On the State of Egypt

by Alaa Al Aswany

  Democracy is the solution.

  August 17, 2010

  FREE SPEECH AND

  STATE REPRESSION

  How Do Police Officers

  Celebrate Ramadan?

  On August 23, 2007, at six o’clock in the morning, Mohamed Ali Hassan woke up to the sound of loud banging on the door of his home in Benhawi Street in Bab al-Sha’riya. His wife, Asma, and his two young children, Youssef and Mohamed, woke up terrified to the sight of security men hitting their father violently, then arresting him and taking him off to al-Daher police station. According to the testimony of Mohamed Ali Hassan’s wife, the detectives at the police station arrested him and framed him on a drugs charge as a favor to two influential people in the neighborhood with whom Mohamed had had an argument a few days earlier.

  Whether or not this story is true, the great month of Ramadan started with Mohamed Ali Hassan in custody at the police station. His wife Asma would visit him whenever the officers allowed. Then something unknown to us took place to arouse the wrath of the detectives against Mohamed the prisoner. The detectives ordered him to be beaten and tortured, and then incited some of the hardened criminals in the cell to attack him. They pounced on him and stabbed him with knives. After breaking the fast on the first Thursday of Ramadan, Mohamed’s wife went to visit him at the police station and found him in very poor health. He was bleeding profusely and his face and body were covered with bruises and wounds. He could not speak or walk. Asma was horrified at the state of her husband and begged the police officers to let her take Mohamed under police escort to a hospital for treatment, even at the expense of the family. But the officers refused and threatened to detain her too if she did not leave immediately. The following day Mohamed Ali Hassan died from the injuries he received under torture.

  In the same week, prisoner Hani al-Ghandour was detained in Assiut Prison pending trial in a criminal case. One of the officers working in the prison, a man by the name of Islam Bey, threw some insults at Hani and it seems that Hani answered back in a way that displeased Islam Bey, who decided to discipline him. Islam Bey summoned a detective called Ismail and the two of them put Hani in a hole in the earth and forced him to stay there for two hours while they gave him a violent beating. Then they tied Hani to a metal chair and started giving him electric shocks and beating him with bamboo sticks. In the end they brought a water hose and put it up his nose. When the torture reached its peak, Hani started screaming, “Enough, Islam Bey, I’m going to die … I can’t take it.” But Islam Bey, with his long experience of prisoners, was not about to fall for a trick like that. He went on giving Hani electric shocks and beating him until the prisoner finally breathed his last and died.

  These two incidents were reported in the newspapers in the same week of Ramadan and, as usual, the Ministry of Interior issued a statement denying any torture had taken place and attributing the two deaths to the same cause: a sudden and sharp fall in blood pressure. Nobody believes such statements from the ministry and they are not even worth discussing, but these two incidents, apart from being so brutal, do raise some important questions. The officers who carried out the torture are Muslims (in fact one of them is called Islam) and are probably strict about fasting during Ramadan and performing their prayers on time. Maybe they perform the special prayers on Ramadan nights as well, like other people, but they also torture prisoners in this barbaric way without it troubling their religious conscience in the least. In fact it never occurs to them that torture is incompatible with fasting and prayer.

  This is something really strange that deserves thought and study. How can a police officer torture people and then resume his life afterward as though nothing has happened? How can such an officer play with his children and sleep with his wife when his hands are still stained with the blood of his victims? How do talented and brilliant young men, physically fit and intellectually sharp, who enroll in the police academy and take an oath to respect the law, turn over time into brutes who enjoy torturing people and abusing them sexually? Does police work dispose officers toward some pathological sadism whereby they enjoy torturing other people?

  Psychological studies show that many ordinary people, if they end up working in a place where torture takes place systematically, are very likely to get involved in torture and turn into torturers themselves. But first they have to go through two psychological processes: adaptation and moral justification. Adaptation means that the officer finds all his colleagues carrying out torture and his superiors ordering torture, so he obeys the orders and carries out torture because he is not strong enough to take a stand against the dominant practice where he works. Justification means that the officer who tortures people convinces himself that it is necessary for the sake of security and the nation. A torturer who fails to create a justification for himself will not be able to continue torturing people. Torture in Egypt is not the work of errant or rogue officers, it is a permanent and systematic policy applied by the state, and there have been more victims of torture in the Mubarak era than in any other period of Egyptian history.

  When we were school children we all studied the Denshawai massacre, which took place in 1906, as evidence that the British occupation was a crime against Egyptians. We must remember unfortunately that the number of Egyptians killed in this famous massacre was only five (the English shot one woman dead and four men were hanged). Twice as many people or more die in police stations and on State Security premises in Egypt in one year or less, so what we Egyptians are doing to ourselves is much worse than what British soldiers did to us. Responsibility for the innocents who die of torture in Egypt does not lie solely with the officers who commit the crime of torture, or with Interior Minister Habib al-Adli, who gives them the orders. The prime responsibility lies with President Hosni Mubarak. He undoubtedly knows that people are tortured to death every day but he does not intervene or do anything to stop these crimes. If President Mubarak wanted to stop torture, it would stop within one hour, but he sees torture as necessary to protect the regime.

