Free On the State of Egypt by Alaa Al Aswany

secondary matters that have nothing to do with religion. This limited understanding of religion makes us susceptible to despotism and more submissive in the face of injustice, and it explains why despotism is more widespread in Islamic countries than elsewhere.
    People progress only in two cases: either when they understand religion properly as primarily the defense of human values—truth, justice, and freedom—or when they start with an ethical concept that makes the human conscience the arbiter that sets the criteria for virtue and honesty. But in countries where religion is understood as detached from human values, talents and resources will go to waste and the people are bound to fall behind in the march of civilization. Limited understanding that ignores the spirit of religion and turns religion into a set of procedures leads mankind to false formal piety and undermines the natural sense of conscience. It may even drive a man to behave appallingly while confident of his own piety, which he thinks is limited to performing religious obligations. The state of affairs in Egypt has sunk to rock bottom, and it is no longer possible to stay silent. Millions of Egyptians live in inhumane conditions, amid poverty, unemployment, disease, repression, and unprecedented corruption. These people have a right to a dignified and humane life. The change we demand will come from the top of the political pyramid and equally from the base. It is our duty to put pressure on the regime until it allows proper elections, but at the same time we have to explain to people that those who take part in rigging elections are committing a grave sin and a despicable crime against their country. When the president gives his orders to rig elections and finds that no police officer or civil servant in the Interior Ministry will agree to soil his honor and his religion by taking part in the rigging, only then will the future begin in Egypt.
    Democracy is the solution.
    April 19, 2010
    Do We Need a Benevolent Dictator?
    L ast Wednesday was a bad day for Gordon Brown, the British prime minister and leader of the Labour Party. He was making an electoral tour in the northwestern town of Rochdale and while he was talking to people in the street a woman named Gillian Duffy appeared, a retired civil servant sixty-six years old. Ms. Duffy had a heated discussion with Brown in front of the television cameras and she complained about immigrants from Eastern Europe, saying they have taken jobs from British people. The prime minister tried to persuade her that his government’s policy on immigration is right, but Duffy stuck to her position. All Brown could do was end the debate gracefully and ask her about her children and grandchildren. He then shook her hand politely and hurried back to his car to catch his next appointment. But unfortunately for Brown he forgot to turn off the small microphone attached to his lapel, and so the microphone continued to broadcast to the television networks what Brown was telling his aides in the car. Brown was angry about his encounter with Duffy and said, “That was a disaster. They should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? … She was just a bigoted woman.” All the media carried Brown’s words and within an hour the gaffe was the talk of Britain. The prime minister had insulted a British citizen, accusing her of bigotry simply because she disagreed with him. When Duffy heard through the media what Brown thought of her, she was most upset, so just a few days before the general elections in Britain on May 6, Brown was in a difficult position. He called Duffy on the phone to apologize but that was not enough. Brown later appeared on British television and the presenter was tough. He played Brown a recording of what he had said about the woman and asked the prime minister if he blamed himself for what happened. Brown said he did blame himself and would never do the same again, and he then made an apology to