Egypt and Iran, it was famously said, are the only true nations in the Middle East; the others are only “tribes with flags.”[1] These nations are perhaps the most similar in the region, both in terms of their history and their population. Where other countries such as Iraq and Lebanon are split into a mix of feuding ethnic and religious groups, Egyptians and Iranians are united by a strong sense of nationalism. Both nations have civilizations that began thousands of years ago, not created and colonized by a European power. The most striking similarity, however, is that the political upheaval in Egypt that brought down the thirty-year reign of Dictator Hosni Mubarak in 2011 appears to parallel the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. The Iranian Revolution and the Egyptian Revolution both began as heterodox movements united in overthrowing the dictator in power, but because of the fragility of these revolutions, the arrival of oppressive totalitarian governments who could not satisfy the needs of the people created factions and destroyed the unity of the movements.
The main uniting factor during the Iranian Revolution was the universal desire for the overthrow of the Shah, but after the revolutionaries had achieved their goal, before they knew it the oppressive regime had been replaced with another. The trigger for the revolution against the Shah came on August 19th, 1978, when six hundred people were burnt alive when the Rex Cinema hall was set on fire at Abadan. The Iranian people spared no time in pinning the blame on the Shah and SAVAK, the secret police of Iran, who in turn blamed the crime in vain on religious fanatics and terrorists. The funeral for the victims turned into a mass anti-Shah demonstration, with thousands of people yelling that the fire was the Shah’s work. [2] Many Iranians believed that the Shah’s regime had deliberately set the cinema on fire in a desperate attempt to discredit his religious opposition, and from the public’s point of view this showed that there was no limit to the Shah’s cruelty.[3] The cinema burning turned into a rallying point against the Shah, a unifying factor that brought people of all classes and backgrounds together in protest. Angry demonstrations against police and fire officials became a daily affair, and this event served as the turning point to the return of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, a fiery religious leader, to Iran from exile. Within a week of the fire, Iran’s Prime Minister Amouzegar was dismissed and replaced by aging courtier Sharif Emami, who proclaimed that he would “make the country’s laws according to Islam” and allow Khomeini’s return.[4] Two weeks after the Rex Cinema event, Tehran had its first major demonstration, with almost a hundred thousand people coming out in hoards to voice their demands for freedom, independence, and Islamic government. After this protest ended peacefully, another demonstration was planned for September 7th. The government found out about this plot and issued a statement claiming the police was ready to use violence if necessary. This threat only fueled the protesters, who screamed “Down with the Shah!”[5] for the first time since 1963, which signified the crossing of a major revolutionary threshold, as the Shah had been portrayed as the shadow of God. Chants of “Death to the Shah!” rang through the streets of Tehran, calling for the death of dictatorship and setting into motion the fall of an idol and a tyrannical dynasty. This was a united people, unconcerned with their social and religious differences.
The unity of the protestors would be short-lived, however, as Khomeini would implement a series of policies that would alienate the leftist and secularist groups that were against Khomeini’s oppressive regime, squashing any threat to his authority and creating factions among the people. As a revolutionary leader, Khomeini did not attach much value to an ideological agenda or to the creation of a constitution. He had planned to accept a draft of a constitution that did not even mention his main theory of the guardianship of the jurist, a theory that holds that Islam give an Islamic jurist custodianship over the people and that would make him Supreme Leader. He changed his mind, however, and entrusted the writing of the draft to his close aide Ayatollah Mohammed Hosayni Beheshti, who was convinced that the new order created by the Islamic Revolution should be an ideological state.[6] The Revolution was therefore defined as an ideological revolution, in which Islam was put in the place of the dominant ideology in the constitutional documents.