  God have mercy on Hani al-Ghandour and Mohamed Ali Hassan from Bab al-Sha’riya. All condolences, in this holy month, to their families and their children, who are fated to grow up without fathers. But this injustice is too outrageous to continue. Someday soon all those responsible for these crimes and tragedies will be held to account, and the oppressors will find out what fate awaits them.

  September 17, 2008

  A Discussion with a State

  Security Officer

  The following happened some years ago. I was at a relative’s wedding and sat down next to a guest I had not met before. He introduced himself to me: “My name is … I am a police officer.” He seemed to be in his forties, very elegant, polite, and quiet. I noticed a prayer mark on his forehead. After exchanging niceties, I asked him, “In which department do you work?” He hesitated for a second, then replied, “State Security.” We were both silent and he turned his face away from me and started watching the guests. My mind was torn between two conflicting ideas: should I resume our small talk or express my opinion on State Security freely? In the end, I failed to exercise self-restraint and said, “Excuse me! You are religious, as I can see.”

  “Thank God.”

  “But don’t you find any contradiction between being religious and working with State Security?”

  “Where’s the contradiction?”

  “State Security detainees are beaten, tortured, and raped even though religions prohibit such practices.”

  He started to lose his temper. “First, those who are beaten deserve being beaten. Second, if you study your religion thoroughly, you will find that what we do at the State Security department is in harmony with Islamic teachings.”

  “But Islam strongly stresses the protection of human dignity.”

  “The case you are making is not correct. I am well acquainted with Islamic jurisprudence and its provisions.”

  “Islamic jurisprudence does not allow torturing people.”


  “Listen to me until I finish. Islam has nothing to do with democracy or elections.… Jurists made obeying the ruler a must whether he takes power via Muslims’ consent or the use of force. The public should not challenge the ruler even if he is corrupt or unjust. Do you know how Islam punishes those who rebel against their rulers?”

  I kept silent.

  He replied enthusiastically, “They should face the haraba punishment, or cutting off the left hand and the right foot. All the detainees at State Security headquarters are insurgents whose feet and hands should be cut off in accordance with sharia. But we do not do this. We apply quite softer measures.”

  We had a long discussion. I argued that Islam takes the side of justice and freedom and that the Prophet Muhammad gave Muslims the freedom to choose his successor. Moreover, the meeting that led to Abu Bakr’s succession was an ideally democratic experience that long preceded western democracy. I explained that haraba punishment should be confined to armed groups that kill and rape innocent people and plunder their property. It should by no means be applied to Egyptian political dissidents. He was persistent and ended the discussion by saying, “This is the way I understand Islam. I will not change it and I will be responsible for it before God.”

  After I left the wedding, I asked myself how such a smart and educated man could be driven by these misconceptions of Islam. Where did he get his wrong ideas? How could one think that God approves of torturing people and degrading them? I failed to find answers to these questions until, months later, I read a research paper entitled “The Psychology of Flagellants.” The author argues that policemen who practice torture could be divided into two groups: some are psychopathic, meaning aggressive with no ethical values, and others, who are the majority, are psychologically balanced. When the latter leave the office, they become different people and treat others nicely and cordially. To be able to practice torture, however, two conditions are indispensable: submission and conviction. Submission implies that the police officer assures himself that he does not have a say in what he is doing for he must obey orders. As for conviction, the officer has to believe that torture is ethically and religiously legitimate. Hence the victims are viewed as agents of the enemy or infidels. Torture then becomes a righteous practice that protects the homeland and the public. The researcher concluded that, without conviction, the police officer cannot go on with torturing people, for at a certain point he will despise himself and suffer from insurmountable guilt.

  I remembered my conversation with the State Security officer when I heard about the arrest of two members of the April 6 Movement: Omnia Taha and Sarah Mohamed Rezq. A Kafr al-Sheikh University security guard arrested the two young women and handed them over to State Security on the grounds that they incited their fellow students to strike. The prosecution accused them of plotting to overthrow the regime and ordered that they be remanded to custody for fifteen days.

  The event poses a host of questions, including how a call for a strike by a young woman (less than twenty years old) could overthrow President Mubarak’s regime. Moreover, calling for a strike is not a crime, as Egypt has signed many international conventions legitimizing strikes as one of the basic human rights. I felt really sad when I learned that the two students had been subjected to severe torture at the hands of a senior State Security officer. He beat them and tore off their clothes. I recalled the State Security officer at the wedding and asked myself: How could a man, who might have a wife and daughter, treat a woman, who might be as young as his daughter, with such brutality? How could he tolerate the guilt and look in the eyes of his wife and children? Didn’t he feel shame that he beat such a helpless young woman? Could this be in accordance with the values of manhood, religion, or ethics? Does this practice maintain the prestige of the army and police?

