tyrants; they wanted dignity and freedom and immediately found solidarity with each other. Here we already find universality. We have absolutely no problem identifying with them. That was the wonder of this revolution. And this is how we build universal solidarity. It’s a struggle for freedom, and freedom is universal.
I think the greatest triumph is this: when some Muslim brotherhood members were interviewed by the media, they honestly said, first, that this was not their revolution, but they just support it, and, second, that the goal was democracy, freedom, economic justice, and so on. Isn’t it nice that even the fundamentalist political agents had to adopt this language – the language of secular demands for democracy?
This is the opposite of Iran. In Iran, the Khomeini revolution is basically more religious. Leftist Marxists had to smuggle themselves in talking an Islamic language. Here is the opposite. In Egypt, Islamics have to talk using a secular language. This is a wonderful event. I mean nobody believed that they could raise Arab crowds on purely secular grounds. Everybody thought: “Oh, maybe some elite liberals have to come. Arabs are too stupid and too conservative so whatever they need is religion.” No! they did it. Even if it turns out to be a fiasco, this is hope.
Here I’m tempted to quote Emmanuel Kant’s notion of the sublime . Kant interpreted the French Revolution as a sign that pointed toward the possibility of freedom. In spite of all the horror that goes on there, events like the French Revolution give you hope – that there’s some kind of universal tendency to freedom and progress.
Kant concluded with the fact that, although progress cannot be proven, we can discern signs indicating that progress is possible. This is what an event like this means. One should note here that the French Revolution generated enthusiasm not only in Europe, but also in faraway places like Haiti, where it triggered another world-historical event. The hitherto unthinkable happened: a whole people fearlessly asserted their freedom and equality. I think we should remain faithful to them.
Do these words not also fit perfectly the ongoing Egyptian uprising? The French Revolution was, for Kant, a sign of history in the triple sense of signum rememorativum , demonstrativum , prognosticum . The Egyptian uprising is also a sign in which the memory of the long past of authoritarian oppression and the struggle for its abolition reverberates; an event which now demonstrates the possibility of a change; a hope for future achievements. Whatever our doubts, fears, and compromises, in that instant of enthusiasm, each of us was free and participating in the universal freedom of humanity. All the skepticism displayed behind closed doors, even by many worried progressives, was proven wrong. And also we should be realists. But nonetheless, we should be open to a kind of miracle . Things like this are miracles. I don’t mean in religious terms. I mean miracles in the sense that things like this always explode against the predictions of all the specialists, who are always wrong.
Well, I’m old enough to remember the Khomeini revolution. I remember a British general, Sir John Hackett, wrote a book, The Third World War: The Untold Story , three or four years before the Khomeini revolution in 1980, depicting the new world conflict. In Slovenia we all laughed at it. Because the decisive battlefield between East and West was supposed to take place 20 kilometers northeast of Ljubljana. But what’s interesting is the presupposition of that book. It says that there will be chaos in the Middle East, and the only American ally that is totally faithful is Iran. You know, it was such a shock for everyone in Iran. Nobody expected it in Iran. They all thought that there could be chaos in Egypt, but not in Iran.
This is exactly what is happening in Tunisia today. Everybody thought there could be chaos here and there, but not in Tunisia
I think the greatest triumph is this: when some Muslim brotherhood members were interviewed by the media, they honestly said, first, that this was not their revolution, but they just support it, and, second, that the goal was democracy, freedom, economic justice, and so on. Isn’t it nice that even the fundamentalist political agents had to adopt this language – the language of secular demands for democracy?
This is the opposite of Iran. In Iran, the Khomeini revolution is basically more religious. Leftist Marxists had to smuggle themselves in talking an Islamic language. Here is the opposite. In Egypt, Islamics have to talk using a secular language. This is a wonderful event. I mean nobody believed that they could raise Arab crowds on purely secular grounds. Everybody thought: “Oh, maybe some elite liberals have to come. Arabs are too stupid and too conservative so whatever they need is religion.” No! they did it. Even if it turns out to be a fiasco, this is hope.
Here I’m tempted to quote Emmanuel Kant’s notion of the sublime . Kant interpreted the French Revolution as a sign that pointed toward the possibility of freedom. In spite of all the horror that goes on there, events like the French Revolution give you hope – that there’s some kind of universal tendency to freedom and progress.
Kant concluded with the fact that, although progress cannot be proven, we can discern signs indicating that progress is possible. This is what an event like this means. One should note here that the French Revolution generated enthusiasm not only in Europe, but also in faraway places like Haiti, where it triggered another world-historical event. The hitherto unthinkable happened: a whole people fearlessly asserted their freedom and equality. I think we should remain faithful to them.
Do these words not also fit perfectly the ongoing Egyptian uprising? The French Revolution was, for Kant, a sign of history in the triple sense of signum rememorativum , demonstrativum , prognosticum . The Egyptian uprising is also a sign in which the memory of the long past of authoritarian oppression and the struggle for its abolition reverberates; an event which now demonstrates the possibility of a change; a hope for future achievements. Whatever our doubts, fears, and compromises, in that instant of enthusiasm, each of us was free and participating in the universal freedom of humanity. All the skepticism displayed behind closed doors, even by many worried progressives, was proven wrong. And also we should be realists. But nonetheless, we should be open to a kind of miracle . Things like this are miracles. I don’t mean in religious terms. I mean miracles in the sense that things like this always explode against the predictions of all the specialists, who are always wrong.
Well, I’m old enough to remember the Khomeini revolution. I remember a British general, Sir John Hackett, wrote a book, The Third World War: The Untold Story , three or four years before the Khomeini revolution in 1980, depicting the new world conflict. In Slovenia we all laughed at it. Because the decisive battlefield between East and West was supposed to take place 20 kilometers northeast of Ljubljana. But what’s interesting is the presupposition of that book. It says that there will be chaos in the Middle East, and the only American ally that is totally faithful is Iran. You know, it was such a shock for everyone in Iran. Nobody expected it in Iran. They all thought that there could be chaos in Egypt, but not in Iran.
This is exactly what is happening in Tunisia today. Everybody thought there could be chaos here and there, but not in Tunisia
Similar Books
