Hossam Badrawi Official Website
Dialogue with Dr. Hossam Badrawi on the period of the Brotherhood’s rule, the reasons for their downfall, and the role of some Western countries in supporting their rule.
Dr. Hossam Badrawi opens the case book of the June 30 revolution with Al-Akhbar:
Addresses:
** June 30 is the first revolution whose history is known.. However, the ruling authority was unable to stop it
** Everyone expected the end except for the Brotherhood.. and their stupidity helped to quickly get rid of them
** The media played a major role in raising awareness.. Then he gradually began to lose his freedom
** Brotherhood religiosity is a means to reach power
** We need a balance between a democracy that makes us listen to the opinion of the majority and another that is restricted to the elite
** The Brotherhood obeyed Mubarak and then invested in the moment of his fall
3 obstacles prevent me from running in the presidential elections
The interview was conducted by: Hazem Badr
Professor Hazem Badr begins by saying: In a previous interview I had with the politician, university professor, and thinker Hossam Badrawi, the man said that among the many positions he held, the most important and closest to his heart remains the position of “university professor,” because it is the profession that connects him with the youth, and this is one of It would give him energy and renewal of life.
This dialogue was in January of 2020, and it was the first occasion on which I met the man, so the second meeting with him a few days ago, after about three and a half years, on the occasion of the anniversary of the June 30 revolution, was a practical test of the content of that answer, as it did not reach that period that separates Between the two dialogues is his energy and mental vitality, and his ability to link events and facts of the past and present to come up with a different vision, “Hossam Badrawi’s brand.”
During about an hour that I spent with Dr. Badrawi, we opened the record book of the June 30 revolution, and turned its pages, beginning with the motives that led to its establishment, and the role played by the media in preparing for it, and ending with reaching the starting point of the national dialogue, for which he serves as an advisor..and to a text dialogue.
* I will start with the form of a question that we are accustomed to in the different educational stages, which is “What if”, and my question: What did the June 30 revolution not take place?
** He starts his speech laughing: There would have been a revolution on July 30 or August 30, then he continued, after overcoming this sarcastic beginning: What happened on June 30 could have happened a month or two after this date, or even months, but the Brotherhood’s stupidity helped Rapid change occurred, and what happened was a natural labor, caused by the incompetence of governance, the desire to dominate with a specific idea and impose it on the people, and the arrogance and arrogance of the Muslim Brotherhood ruling class. The change they wanted to bring about in society was very rapid, sudden and violent, and society and the middle class did not overturn it.
Did you expect this quick end for them?
** He did not wait for the completion of the question and he answered immediately: Everyone was expecting that end, about six months before it happened, with the beginning of the rebellion movement.
Perhaps because the ruling authority did not properly estimate its size?
** He nods in agreement, saying: This is part of the Brotherhood’s arrogance and stupidity, and by the way, this is the practice of all dictatorial regimes, as they do not see people’s anger and resentment, and they always think the opposite of what is reality.
The role of the media
* This happened even though the media did not fail to show this anger, to the extent that you said in previous statements that he deserves to be hated off?
** It is good that you referred to the role of the media, as it had a major role before June 30 in shaping people’s awareness, and there was a space of freedom that successive events did not give the Brotherhood the opportunity and time to stifle, but it would have inevitably been stifled, if June 30 had passed without overthrowing them.
Does the media live in the same space of freedom that it did before June 30?
** He says in brief words and in a sad tone: Gradually, the media lost its freedom of criticism and opposition, except for a few.
Why is this sad tone in your speech?
** He is silent for a while before saying: Because it is not good that there is no other opinion, there must be freedom in criticism with the aim of building and not demolishing, because the One Voice media will definitely push people to search for other sources, which misformulate the media message to create an atmosphere of negativity The best thing for the people and the system of government is a degree of transparency and frankness, because withholding information will push people to search for it in other places, or to express itself underground.
*Since we are in an atmosphere of national dialogue, and you are an advisor for dialogue, is this problem on the agenda of the discussion?
** It is definitely on the table, and in my opinion there is only one solution for it, which is transparency, spreading the truth, confronting criticism, developing alternatives, and making initiatives, instead of concealing it.
West and the Brotherhood
* Returning to the pre-June 30 atmosphere, when you had a statement, whatever you said, that there was a meeting that brought you together with the President of the European Parliament, in which she said that there was a Western desire for the Brotherhood to come to power, and my question: Did that desire change before June 30?
** He replied immediately, indicating the sign of rejection: No, it has not changed. Western intelligence, and I mean specifically America and England, did not want the demise of the Brotherhood’s rule, and the Brotherhood still has space for their presence.
Q: But your previous statement suggests that the West brought the Brotherhood to power?
** What my statement means is that I felt, during the meeting with the President of the European Parliament, that there was a Western intelligence desire for what they mistakenly called “moderate religious rule” to reach power, and this is not true, as the Brotherhood’s thought is not a moderate religious thought.
* If the West and America wanted the Brotherhood, did they make any attempt to save them from the fate that everyone expected except the Brotherhood themselves?
** He nodded in agreement before saying: Yes, they rose. What I know is that they tried to convince the Brotherhood to open the door to civil opposition, but the Brotherhood’s arrogance refused that, believing that they could rule with the logic of one voice and one idea.
Why is the West still counting on them, with evidence that they are there and good spaces are opened for them to exist?
** I think that the West did not see that the Egyptian society rejected this ruling, and they still think that every veiled woman is a Brotherhood, and every person who goes to the Friday sermon is a Brotherhood, and this is not true.
pluripotency genes
For this reason, you said in a previous statement that the Egyptian genes rejected the Brotherhood’s rule?
