So the Rais is definitely out and has rushed off to a caravanserai off Sharm el-Sheikh. Thirty years have passed since Sadat’s assassination (and Mubarak’s rise to power), 59 since Nasser’s 1952 revolution and 92 since the first Egyptian revolution (of the modern era) of 1919. Symbolically, each revolution had centred around Tahrir Square (Liberation Square). Back in 1919, the first of two revolutions was triggered by the decision of the British to exile Wafd leaders. The Wafd party had managed to gather a movement of support in favour of independence and in March 1919 Saad Zaghlul and two other leaders were arrested by the British and exiled to Malta.
From Tahrir Square to Misrah San Gorg
Thus the paths of two nations-to-be crossed that year. In June 1919, three months after the deportation, the Maltese would have their own riots and also suffer loss of lives while in Egypt the uprisings would result in 800 dead. Zaghlul would return (via France) to be Prime Minister of Egypt for nine months in 1924 and was considered as the za’im al-umma − the national hero − by the people. Independent Egypt would coexist with what it considered to be British interference until the 1952 revolution and Nasser’s military takeover.
Fast forward to 11 February 2011 and the crowds are jubilant in Tahrir Square, glad to have freed themselves of a corrupt government. One hesitates to add “once again” since if you were to read the original messages of liberation back in 1952 you’d be forgiven to believe that the beast of corruption had been soundly beaten by the liberation forces back then. If ever there was proof needed that you can never be 100 per cent sure that this is the last change that was needed then that is Tahrir Square − the square of three revolutionary moments for a people aspiring for change. “Welcome to the New Egypt” said one poster on the streets last night. How long till the next gathering?
You wake up late for school
While historic events were rapidly unfolding along the Nile, the political parties in Malta were still unfolding the latest scene in the Divorce Legislation Drama. The PN executive gave us much to think about by proposing the agenda for the next few months. It reads (a) parliamentary discussion, (b) parliamentary vote, (c) referendum if (b) is in favour of divorce legislation. Strategists, amateur and professional alike, were out analysing what this meant and where it would take us. (Caveat lector: I type before the final PN vote on Saturday)
Politics being what it is, there is a fair amount of truth in the fact that the strategy for introducing legislation is as important as the discussion itself. It is ironic, in a way, that two different strategies could result in two different outcomes – both of which could be reasonably and legally justified as being representative of the people’s will. So in a way expect much punditry regarding the pros and cons of a “referendum before” or “referendum after” approach. Each scenario has its own winners and losers with one big loser being the divorce debate itself. The reason I say that is that the divorce debate is about politicians shouldering their responsibility and recognising that there is a moment when society (or parts thereof) is being deprived of a right − the right to remarry − and that something must be done about it.
The Nationalist Party has met this imperative half way. Its motion does entail the taking of a position on the matter: a clear no to divorce. What it also does though is succumb to the need to compensate the logic of values with the spinelessness of strategy. Hence we have the somersault logic of “desperately seeking the people’s mandate/consensus” on the one hand and “relegating popular vote to a post-parliamentary postilla” on the other. While recognising that there is an important value (to the party) at stake, the Christian-democrat party fails to put its money where its mouth is and resorts to the usual shenanigans.
You miss two classes and no homework
Meanwhile, back at Transparency Headquarters, as the work on the Victory Balcony presumably proceeds with haste, Inhobbkom’s soldiers couldn’t resemble a band of headless chickens any more if they covered themselves in tar and feathers and pulled their tops over their heads. You’ve got to pity the New Old Labour. They wait on tenterhooks for the latest fart downhill to inform them whether the “referendum after” strategy will hold true. Then you get those alarmed by the fact that Parliament will actually pronounce its position first: and they rebel − for they’d rather see which way the wind is blowing innit?
Will Karmenu Vella explain why the progressive Mintoffian government of the 70s missed out on introducing divorce legislation at the time? After all the song and dance about the 70s we witnessed during the Labour conference you’d really think he had an answer. Seriously, what is the undecided voter expected to do when he sees that charade? Take Labour with a pinch of salt? Honestly, what were they serving at the conference? From Anglu Farrugia’s tear-jerking story about the Sun King (rixtellu at Versailles?) to his dramatic Copperfield stunt complete with an imaginary Empire Station, for a moment I thought that the whole conference was one big candid camera moment scripted by Ricky Gervais.
Your mom threw away your best porno mag
And just to make sure that our country goes completely nuts about what rights are and how to use them, we get the very helpful pink press at work. In case you have not noticed there is an Internet battle going on. It pitches the Forces of Good vs. the Forces of Evil. Of course who is good and who is evil depends on who you read but there’s plenty going around. So while the nutters in red call for the head of the Wicked Witch (their words not mine), the nutters in blue have suddenly decided to dedicate some time to investigative journalism and patch together a story about unsolved crimes left over from the lovely Labour era.
The nutters in red, headed by an irate Saviour Balzan, are now calling for the government to shut down a private blog because of its content. They do not sue for libel; they do not make use of normal legal means in a democracy related to presumed abuse of freedom of expression. No. They expect the government of a democratic country to shut down a private blog − presumably by use of force or expropriation of private property. I am not surprised that they do not see the irony in all this. Given that among the supporters for this move are most of Labour’s press, you cannot help but link the move to Karmenu Vella & Co’s nostalgia for the “jalla immorru lura ghas-sebghinijiet” era. Freedom of expression − the red way.
For their part the nutters in blue react with visible enthusiasm. The Nationalist fold were handed reams of propaganda material on a plate what with all the nostalgic statements at the Labour conference. Where’s Everybody wasted no time in pasting a collage of the best selections that played like a set of bloopers from the Oscars. Meanwhile on Internet, the battle between Malta’s most read pink blog and its ugly spin off continued. This week we witnessed an experiment in “investigative journalism” that might have been, in any other time (preferably around 1988), a welcome stimulus to whoever is responsible for bringing criminals to justice. Instead it quickly transpired that the only interest behind the whole write-up was an attack by association on Illum journalist Julia Farrugia. The words “Why now?” echoed once again − almost a year to the day after the infamous Plategate outbursts.
Your Mum busted in and said “What’s that noise”?
In the end, all you can do is reflect that it is useless fighting for freedoms if you have no idea how to use them. Behind Nasser’s revolution in 1952 lay the hope for a new Egypt. In 2011 Egypt is having another stab at it, thanks to a people who have had enough of the old regime. Our national narrative teaches us that we have been fighting for freedom since 1919. Along the way we have gathered two tribes who laid claim to the next step along the road to freedom. The two tribes are in the middle of an identity crisis right now − both have long exhausted the bank of new ideas and are now resorting to cashing old cheques.
Right now we are all tweeting and messaging our solidarity with the people of Egypt and their happiness at smelling the air of newfound freedom. Unless we notice that for a revolution to start you don’t just need the square but you also need a freethinking people, we might just be deserving of our current state of inertia.
www.akkuza.com brought to you with headings courtesy of the Beastie Boys. We recommend Coldplay’s Viva la Vida as an after-article digestive (stream available on the blog).
