. ... I would not refer to him as a dictator..."

Got it, protestors? Your rights aren't important: it's the US's geopolitical interests which will determine whether you get a new government.

What does the US Ambassador to Egypt say about her hosts? Well, according to a Wikileaked cable, it's not a very cuddly government:

Torture and police brutality in Egypt are endemic and widespread. The police use brutal methods mostly against common criminals to extract confessions, but also against demonstrators, certain political prisoners and unfortunate bystanders. One human rights lawyer told us there is evidence of torture in Egypt dating back to the times of the Pharaohs.

Internet secrets of the Pharaohs

The Egyptian government denies censorship and banning internet access.

Here's a lovely graph detailing the number of web addresses with Egyptian prefixes banned yesterday.

Last night they cut off access to the web for the whole country! That's never been done before, although weirdo Lieberman in the US Senate is introducing a law to make it possible in the US, and my own cerebrally-challenged MP, Paul Uppal, has asked the government to 'address the issue of the internet', whatever that means.

Here's the graph for Egyptian internet activity for yesterday (click to enlarge):

More from the Egyptian Uprising

Another eye-witness account of Egypt's demonstrations, this time from a friend of my friend. Happy Police Day!

I listened to the shouting crowds from my balcony yesterday, as groups of protesters were heading to Tahrir square. I wished I could join but fear held me back. Fear of being harassed or harmed by the forces of the National Security* , fear that going through pain and humiliation would make me more and more hateful of our circumstances, and thus lose my stamina towards carrying on my efforts in making things better on the long term without any political confrontation.

Media manipulation and Twitter blocking changed my stance, it got on my nerves so much that I could not stay in. A one minute phone call from a friend got me out of the house, together we went to Tahrir square.

Yesterday was a firm answer putting an end to all the allegations and brain washing that claimed that the current system is better than all other options in front of us, it was also a good revision to all that I have learned through my Political Science courses. And because I believe in what I’ve learned, I see a ray of light. If change doesn’t happen now, it’s coming none the less. We have changed, and we have proven that we want and deserve to change. And even though all political theories may fail to forecast what will happen, one theory stands true, God is Fair.

First of all, it’s a message to the class of people who claim to be intellectual and civilized, the people who look down at the chaos and express that “this is an ignorant population who don’t deserve democracy”, as if they alone got the exclusive seal of democracy for being from a long gone aristocratic descent or holding passports from democratic countries, without possessing any of the democratic political culture of those countries. Yesterday for the first time in downtown, I was not sexually harassed. For the first time I see youth who are not part of Environmental organizations picking up the garbage, and thousands of people, united despite their differences, sharing food, and water and exchanging opinions, carrying appropriate respectful banners.

Second of all, it’s an answer to all those who think that the Muslim Brotherhood is the only alternative. We did not see them in the demonstrations, and I can claim that the only person I heard chanting religious statements while asking for the downfall of the government, received minimal chanting back compared to others.

Thirdly, it’s a response to all those who don’t value information and freedom of expression. Any contribution adds weight even if it’s through the Internet pages. I admit I was critical of all the Twitter fans in the past since I felt they do nothing but talk and complain. I apologize for that now, if it weren’t for those sites, the information sharing and above all the feeling of unity that was created through people’s comments and pictures, no one would have gone to the streets yesterday.

This has proved that each individual has a role to play considering their abilities. If it weren’t for the people who stayed at home trying to find means of sharing information through the Internet or telephones, and if it weren’t for those who put efforts to transmit and provide coverage of the events, we would have all believed that police officers received flowers and gifts in celebration of the police day and similar ridiculous stories, most interesting of which that some newspapers announced the end of the protests before they actually ended. If it weren’t for those who shared facts on how to deal with the tear gas through the various communication channels, many of us, who are far from experienced in the rituals of protests and demonstrations in countries like ours, would not have lasted these many hours.

Fourth, it’s an answer for all those who accuse the political opposition forces of being traitors. They showed up yesterday and integrated into the crowds without carrying signs or statements of their parties, they joined united for one cause.

Fifth, it’s a response for those who say “we are not like Tunis”, no we are like Tunis, and more. I don’t deny that I initially looked at the issue from a purely theoretical perspective. I believed that we needed to have a large base of educated middle class, rather than a polarized population between a struggling incapable class, and an elite indifferent class. However, yesterday proved that the Egyptian people have had enough. Even those who are not facing the daily struggle of finding food for survival, have vision and have a conscience that pushed them to act.

We are a generation not raised on a culture of confrontation; we have had fear built into us since we were born. We are a generation whose intellectuals have been terrorized by the ruling regime, taught to conform and obey. Now is the time to learn the rules of the game.

* As I left the demonstration, I could sense the hesitation and confusion of the national security guards, as if what is on their minds is “maybe these people are right”

Live from Egypt

I have a friend in Egypt. She's been down to the protests with her husband and friends. This is her account.

At first, I was at home yesterday, worrying about sexual harassment (sexual frustration is very high in Egypt and large groups are not always a good place to be). But finally I could stand it no longer and walked through thick lines of police onto the main square (Tahrir) to meet X and his friends, who had marched there to come together with a couple of thousand more demonstrators. I thought: if my children later ask me what I did that day and I say 'I was sitting at home watching it on TV'...that just won't do!

We are all very nervous, because it looks like the police will be more ruthless today. They threaten to break congregations up even before they can develop. They are doing checks all over downtown Cairo. I went for a walk earlier: every rat seems to have turned into a policeman. But I also looked into people's faces last night: their will is stronger than ever and they have seen that they can break through. I don't think they will be deterred easily anymore. This is the first time in modern history that the Egyptian people stand up for their rights, that they said 'NO!'. Their minds have opened to the existence of a possibility of change at THEIR hands. 

