Abstract
The Egyptian Revolution that began in 2011 lives on, like all revolutions, in the thoughts and works of an entire generation of young observers whose imagination and intellect it had captivated. Many of those observers are now turning their insights into solid ethnographies and systematic contribution to the theory and practice of revolution and social movements in general.
It is in this already rich context that Rusha Latif’s study of the Egyptian Revolution stands out. Substantially based on interviews with a network of youth activists who prepared some of the ground for what is now referred to in Egypt as the ‘25th January’ revolution, the book complicates the way we understand concepts such as ‘spontaneity’ or ‘planning’ in revolutionary situations. That a movement could have leaders while being leaderless also complicates what we understand by the whole concept of ‘leadership’ in recent movements. After all, other Arab Spring revolts, such as in Syria, did at some point give a specific name to these kind of activists—munassiqin, or ‘coordinators’—who played important roles in disseminating information, conveying plans, and fostering actions, but did not see themselves nor were seen by most participants as actually leading the movement. One central contribution of this book is that it helps us get a glimpse at who these activists were, their prerevolutionary history, their actual roles, the strengths and weaknesses of their style of activism, and their own personal transformation in the course of the revolutionary wave overtaking them.
The central puzzle addressed in this study concerns how to give direction to a massive popular revolution in the absence of recognized, much less unifying leadership. Of the dizzying number of new parties and organizations that formed or revealed themselves during the revolution, Latif identifies as a crucial player the Revolutionary Youth Coalition (RYC; I’tilaf shabab al-Thawra)—which had been a loose network of ideologically diverse activists before the revolution, and which announced itself as an organization on 6 February 2011, while revolutionary mobilization was at its peak. The network that eventually came together under that name did not plan or even expect a revolution on 25 January, but strategized so that there would be a big turnout that would, importantly, bring in people from the poor neighborhoods who had rarely before joined opposition demonstrations organized by long-time activists or opposition parties. Chapter 4 in particular provides a detailed reconstruction of the course of events on the revolution’s first day. These include plans to avoid early detection by the security forces, mobilize people in marginalized neighborhoods, and—if conditions allow it—move on to Tahrir Square from multiple directions, while also relying on network members in various Egyptian provinces instigating similar actions.
While this outline clearly shows the role of planning and good organization, it also shows how quickly the events assume a spontaneous character neither expected nor controlled by the youthful organizers. For example, as the crowds grew larger in size, it became difficult to coordinate chants as had been planned. As conveyed by Latif’s interlocutors, what became a central slogan of the whole revolution, ‘the people want to overthrow the regime’, emerged spontaneously from the growing crowd rather than from them—and indeed showed broad awareness in Egypt of the slogan of the Tunisian Revolution that had toppled president Ben Ali 11 days earlier.
Latif argues that the activists’ prior organizational experience meant that the revolution was not entirely spontaneous. However, she also shows that the fact that it became a revolution was not only the surprising outcome to everyone who took part in it, but also that it became difficult to control once it was in motion. She dwells at length on reflections by RYC members, unprepared to lead a massive popular revolt, to try to somehow influence from the background the direction of a revolution most of whose participants seemed disinterested in common leadership or suspicious of claims to that effect. The revolution simply moved too fast and became too large to be contained by the organizational capacity of any organization. To complicate matters, RYC’s horizontal style of communicating and decision-making, which over the years had served the group well in terms of building trust and allowing focused action of an otherwise ideologically heterogeneous network, made it difficult for it to absorb new forces during the revolutionary climate while continuing to function efficiently and arrive at common agreements at a pace appropriate to the revolutionary climate. Every effort at building common fronts with existing forces—notably the established opposition parties—faltered as it became clear how existing parties saw themselves more qualified to be in charge of a revolutionary situation they neither created nor understood.
In every respect, the youth seemed to have a substantially more developed revolutionary consciousness than established political forces—as evident, for example, in their early distrust of the military. Their understanding of the opportunistic nature of the established parties as well as the military was to be tragically proven in post-revolutionary developments. Indeed, this study shows revolutionary consciousness to be well developed among the youth already before the outbreak of the revolution. For example, the youth network recognized early on the importance of revolutionary unity and did their best to avoid factional infighting in spite of their diverse ideological orientations—ranging from secular liberalism, leftist socialism, nationalism, or Islamism. An example of this recognition of the importance of popular unity was their decision on 25 January to dispense with carrying the flags of any political organization of which they were members. Indeed, Latif demonstrates (p. 198) the similarity of enthusiasm within this otherwise ideologically diverse network, suggesting that the central unifying factor was not ideology but youthfulness. Youthfulness here understood as readiness to part way with traditional authorities when those fostered frozen politics or stood in the way of necessary action. Given that half of Egypt’s population is under 25, this point can hardly be underestimated.
