Egyptians must learn new realities

The people of Egypt have not yet adapted to the changes that come with democracy, an Arabic scholar says. Other topics: Israel's hypocrisy, and billionaires in the region.

Post-revolution Egyptians must get used to transitions involved in passage to democracy

Societies going through revolutions might fail to realise the deep transformations that lie ahead in their social and political systems, and so they fail to brace themselves for the costs of the passage to democracy.

What is unfolding in Egypt now mirrors this failure, wrote Abdullah Al Ashaal, an Egyptian academic and former diplomat, in an article on the Al Jazeera website.

The poor make up the vast majority of Egyptians. Under dire circumstances, a few moral and social values shrank, leading people to tolerate things they would not normally have accepted.

Power-holders were sacred cows. The regime propagandists would permit criticism of all figures of authority except the president and his family. Sometimes, they would encourage criticism of the entourage to make the president look like a saint among devils, according the writer.

It was only natural for people to hate many aspects of their lives before the revolution. They abhorred figures in power and despised their modus operandi.

And then the revolution came along to bring down the apparatus of oppression, and with its downfall, people looked forward to new horizons and set great expectations for post-revolution Egypt.

Many people thought the revolution alone could work miracles at the drop of a hat. The nullification of the constitution was hailed. Many supposed the ruler's tyranny and corruption were rooted in the constitution, unmindful of the fact that the ruler never respected it in the first place, Al Ashaal wrote.

Against this backdrop, people were ready to welcome any alternative to the ancien regime, in hopes that their dreams might be fulfilled. Some imagined that a new president and a new constitution would end all woes. And it was not long before polarisation ran deep, and made worse by media outlets.

After a revolution, there are transformations for which societies must prepare themselves. First, a culture of respecting the law must take root - applying equally to all, citizens and rulers.

Second, freedom is not absolute; it comes with responsibility. One cannot destroy historic sites in the name of freedom.

Third, many groups will pop up to proclaim that the revolution belongs exclusively to them.

Fourth, some will mix up the regime with the state. Any person who had not been a revolutionary prior to the revolution became a feloul (an old regime holdover) worthy of enmity. These people have to realise that government employees and regime aids are not one and the same.

Fifth, democracy involves holding the ruler accountable and governing the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

Democracy also means that no person is beyond the law or beyond criticism. But criticism and difference should be expressed with civility and respect, the writer concluded.

Israeli leader's EU speech is unwelcome

Israeli president Shimon Peres likes to pose as a moderate leader who aspires for peace, and he sweet-talks his audience, particularly western nations, into believing that, noted the pan-Arab newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi in an editorial yesterday.

Mr Peres is anything but a moderate. He was behind the 2006 Qana massacre during Israel's assault on Lebanon that left 100 people dead, many of them children and women.

In his address to the EU parliament on Tuesday, Mr Peres lectured on how to end Syria's continuing bloodshed, suggesting the intervention of the Arab League and the formation of a provisional government comprising figures from the opposition. The free world, he said, "cannot stand by when a massacre is carried out by the Syrian president against his own people and his own children".

That such talk came from a president of a state that adopts murder as a policy, invades its neighbours and terrorises innocent people is preposterous, the paper commented.

Mr Peres is not the right person to teach Arab nations how to fix their problems. If he genuinely cared about the Syrian people, he would withdraw from Syria's Golan Heights.

Under Mr Peres, Israel struck a nuclear reactor near the Deir Ez-Zour region; conducted a raid on Ein Al Saheb near Damascus; and assassinated Imad Mughniyah, a Lebanese resistance figure.

Magazine list reveals wealth concentration

Forbes magazine has announced its 2013 list of the world's wealthiest people, writer Yasser Al Zaatra observed in the Jordan-based paper Addustour.

The list, he noted, includes 1,426 billionaires, with an aggregate net worth of US $5.4 trillion (Dh 19.8 trillion) in 2013, up from a total amount of $4.6 trillion last year.

The magazine's Middle East richest list reveals 40 billionaires from regional states, with most of them coming from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt: eight Saudis with wealth of $55.55 billion, eight Lebanese with $32.3 billion and seven Egyptians with 18.55 billion.

One should remember here that a list of this type can never be complete.

There are always people who will not disclose their resources and will not allow such magazines to track them, the writer noted.

Among those are a number of high profile Middle East figures owning colossal wealth that is kept under wraps.

Across the region, about two million people live on less than $2 a day.

A few people swim in cash while many die of hunger. That is the tragedy of the present age, the writer concluded.

* Digest compiled by the Translation Desk