Celebrating a spark

By Salama Ahmed Salama

Everyone can and should add their personal testimony, yet the story told by these writers is hardly complete or true. Several attempts to rewrite the history of the revolution will be made, until its major events and players eventually fall into place within the normal context of history. When no one claims to derive legitimacy from upholding, or opposing, the revolution, it will have moved from the realm of myth to that of historical fact.

I do not expect such a transition to take place before the end of this century. The achievements of the revolution, its downfalls, blunders, and ultimate responsibility for our political and democratic situation today, will be debated year after year. The question of whether it was a coup d'état staged by the army, or a true political revolution, will continue to be posed.

History is not written by people who have lived through the events they seek to analyse, but by those who have not been subjected to the immediate impact of social, political or economic upheavals. Given that some 60 per cent of the Egyptian population is under 30-years-old, however, and that the people in power, the decision-makers, writers and theorists are mostly over 60, a deep rift separates the two generations in their vision of history. If the unfortunate job candidates who sat for the entrance examinations in Radio and Television and at the Foreign Ministry had been asked about the revolution, we would have realised what gross historical illusions engulf us. Such illusions will only be eliminated when those who witnessed the revolution and are still clinging tenaciously to their seats, dominating political life and hampering change and progress, retire.

In this context, two incidents are strikingly relevant. First, Naguib Mahfouz has come under fierce attack because he -- the thinker and writer who has made an indelible mark on Egyptian and Arab life -- aired some of his ideas and impressions, which do not strictly conform with the official image of the revolution, its leaders and events, as it was dictated by its advocates. The events of this era are still charged with emotions and biases, which makes objective discussion impossible.

Second, the director of the most recent film on Nasser refused to abide by the official image adopted and propagated by supporters of Nasser's regime. Despite the fact that his is a feature film, not a documentary, the director was not spared polemics, criticism and even court cases.

The July Revolution ended with the death of Nasser, its leader. It was an experience which each subsequent government viewed differently, drawing on certain aspects, and leaving others aside. Sadat's view differed from Nasser's, while Mubarak's rule is characterised by greater tranquillity, moderation and stability than either of his two predecessors'.

Future generations will no doubt differ in some measure, and we have no right to impose our views on them by enshrining a stagnant, idealised version of the revolution. We should remember that the objectives which the revolution sought to realise are not necessarily what our generation, let alone that of our children, seeks. But we should keep alive the spark created by the revolution in order to address present challenges. For this reason alone, we should celebrate the anniversary of the July Revolution.