Khomeini’s justifications for the implementation of an Islamic Republic lay on the back of the failures of the previous regime. In justifying the revolution, he stated that:
“The people were ready for revolution: they were dissatisfied with their government and discontented with their lives, and – most importantly – God had brought about a spiritual transformation in them.” [7]
In this passage, Khomeini is playing to the emotions of the people, reminding them of the failures of the Shah’s regime and how terrible their lives were under the previous regime. The argument that the Shah’s regime was a terrible form of government was a source of unification for the people, something everyone could relate to and unite under. Then Khomeini stated that it was “God” who had brought “about a spiritual transformation in them.” In saying that the revolution is God’s doing, Khomeini is discounting the efforts of millions of Iranians who fought for their freedom from oppression. The credit does not go directly to the people who fomented a revolution and overthrew a dictatorship, but to God for inspiring them to do so. He is also only accounting for the Muslims who revolutionized, ignoring the other religious factions who fought for their rights and freedom of oppression as well. Khomeini claimed that he was going to help the “dissatisfied” and “discontent” people, but instead created conflicts and factions among a once unified people through his religious oppression and blatant ignorance of other religious factions not names Islam.
Khomeini goes on to describe how the people must destroy any non-Islamic governments and the corruption and evil that they represent. In doing so, he is disposing of the challengers to his authority, assuring himself complete power. He completely ignores other religious sects, such as Armenian Christians and Jews, focusing solely on the struggles of Muslims. This is a huge reason for the creation of religious factions after the revolution, as by focusing only on Islam, Khomeini isolates an entire group of people that do not get to profit from his ideals or relish in his political theories. He asserted that:
“Through the political agents they have placed in over the people, the imperialists have also imposed on us an unjust economic order, and thereby divided our people into two groups: oppressors and oppressed. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are hungry and deprived of all form of health care and education, while minorities comprised of the wealthy and powerful live a life of indulgence, licentiousness, and corruption.”[8]
He not once mentions other religious groups, which in turn creates tension and division between “two groups”: The Muslims and those who have different religious beliefs. He never even admits to the existence of any other groups besides those who practice Islam. Even when in exile, Khomeini did not want to share any aspect of the revolution with others, calling it an Islamic Revolution and the country an Islamic Republic. From the outset, the new regime’s totalitarian and monopolizing tendencies alienated and excluded the left and secular forces, who had been at the forefront of the revolution, from decision-making processes. Armenian Christians had played a large role in the revolution, fighting along Muslims and other religious factions throughout the duration of the revolution, but because of the anti-Christian policies enforced by the Islamic Republic, of the estimated 300,000 Armenian Christians living in Iran in 1979, over two-thirds of them emigrated. [9] They were one of many groups to be persecuted under the totalitarian Islamic rule that crushed its political and religious opposition.
Even clerical dissent was widespread during the reign of the Islamic Republic, much of it stemming from disagreement with the theological justification of the Islamic Republic’s central concept of government. At the time of the revolution, many ayatollahs, regarded as sources of emulation among the Iranian people, either voiced their objections or remained silent or aloof from politics. Ayatollah Taleqani, the leading leftist cleric of the revolution and founding member of the Freedom movement, felt that the regime was using Islam to institute a system of privilege and oppression that was quite dissimilar to a moral order.[10] He claimed that the ruling classes “were attempting to further their own interests by using a self-serving definition of ‘Islam’ to justify enslaving and exploiting the poor.”[11] Something was wrong with Khomeini’s policies and justifications if many of the religious leaders of Islam were in disagreement with him. Khomeini realized that if the other ayatollahs kept pointing out his unfair and unjustified laws, he would lose his legitimacy as a leader and soon afterwards his religious and political authority, so he took action in muffling all those in disagreement with him. Those who voiced their objections to the Republic were silenced, banned from teaching sermons and classes and confined in Iran under house arrest. In the case of Taleqani, he was summoned to a meeting with Khomeini, after which he issued a televised public apology. Five months later, he died under dubious circumstances: Officials claimed he died in his sleep, but electricity and telephone lines to his house were cut off the night of his death, leading many to believe that he was poisoned by Khomeini’s regime.[12] Another example of Khomeini’s ruthless approach is found in grand ayatollah Shari ‘atmadāri, who repeatedly pointed out the detrimental effects of the use of too much political power. He was defamed in public, put under house arrest, and his followers were persecuted and outlawed. The clerical dissent and dissatisfaction under the reign of Khomeini is just another example of the disunity that the Islamic Republic caused among the people of Iran and the ubiquity of this disunity. The disunity of the members of the highest religious standing in the Islamic Republic trickled down to the people, who did not know who to believe was telling the truth.