  The regime in Egypt is encountering an unprecedented wave of protest as life has become intolerable for large groups of the Egyptian public who are left without the most basic needs of a decent life. These groups now have no alternative but to take to the streets to defend their legitimate rights. As for the regime, which has proved incapable of introducing any kind of genuine reform, it pushes the police force into confrontation with the people, to suppress and torture them. Yet the regime ignores the reality that policemen are part of the Egyptian population whose great majority suffers from difficult living conditions.

  When a regime becomes solely dependent on oppression, it fails to realize that the apparatus of oppression, however mighty it may be, consists of individuals who are part of society and who share the grievances and interests of the rest of the population. As oppression deepens, these individuals will find they are unable to justify their crimes to themselves. Then the regime’s iron grip will be broken and meet the fate it deserves. Where Egypt is concerned, I believe that day will come soon.

  April 7, 2009

  Four Videos to Entertain

  President Mubarak

  The two great leaders, President Hosni Mubarak and President Barack Obama, met recently in Washington, D.C. for friendly and fruitful talks in which they dealt with critical matters of interest to their two countries: Iran’s nuclear program, peace with Israel, and the situation in Darfur. With equal vehemence the two presidents said how upset they were about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran, the repression of demonstrators, election rigging, the torture of innocent people, and other horrendous crimes perpetrated by the Iranian government, all of which the international community and the Egyptian government are making intensive efforts to expose and prevent. In the end President Obama received assurances from his friend, President Mubarak, that while democratic reform in Egypt is a long and complicated process it is continuing and hopefully will never come to a halt. Obama reiterated his admiration for President Mubarak’s wisdom, moderation, and courage.

  All of that is well-known, understandable, and to be expected, but I was thinking of something else. The journey from Washington to Cairo takes more than ten hours, so how does President Mubarak spend that time? The president’s private plane is no doubt equipped to the highest possible standard, but it’s nonetheless a long journey, so what does the president do on the way? Does he take the opportunity to snatch a few hours’ sleep so that his body can recover from all the exhausting work he does? Does he spend the time in conversation with the government newspaper editors whom he takes along with him on every trip? As usual, they would compete to praise the president’s achievements, his historic leadership, and the excellence of his decisions. I think that the president must be somewhat bored by repeated praise. Does he enjoy some reading during the journey? Does he take along the collected works of Mahmoud Sami al-Baroudi, whom he has cited as his favorite poet? I don’t know exactly what the president likes to do, so I suggest he watch some good videos, which I hope he likes. Not long feature films, but short documentaries in which the performers are not professional actors or even amateurs but just ordinary Egyptians with nothing to distinguish them except that, like millions of other Egyptians, they face a bitter daily struggle to feed their children and provide them with a decent life. Here are the videos I suggest.

  In the first video we see a young Egyptian from Port Said being horribly tortured in a police station. The young man appears in the first shot with the skin on his back and stomach flayed from a beating, lifted up and hung from the ceiling by his hands. The man starts to beg the police officers for mercy, saying, “Enough, Mohamed Bey! I’m going to die, Mohamed Bey.” In the second shot the young man appears blindfolded, weeping and imploring the officer in a broken voice, “I beg you, Mohamed Bey. We’re human beings, not animals.” We can’t see Mohamed Bey in the shot but we can hear his angry voice as he shouts, “Shut up!” at the man and then hurls the most vicious insults at him. Why does Mohamed Bey seem so angry? The reason is that the young man has been screaming under torture and Mohamed Bey sees this as an affront to his status because, according to the rules as he sees them, no one has the right to speak up in fr
ont of a police officer even if the officer is beating and torturing him.

  The second video has a woman as the main character: an Egyptian woman in her thirties, her hair uncovered, wearing blue jeans and a dark t-shirt. The police officer appears with a big stick, beating her mercilessly. He is beating her all over with all his strength, on her feet, her arms, and her head. The woman screams and then falls silent and then in the next shot we see her strung up horizontally with her hands and feet tied to a metal pole. This is the position people say is used in police stations and on State Security premises and is known as the ‘chicken position.’ It causes horrific pain, tears the muscles, and can lead to bone and even spinal fractures. Not content with stringing her up in the ‘chicken position,’ the policeman carries on hitting her with his big stick until she cries out at the top of her voice, “Okay, pasha, it was me who killed him, it was me who killed him.” At this point we realize that the policeman is investigating a murder and that by this very effective method he has identified the murderer and justice has been done.

  In the third video we see a man in his forties trembling in fear in front of a police officer, who is hurling the most vile insults at him. The policeman then raises his hand and brings it down forcefully toward the man’s face. Just as the man shuts his eyes against the blow, the policeman freezes his hand in the air then wiggles his fingers obscenely. The policeman breaks into sustained laughter and walks around the room triumphantly as though he has just pulled off some clever trick. Then the policeman gets serious again, approaches the man with a cigarette in the corner of his mouth, and starts slapping his face repeatedly with both hands. When the man raises a hand instinctively to fend off the blows, the policeman stops, insults the man’s mother, and tells him to put his hand back down at his side. Then he starts slapping him again.