The most important thing last night was that people from all backgrounds - social and religious - were in this together. Some went to fetch drink and food and distributed it among the group. People chanted and embraced. Everybody and friendly and supportive and took care of each other. When a group of policemen was surrounded by protesters, they pledged to let them go. And the protesters did - without touching them. The protesters here are really very peaceful, which is something that the media doesn't seem to represent very well. When someone picks up a stone, some others will come and tell him to stop it. 

On the last point, the same thing happened with the student protests here. Endless replays of the idiot dropping a fire extinguisher - very little coverage of the students chanting 'stop dropping shit'.

I really hope her optimism is well-founded. My worry is that there isn't any strong western support. The Americans and the British aren't offering anything stronger than wishy-washy platitudes about listening to the population. If you remember the various Colour Revolutions of the past ten years, they were all funded and supported by the CIA and various front groups - and all staged in countries opposed to US and UK foreign policy interests. The old saying is true: our governments only wish democracy on our enemies. They're more than happy to support dictatorships like Egypt and Tunisia (big fans and supporters of torture, the 'war on terror' and the like, and good sources of slave labour).

New media allows the motivated few over here to offer our good wishes, but that's not much help. We need to remind our governments that they if they claim to believe in democracy, it has to be a universal principle.

Incidentally, I asked my previous MP, Rob Marris, about why the UK support democracy-through-regime-change in Iraq but not Saudi Arabia. He replied that it was 'completely different', though he couldn't elaborate why. Can you? (Without mentioning oil?)

We also serve who stand and Tweet?

I've been following Egypt's 'Day of Rage' (live here), designed to reproduce Tunisia's revolutionary situation. Did you know that Egypt's a dictatorship?

nearly half of Egypt's 80 million people live under or just above the poverty line set by the United Nations at $2 (£1.27) a day. "Poor quality education, healthcare and high unemployment have left large numbers of Egyptians deprived of basic needs," 

Far too many people holiday in repressive places, lulled into acquiescence by a pina colada and cheap exchange rates, unaware that their money doesn't help those in need.

There's been a lot of talk about the positive and negative effects of new media on protest. The jury is - of course - still out. But I do worry that our hyperreal condition (read your Baudrillard) weakens the possibility of full-on, successful resistance. Take a look at this photo.

What I see are brave men and women facing down the security forces. But if you look closer, there are at least half a dozen mobile phones and assorted cameras in use. Where once they would have clenched their fists or clutched petrol bombs, they're now engaged in a process of recording, rather than participating. Evidence collection and propaganda are certainly important, but I worry that we no longer feel something's real unless we've captured it: photos, Tweets, status updates and texts.

That said, I'm protesting on Saturday (Manchester: be there) and I'll be taking my camera. Meanwhile, take a look at these witty New Media takes on classic WW2 Information War posters by Brian Moore, who most definitely knows the score. I couldn't reproduce my favourite, 'Somebody Blogged'…

Ignore him: Wikipedia is cultural misinformation on a grand scale

Word of the day

One of my favourite words is kerning. I've always liked it for the sound and the relative rarity of it's initial letter. It's doubly satisfying therefore that it relates to one of my interests, typography (how I'd love to do a module on the subject).

Kerning is the art of letter spacing. It's definitely an art rather than a science, and it's counter-intuitive. For instance, if you make the space between each letter exactly the same, it will look uneven, because of the letters' different shapes. So typographers play around with the spacing for harmonious or emotional effect. There's a useful introduction here.

On another subject, if you're in London, head to the British Museum for their exhibition of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I went with my friends Adam and Katie. Adam's an Egypt boffin, so educated my very impressively. Basically, the Egyptians didn't really believe in death and the soul in the same way as us. Death had an initial stage in which the person's consciousnesses were free to wander around during the day, and the trick to reaching heaven was to reunite them. Then it was like a platform computer game: using the Book of the Dead to cheat the gods, escape their traps and prevent your heart telling the truth, you get past judgement to arrive in the afterlife, which was remarkably like Egypt without the manual labour (as long as you'd paid the priests for enough spells and statues which would do the farming for you).

The surviving books are astonishing: brightly coloured, perfectly readable, detailed and beautiful. Another example of how cunning élites can be in organising a society for its own ends.

Khaled Said RIP

Egypt is one of the biggest recipients of Western aid, military supplies and support. Lots of people go on holiday there.

It's also a brutal, repressive dictatorship.

This was Khaled Said:

This is Khaled Said too, but dead:

and this is how he got like this:

Numerous witnesses say Khaled Said, 28, died after being kicked and punched by the officers before eventually smashing his head against a marble shelf in an internet cafe on 6 June . Security officials claim Said died of asphyxiation after he swallowed a packet of narcotics hidden under his tongue.

The officers dragged Said into their car and drove off, before returning to dump his body on the street in front of the cafe, the witnesses said.

Human Rights Watch called for the prosecution of the two officers, who remain on active duty. The campaign group also criticised the police investigation and the interior ministry, which accused Said of being a wanted criminal, an accusation his family denies.

"Even if Khaled Said had been wanted, that does not give licence to police to attack and murder him in cold blood," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director for the organisation. 

This is what happens if you're a friend of the West - you can do what you want. Just ask any Saudi Arabian woman, Palestinian, Western Saharan or Diego Garcian (and any black South African until the Soviet Union collapsed and the West no longer needed apartheid SA's services) if human rights and democracy are universal.