Similar to the Iranian Revolution, the Egyptian Revolution began as a heterodox movement that gained traction among people of all backgrounds as a revolution for the people, then crumbled after the implementation of an oppressive regime that did not satisfy the cravings of the people. During the riots, Muslims and Christians joined hands and formed human shields to protect each other from riot police, a show of extreme unity in the face of possible danger.[13] Alongside banners demanding Mubarak's resignation and an end to emergency rule, protesters held aloft posters of the Christian cross and Islamic crescent together against the red white and black of Egypt's flag.[14] During the riots and protests against Mubarak’s regime, sectarian harmony was at an all time high, and the Egyptian people were hopeful that this harmony could continue well after the revolution.[15] During the revolution, the protestors, who were mostly youths and were one of the first groups of people to use social media as a way to foment a revolutionary movement, were all united under one cause: oust Mubarak. They did not have time to worry about religious and political conflicts, which would become the main divisive force during the elections of the next Egyptian president. These elections were very close and showed how divided and vulnerable the country was. Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood won by a slim margin, winning 51.7% of the vote over Ahmed Shafik, Mubarak’s last prime minister. Millions of Egyptians saw that they had no choice but to vote for Morsi, not because they agreed with his ideas or those of the Muslim Brotherhood, but simply to prevent the restoration of Mubarak's regime at the hands of Shafiq. The election of Morsi, however, would lead to the creation of a government eerily similar to that of Mubarak, causing many Egyptians to regret their vote.
As president, Morsi granted himself unlimited powers, his reason being that he would "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure, which he called "remnants of the old regime" and the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts.[16] He issued an Islamist-backed draft constitution and called for a referendum, an act that his opponents called an "Islamist coup."[17] Most importantly, the people claimed that Morsi mishandled the economy and failed to deal with the very issues that led to the uprising that brought him to power: calls for rights and social justice. The Egyptian people protested against the oppression of the Shah and for their rights, but ended up in the same situation as they started in: with an oppressive totalitarian figure limiting the rights of the people. To fight for a movement for so long only to end up back at the beginning was crushing to the people, and unity was demolished by the disappointment in the results of the revolution. The one sign that represents the destruction of the movement and, with it, the unity of the people is Tahrir Square. The epicenter of revolt in 2011, filled to the brim with almost 250,000 Egyptian citizens was reduced to just a bare patch of dry sand with a few dilapidated tents. An Egyptian fruit-seller in Cairo put it best:
"The revolution was like a beautiful woman. She charmed us, and we fell in love with her and killed the tyrant to marry her, but she was just a trick - another burden to add to our heavy load, and we are falling out of love." [18]
The Egyptian people ousted Mubarak, the “tyrant,” in an attempt to marry the ideals of the revolution and the thoughts of freedom from oppression, but the rise of the totalitarian Islamic Republic crushed those dreams and caused Egyptians to lose faith in the revolutionary ideals they once loved.
One of the most important causes of the revolution was the Interior Ministry’s brutal repression. The Egyptian people demanded that the state security apparatuses be eliminated, that the Interior Ministry be cleansed of Mubarak’s corrupt men and those responsible for torture be held accountable. [19] However, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces refused to make any changes to the Interior Ministry during the transitional period between Mubarak and Morsi. Then, after Morsi became president, he too refused to cleanse the Interior Ministry. Instead, he made use of the old leadership, making it seem as though a bargain had been struck between the Brotherhood and the Interior Ministry’s men whereby the latter would retain their posts and privileges and remain exempt from accountability for their crimes in exchange for them restoring security and protecting the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood. [20] Morsi kept the same system of oppression in place, only changing the man running the show. The ties between the two regimes go further than security, though. Morsi became quite close with many ministers and businessmen who belonged to Mubarak’s regime, taking them to foreign countries aboard his private jets.[21] As with Mubarak, state television broadcast images of Morsi constantly, displaying the Brotherhood’s control of the media. Morsi only took Mubarak’s seat, keeping everything else from the former system in place. The Egyptian people fought for change and a new government but ended up with the same totalitarian influence that they had before.
