On the de-democratization of Egyptian universities

Egyptian universities are being subjected to a carefully designed de-democratization process. By de-democratization, I mean transforming universities from hubs helping to create out of students agents of change, into machines bent on producing citizens at once chauvinistic and compliant with the regime.

The democratization process was the result of decades of struggle that lead to the ousting of Mubarak and the opening up of the public sphere afterwards, briefly. Active communities are one of the most dangerous threats to the survival of authoritarian regimes like the one ruling Egypt. This is why immediately after the coup, there were massive efforts by both state and non-state actors to de-democratize academia. With the death of 16 students on campus, the suspension of 260 and the prosecution of 370 more, it has become obvious that the regime is intent on reversing the hard-earned gains of the academic community that were achieved in the first two years after the revolution. The first step of any academic de-democratization is to subdue its most powerful constituent, the students.   

Students have so far protested for multiple reasons. While some have demanded the reinstatement of Morsi, others have demonstrated against the state’s repressive crackdown on constitutional freedoms. Many feel that dissenting voices are being silenced. Students need to overcome many internal and external challenges if they are to form a successful, and impregnable, bulwark against this de-democratization.

There are currently two main external challenges facing students: The first is the administrative-led and state-backed attempts to depoliticize campuses. After the revolution, a new bylaw was issued to govern the organization and scope of student activities, including the right to political participation. The Egyptian Student Union was also relaunched after it had been banned by Sadat, along with all forms of political activity, in 1979.

This has allowed various political parties to establish student chapters on campus, a step that might have helped raise a young generation of responsible politicians and resourceful public activists well-acquainted with the grassroots work of political parties and plurality. In the long run, the chronic incompetence and isolation of the so-called political parties might have been significantly remedied. However, before the start of the academic year, Cairo University, Al-Azhar University and Ain Shams University banned all politically-affiliated student activity. Pluralism was murdered in its cradle and the already impotent political parties were permanently castrated.

The major issue is not just that a new restrictive student bylaw is being drafted. This time, unlike during the Sadat-era, censorship is not just a top-down process. Rather, it originates from the source, in a move similar to that used to abort Bassem Youssef’s program. It was the channel that aired the show itself, and not direct state intervention (which would have been politically costly), that ensured Youssef was taken off air. It is almost certain, however, that the regime intervened behind closed doors. The argument that universities are merely “places for learning and not to fight political battles” as stated by Gaber Nassar, president of Cairo University, is both deceptive and ignorant of the history of the Egyptian student movement.

University students played a central role in Egyptian politics long before the coup and even before independence. Education at its core is a political process to bring about change and improve the wellbeing of society. To remove politics from education, is to remove the life from politics.             

The second challenge is subduing the administration by placing it under executive control through the direct appointment of university officials. After January 25, the heads, deans and presidents of universities were all elected instead of appointed, after nationwide protests by students and faculty members demanded academic independence. A presidential decree last June unilaterally reversed this process. The decree stated that presidents, deans and heads of universities are to be appointed directly by the president. This aims to intimidate and co-opt faculty and prevent any Brotherhood sympathizers, or any regime critics in general, from assuming leadership roles.

This authoritarian step is accompanied by the return of state security to secure campuses, after it had been replaced by administrative security in 2011. Some argue that the presence of Interior Ministry officials on campus is merely to prevent violence, yet their interventions in student union elections and senior appointments is worrying for the academic community. In fact, in a move unprecedented, even during the Mubarak-era, a decree was issued stating that the military would be responsible for securing public buildings, including universities. This means protesters can be subjected to military trials, another move meant to intimidate students.

These challenges can be overcome through establishing a united front between faculty and students, not just to express discontent, but to organize for peaceful escalation if necessary. Faculty can form independent syndicates according to the constitution and students can unite in independent unions. The independence of academia should be regarded as a matter of national security and should be pursued at all costs.

Along with the external challenges come internal challenges — fragmentation, fear and poverty — that have distracted and exhausted an already fragile student front. Fragmentation is to be expected after four intensive years of political battles. On the one hand, the Students Against the Coup group are determined not to drop their claims to “legitimacy,” and their demand for the reinstating of Mohamed Morsi. They view all non-sympathizers as selling out the Rabea martyrs. On the other hand, non-affiliated protesters believe that if Morsi had been loyal to the revolution, there would have been no Rabea in the first place.

This widening gap between different factions was temporarily bridged when students representing the Muslim Brotherhood, the April 6 Youth Movement, the Dostour Party, the Strong Egypt Party, the Popular current and many other movements, signed a common statement to demand the immediate release of detained students last October. Seventy eight of these students were arrested from their homes on the night of the first day of classes. This incidental cooperation should be the first of many to come. This will help garner wider public support and give students higher leverage against both the administration and the regime. Students can show an ageing elite that it is possible to find common ground and manage conflicts through negotiation not violence.

Fear is perfectly natural at this moment in which the police state is reestablishing itself, while apathy is also to be expected after the tragedies of the last four years. The bloodshed has led to a state of mass desensitization. To overcome both, students need to launch their own politically independent platform for both communication and coordination. Ultimately, this is not the solution, but it is sure to help. It is the responsibility of those who know to make aware those who don’t know. During such times of repression, political participation often drops significantly. This is not always bad, for it is the perfect time to reflect over the past and organize for the future.

Rights are earned, not granted. Students will need to fight to protect their hard earned gains after January 25 and resist fierce de-democratization in order to protect their sanctuaries of knowledge and freedom. While the regime is eager to contain students, it must realize that the Egyptian youth is a force to be utilized and not suppressed. For, no matter how many bullets it may have, the pen shall always be mightier than the sword. Disenfranchized students will never support the regime as long as it is insisting on fighting terror on campus and not in Sinai. What greater terror is there than killing a country’s future by taking the soul of its students.

As Paulo Freire, the Brazilian philosopher and educator once said, “The system believes that it obtains from education one of the fundamental instruments for the reproduction of its power, and so dialectically, necessarily, must create its antagonist. Its antagonistic opposite, as a revolutionary task, belongs to us.”