** He nods in agreement before saying: Yes, the Egyptian genes are enlightened genes. Among all the Arab countries, Egypt is the only country, in which 16 to 18 million Christians live, and there is diversity in form and dialects, because we are a multi-community Within one framework, and this is what distinguishes Egypt from others, and whoever does not see the Egyptian society’s respect for pluralism, then he is blindfolded.
* But we are also a society that is “religious in nature”, and many believe that this feature is what brought the Brotherhood to power?
** With specific words and a raised tone of voice, he says: The Brotherhood came to power as a result of a political vacuum after January 25, 2011. The youth who carried out the revolution did not have an integrated political vision. And if you look at a broader and more comprehensive view, you will find that everything that happened in the so-called “Arab Spring revolutions” turned into religious rule. used by the West.
*But many believe that if the Egyptians were not religious by nature, the Brotherhood would not have reached power?
** He knocks on the desk with his hand, saying: Egyptians are religious by nature, but they are secular and liberal by nature as well.
* How is that? I said it with a look of astonishment on my face.
** He smiles as he says: Look at our joys in the popular areas, and look at the women in the Egyptian countryside, who share the work with men. Indeed, there are statistics indicating that about 60 to 70 percent of Egyptian families are headed by women, isn’t this a feature of Characteristics of secularism, we are a secular state that gives religion its respect, as well as civil rights, but unfortunately religious currents made us fear the word secular, so they attached the label of blasphemy to everyone who is secular or liberal, although the definition of secularism is referring to the mind in interpreting matters, and the famous philosopher Ibn Rushd He says that religion is based on reason, so there is no conflict between religion and secularism.
Historical attempts
* Is the fall of the Brotherhood, from your point of view, an affirmation of the secularism of the state in the concept that you put forward?
** He gives a deep sigh in preparation for a long answer, which he begins by saying: I will take you on a somewhat long journey, starting after the end of the Ottoman rule, when Egypt became a civil state, and its first constitution was established in 1923, and there was a political vacuum at the time, which was filled by American intelligence by establishing an organization Brotherhood, and in the seventies, there was planning by the American intelligence to spread Wahhabi ideology in Egypt, as the Saudi crown prince said in an interview with the “Washington Post”, and this clearly shows that the arrival of religious rule to power was not arbitrary, but rather that it is an old project, but it was not written It can continue, because of what I will repeat again, which is that Egypt is by its very nature a multi-minded country capable of pluralism
*But it is strange for me that many of those who belong to this organization are engineers and doctors. Do you agree with a study that says that scientific disciplines are easier to submit to extremist ideology?
** He nods before saying: No, of course. The Brotherhood, in short, is a political organization whose goal is power, not religion. Religion, for them, is a means to reach power. In countries with little education, religion, military forces, or intimidation and terrorism become a means to reach power, and religion is the easiest. The ways, because the distorted thought makes obedience to the ruler obligatory, because while you obey him, you are obeying God, because the ruler is his agent on earth.
Brotherhood and Mubarak
Why did the Muslim Brotherhood not obey Mubarak?
He replies in a sarcastic tone: Whoever told you that they were not obedient to Mubarak, but they jumped to power at the moment of his fall, while they were in constant cooperation with the ruling authority.
Was the ruling authority not aware of their danger?
** She was very perceptive.
* And how did you leave them, then, to invest in the moment of Mubarak’s fall, or rather to contribute to the scene of his fall?
** Perhaps the arrogance of the authority is what led to this, as the authority felt that it was more powerful and held in charge of matters, in addition to that it believed that it was protecting them from their evil by agreeing with them, and giving them a “quota” in Parliament.
The dangers of democratization
* Let’s close that page, and look at the future through the national dialogue, and the controversy raised by some of your statements about the political issues of dialogue, including your saying that there are risks to the application of democracy, as it seemed to some as if you think that the Egyptian people are not worthy of democracy?
** He is disturbed by the understanding reached by some of his statement, before saying: Of course I do not mean that, what I mean is that when you deal with the masses within the framework of absolute freedom, with 33 percent poor and 25 percent illiterate, the result will be People who were chosen democratically, but they are not qualified, because then votes can be obtained with money and pressure to change ideas, but does that mean that democracy is for the elite only? This also did not mean it, but what I imagine should happen is that there should be a balance between listening to the opinion of the majority, and at the same time there is a way to control the political movement, and this was the philosophy of establishing the Senate, as its members are supposed to be those who meet conditions that you do not find among members of the House of Representatives, such as a certain level of academic qualifications, So that its members are from the elite, whose laws are not approved until after their approval at the beginning, but what happened is that we made the members of the two houses with almost the same specifications, so the Senate lost the real significance of its establishment.
* So is it a made democracy?
** All countries of the world have worked as a means to listen to people’s opinions, and a means to control the political movement, and this is the tendency towards decentralization, where people are left at the village and city level to choose their representatives, and there is a ruling authority that has a vision, so that if the choices deviate from that vision, it intervenes at the time the appropriate.
Q: If the authority intervenes, then how can it be democratic?
** I will give you an example to bring the matter closer. If you are in the process of creating a vision for the development of education, and you have a majority of parents, you think that it is more appropriate for all students to pass without exams, so do you implement the opinion of the majority? Absolutely not. In some matters, only the opinion of the elite and experts should be considered, and this is what I meant by the fact that the implementation of democracy risks. There are certain matters, in which the opinion must be elitist, not populist.
Q: Can you run for candidacy in the upcoming presidential elections, as long as you seem to have ideas that might be acceptable to voters?
** He nods before saying: I have no intention of running for three reasons, the first of which is that I have no personal desire to do so, and the second is that there is a legal framework for candidacy that requires that there be a community of people who want to run for me, and this does not exist, and the third is that The general atmosphere does not allow for competition between the candidates.