The rise of totalitarian governments that mirrored the oppressive governments that came before them directly caused the rise of disunity among the Egyptian and Iranian people during their revolutions. Both revolutions ended where they started, ruled by an Islamic totalitarian figure that squashed dissenters, limited rights for citizens, and created factions among the people. It can be argued that the revolutionaries in these revolutions fought for nothing, but the people continue to fight for their freedom from oppression to this day. In Egypt, Morsi was forced to step down after a little less than a year in office after protests against his regime gained too much momentum. Iran has seemed to have had more success in developing stable governments after the revolution, although there is still much work to be done. Iran has had five presidents since the 1979 revolution, a position currently held by Hassan Rouhani, who has encouraged personal freedom and free access to information, has improved women's rights by appointing female foreign ministry spokespersons, and has improved Iran's diplomatic relations with other countries.[22] Egypt is still in the midst of revolutionary fervor, with the 2011 revolution serving as a model of success for overthrowing a dictator, but finding a replacement government is still an issue that Egypt will probably be grappling with for awhile.[23] These revolutions laid the groundwork for the overthrowing of a totalitarian dictator, and it can be argued that the Iranian revolution served as a precursor for the Arab Spring, a revolutionary movement that has spread throughout the Arab world. These two revolutions began with excitement and the urge to fight for freedom, but due to the vulnerability of the unity of the people, the rise of a totalitarian government undermined the goals of the revolutions and destroyed the unity of the people.
[1] Glass, Charles. Tribes With Flags: A Dangerous Passage Through the Chaos of the Middle East. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 1990. Print.
[2] Irfani, Suroosh. Revolutionary Islam in Iran: Popular Liberation or Religious Dictatorship? London: Zed Books Ltd., 1983. Print.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Khomeini, Imam. Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini. Comp. Hamid Algar. Berkeley: Mizan, 1981. Print.
[5] Irfani, Suroosh. Revolutionary Islam in Iran: Popular Liberation or Religious Dictatorship? London: Zed Books Ltd., 1983. Print.
[6] Arjomand, Saïd Amir, and Nathan J. Browns, eds. The Rule of Law, Islam, and Constitutional Politics in Egypt and Iran. Albany: SUNY, 2013. Print.
[7] Khomeini, Imam. Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini. Comp. Hamid Algar. Berkeley: Mizan, 1981. Print.
[8] Khomeini, Imam. Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini. Comp. Hamid Algar. Berkeley: Mizan, 1981. Print.
[9] Helfgott, Leonard M. Iranian Studies. N.p.: Taylor and Francis, 1980. Print. Vol. 1 of The Structural Foundations of the National Minority Problem in Revolutionary Iran. 4 vols.
[10]Rahnema, Saeed, and Sohrad Behdad, eds. Iran after the Revolution. London: I.B.Tauris, 1995. Print..
[11] The Rule of Law, Islam, and Constitutional Politics in Egypt and Iran
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ghonim, Wael. Revolution 2.0. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. Print.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Saleh, Yasmine. "Egyptian Revolution Brings Show of Religious Unity." Reuters. Reuters, 18 Feb. 2011. Web. 9 July 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-egypt-christians-idUSTRE71H6KA20110218>.
[16] "Profile: Egypt's Mohammed Morsi." BBC News. BBC News, 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 9 July 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18371427>.
[17] Zakaria, Fareed. "Egypt's Real Parallel to Iran's Revolution." The Washington Post. Washington Post Company, 7 Feb. 2011. Web. 9 July 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/06/
AR2011020603398.html>.
[18] Abdelaziz, Salma. "Egypt's Revolution: 'We fell in love, but it was a trick.'" CNN. CNN, 23 May 2012. Web. 9 July 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/ 05/23/opinion/egypt-revolution-heartbreak/>.
[19] "Profile: Egypt's Mohammed Morsi."
[20] "One Year after Morsi’s Ouster, Divides Persist on El-Sisi, Muslim Brotherhood." Pew Global. Pew Global, 22 May 2014. Web. 9 July 2014. <http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/22/one-year-after-morsis-ouster-divides-persist-on-el-sisi-muslim-brotherhood/>
[21] Ibid.
[23] Schlesinger, Joe. "For Egypt, the Comparison Is Iran, minus the Mullahs." CBC News. CBC News, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 9 July 2014. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/for-egypt-the-comparison-is-iran-minus-the-mullahs-1.1060476>