While there were clear benefits to the style of diffuse and decentralized organization in the early days of the revolution, Latif argues that that style proved inadequate to handle later stages calling for bigger and better organized forces. She agrees with Rosa Luxembourg (p. 251) that the masses can develop spontaneous revolutionary consciousness, but argues that they cannot maintain it. This becomes evident in the continuing street confrontations following Mubarak’s resignation on 11 February, which began to receive less support from or seemed more distant from poor segments and mainstream Egyptians (pp. 208–209).
The fact that a leaderless revolution managed to maintain spectacular unity throughout the 18 days leading to the resignation of President Mubarak on 11 February was likely fostered by the fact that all political forces in Egypt were facing a system of closed possibilities following the exceptionally fraudulent parliamentary elections in the fall of 2010. The fact that all these forces—as well as the ultras and the unions—joined the revolution once it was clearly happening also led to difficulty in establishing which forces had the most impact (which is a different question as to which forces benefited from it). Indeed, Latif mentions a number of objections she encountered, in which interlocutors doubted the impact of RYC and listed all kinds of other actors or events that for them were defining turning points (p. 152).
Yet, no other available research has documented the claimed impact of other actors, as the role of the RYC is documented in this excellent book, which captures personalities and transformation of thought of energized youth. While they were still organizationally unprepared for a revolution they helped unleash, and while they had indeed joined various groups before 25 January, we learn that their radicalization took years of personal experiences in a collapsing sociopolitical environment. Youthfulness, not so much as an age but more as an approach to life, is evident in ideological fluidity (a good example of which is Mustafa, a Trotskyist practicing Muslim; pp. 170–171).
Ideological fluidity entailed a capacity to communicate across as well as cross ideological lines. This capacity will be undermined amid the collapse of revolutionary unity in 2012 and hardening of ideological divides in 2013. More important than ideology before 25 January seemed to be other perspectives, including history. The youth of RYC mention pre-revolutionary feelings of being less accomplished than previous generations, who were seen to have experienced more national dignity or enjoyed a more civilized, developed, cultured, independent Egypt that had played a significant role on the world stage. In addition to the fallen state of Egypt, a common refrain they registered was the ongoing cause of Palestine and a longing for an anti-imperialist heritage of an Egypt predating their birth (pp. 179–184).
In addition to the above, this study demolishes many of the myths that had circulated about the role of social media or outside influencers in youth cultures. Latif’s focus on the youth on their own terms shows the problems of other approaches that focus too much on youth use of social media, or regard them as a homogeneous group, or pay little attention to individual youth leaders. Social media, it turns out, was generally dismissed by the activists as being a crucial factor, even though they made occasional use of it. They were generally more of street than online activists, typically living in marginalized neighborhood even though most belonged to middle or lower middle class families. Neither did anyone mention Gene Sharp’s work, nor of trainings in non-violence in Serbia—both sources erroneously credited with being important factors in the Egyptian Revolution. The revolution may not have only consisted of spontaneous actions; but it emerged substantially from the ground up, from a local earth that was hospitable to it.
Toward the end, Latif highlights something that is missed in much of the literature on the ‘outcome’ of social movements: their ‘outcome’ on the participants themselves, and how they transform with the experience. This is important because personal transformation is perhaps the only guaranteed outcome of any revolution. While this part of the book includes somewhat tragic transformations, it also shows the problems attendant to post-revolutionary success, when the original unity of purpose breaks down, and when infighting across the entire political spectrum infects the lofty unifying spirit that had made the revolution possible.
Students and scholars of revolutions and social movements will find much analytical and empirical wealth in this book, thematically, but also methodologically. In a disarmingly honest description of field research problems in situations teeming with the unexpected, Latif dwells on the difficulty of scheduling interviews amid a messy revolution; how she had to adjust to the fact that over months the revolution itself was the activists’ priority rather than sticking to appointments; and how she had to learn on the spot the skills of research in revolutionary situations. It is to our fortune as readers that her practices of flexibility have resulted in such a fine achievement.