How have Egyptians changed in the last 30 years under Hosni Mubarak and the three others leaders since the 2011 revolution? This question is at the heart of the following interview with Saad Ibrahim, former professor of political sociology at the American University in Cairo, Head of Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies and one of the most prominent political prisoners under Hosni Mubarak. Correspondents asked Ibrahim if he believed Egyptians would always make pharaohs out of their rulers and if Egyptians were only capable of being ruled by despots.

How have Egyptians changed in the last 30 years under Hosni Mubarak and the three others leaders since the 2011 revolution? This question is at the heart of the following interview with Saad Ibrahim, former professor of political sociology at the American University in Cairo, Head of Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies and one of the most prominent political prisoners under Hosni Mubarak. Correspondents asked Ibrahim if he believed Egyptians would always make pharaohs out of their rulers and if Egyptians were only capable of being ruled by despots.

Did Egyptian society witness changes under Mubarak and during the revolution years?

Under Mubarak, the society was frozen due to old leadership. The average age of Egypt’s rulers, including Mubarak in 2010, was about 70. Those who rebelled against them on January 25, 2011 were in their twenties and thus the age difference was at least 50 years.

This period in social sciences equals two generations and that implies that the gap between the rulers and the youth is two generations. This revolution has not happened only in Egypt but also in Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Morocco, Algeria and Jordan. It is worth noting that the royal ruling regimes were quicker to respond to the outraged youth in comparison with the republican ones.

Other than the fall of four regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen and the shaking of the Bahraini, Jordanian and Syrian governments,  (the battle is ongoing in Syria) what have been the results of these revolutions?

Firstly, the wall of fear has been broken.  In a country such as Egypt where the power is centralized (pharaohs, emperors, prince of believers and the president), authority has been feared for the last 6,000 years. The Arab Spring revolutions broke that wall.

Secondly, the entire society became interested and absorbed by politics after it was monopolized by 10% of the elite. Now all people talk about politics.

Thirdly, Egyptians now are ready to participate in the political life and the general mobilization.

Are these three changes positive?

Yes, of course, they are. Today, your mother might ask you “Where is the country going?” The common man became concerned about not just his family, tribe, village and neighborhood, but also about his country.  In sociology, in order for the national society to become part of the citizens’ daily conscience (as a process), 100-200 years are needed.

At that point, the reference framework is moved from the family and tribe to the nation, which happened in Egypt in only three years. Citizens started to be concerned about their country and ready to take part in the public life through the so-called one-million-strong protests.  Sometimes one can see a one-million-strong protest at Tahrir Square, a second at Mustafa Mahmud Square, a third at Rabea Square and a fourth at Itahadiya Palace.

We call this a social mobilization, when people are ready to get involved and become proactive after being passive for believing that they are simple people who know nothing about politics. All of that is different now.

Egyptians have lived for 30 years under Mubarak without a revolution and rebelled two times in just three years. They have lived for 6,000 years without toppling a single ruler and toppled two in three years. This shows the huge transformation that people went through psychologically in their capabilities and the degree of response to popular protests.

Prior to the revolution and under Mubarak, the criticisms levelled at the Egyptian character were sharp— that their loyalty to their nation ended and cherished only easy riches and neglected values and ethics. Has the revolution also brought about social changes?

There is a book titled ‘What Happened to Egyptians’ by Jalal Amin. I believe it is nostalgic. That is pretty evident when you read it closely. The author only selects sweet memories and mentions nothing negative about the past and then contrasts it with the terrible present.

I believe that the changes in the last three years have been positive, not just politically but also socially. The Egyptian revolution was civilized to a large extent. The number of people killed during the revolution’s three years is about 10,000 and it is well-known that during revolutions tens and hundreds of thousands die.

This indicates that Egyptians are civilized, love stability and are not prone to violence. This is the nature of the agricultural society or the river people. They love stability, growing crops and land. They wait for months until they can harvest their crops and keep some for drought times.

You believe the changes are positive but many people are afraid and worried due to protests and disability. Why, do you think?

I think those who lost power are afraid. Power is not limited to the country’s rulers. It could be in the family, neighborhood, university or workplace. There is a certain hierarchy. When the head of a family or a workplace manager feels that the youth are rebellious and have higher demands, they believe that things are out of order and the country is heading towards ruin. We are going from one achievement to the other. The road is clear. There are obstacles but the end of the road is clear.

There is a certain level of chaos and irreverence for law. Can any intervention change the dominant behavior of society?

Yes, the law should be enforced strictly on all people regardless of their status. That sends a message that the state is serious and accordingly, people change their behavior. For example, when a curfew was imposed, the Egyptians followed it because they felt it was serious.

The society and its behavior can be changed. I believe that if General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, the Minister of Defense, becomes president, and I think he will, since people love him, major and deep societal changes will be brought about.

But in your articles, you criticized dictatorships and considered them responsible for weakness and failure. Do you believe that the army’s rule can bring about positive changes in society?

It is only a viewpoint. We do not judge people by their clothes and the universities at which they studied. We consider their achievements, character and programs. Looking back in history, we see that Isin Hawar ruled the largest democracy in the world and Charles Degol was elected twice as president of France. Lots of people do not know that Jimmy Carter has a military background. The military’s record even in the democracies is not bad but it is not perfect either.

But why does not he go through the democratic process by quitting as a Minister of Defense, establishing a party and running for president, instead of coming by force?

Of course, that is better. If he wants to run, he should quit his current position first. The elections will be held within six months. Thus, he can leave his current position and prepare himself for the elections.