What Egyptians Are Teaching the World
Relearning the lesson of a sixteenth-century philosopher.
In Egypt the powers that be continue to defy the peaceful throngs in the streets. Yet their rulers’ clumsy efforts to mollify the courageous people remind us of something usually overlooked about the nature of political power, namely, that ideas, not force, ultimately rule, for as Jeffrey Rogers Hummel says, ideas determine the direction in which people aim their guns.
This was well known to the sixteenth-century French political philosopher Étienne de La Boétie, author of The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, in which he wrote that to rule, tyrants require the cooperation of their subjects. (See my previous article on Boétie here.) It is doubtful that many Egyptians have read Boétie, but in filling Tahrir (Liberation) Square unarmed, they seem to have grasped his thesis. Here is an appropriate excerpt for the occasion:
“I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear.…
“But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give to it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man.…
“Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it….
“All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? …From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
Lovers of liberty will wish the Egyptians well as they strive to break free from tyranny. We might also thank them for the badly needed lesson.
Comment by Roger McKinney on 11 February 2011:
I think you have the situation in Egypt a little wrong. To understand it you have to understand the way Arabs think. Above all, they despise any sign of weakness in their rulers. Had Mubarak responded as the Iranian dictators did, with massive arrests, torture and killings, the Egyptian people would have responded the way the Iranian people did, by going home. But Mubarak cares what the US and Europe think about him, so he didn’t. His willingness to compromise in the early days signaled weakness to the people and encouraged them to continue in their opposition.
Do the Liberation Square protestors represent the majority of Egyptians? Who knows? They are a tiny fraction of the nation. Based on the history of the region and what I know about politics in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the protests. The MB is feeding the protesters and directing them. The MB will be all for elections until the first one is over and they have won. Then just as Khomeini did in Iran, Hamas did in Gaza, and HezbAllah did in Lebanon, elections will end and the people will find themselves under a Muslim dictatorship.
There is no grassroots cry for democracy in the Middle East. The choices are military dictatorship or Mosque dictatorship.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 11 February 2011:
If this were 1954, your case might be more persuasive. Much has changed since then. What is your evidence that the MB, which polls in the teens, is running things? Isn’t that Mubarak’s line?
Comment by Ed Roberts on 11 February 2011:
“There is no grassroots cry for democracy in the Middle East.” Maybe not, but there is a huge grassroots movement in Egypt for throwing off the yoke of a US backed tyrant. Democracy is probably not on the agenda for Egypt, and that’s fine by me. Democracy isn’t even the form of government established by our Constitution, so why should Americans want to “export” it to other countries?
“The choices are military dictatorship or Mosque dictatorship.”
Nonsense. Who offers these two choices, you? Are you Egyptian?
Egypt’s culture predates Islam by millenia, just as it predates the American empire and its local strongman, Mubarak. If Egyptian civilization reasserts itself, it may well result in a monarchy, but democracy is alien to Egypt and isn’t even a viable alternative to the current dictatorship.
Probably, the best thing the US government could do for Egypt is to totally cut off aid and all other ties and leave Egypt to the Egyptian people.
Comment by Russ Karlberg on 11 February 2011:
Excellent article – this should be required reading for everyone around the world. While reading it, rather than Egypt, I thought of the USA. Aren’t we also heading voluntarily towards greater government control of everything?
It’s time for all of us to just say “no” to any government that violates the rights of its citizens.
Comment by bionic mosquito on 11 February 2011:
We cannot know the reasons (or ALL the individual reasons) why the people took to the streets and stayed on the streets. We cannot know why the government and the military dealt with them (or didn’t deal with them) as they did. We cannot know to what extent these were indigenous protests as opposed to protests fomented by the west.
What we know is people took to the streets, and they did so in a non-violent manner. Every government proclamation was met with further scorn and increased masses. The one common objective of the protestors was to get Mubarak out. They did not stop for half-measures. They got this wish (apparently) today.
In every way they have set a wonderful example, and the excerpt above from Boétie is wonderfully appropriate.
The largest protests over the mess the politicians and others in power have made of world affairs have been in Greece and Egypt. Perhaps these two can once again lead the world into a new era of civilization.
Comment by Donald M. Coder on 11 February 2011:
Yes, the US voters are going the same way. They are whining for free health care, free housing, jobs, and in their weakness and servile desires they will get what they want and deserve. We have had our 200 years. Time to pass the baton to a people who want freedom, market economy, and opportunity.
Comment by N. Joseph Potts on 11 February 2011:
Roger McKinney (who, lacking an Arabic-sounding name, seems to know all about “how Arabs think”): may I bring up the issue of WHO is Arab?
Are the Iranians Arab? If not, does your lesson concern just how “Those People” think?
They all (or most of them) think the same, every time, and (this may be the catch) wherever/whoever/whatever They are?
Pingback by Pyramid Power on 11 February 2011:
[...] the lessons of La Boétie (if it was La Boétie); see, e.g., Sheldon Richman here and Lew Rockwell [...]
Comment by Dr. T on 11 February 2011:
What Egyptians taught the world: When a diverse group of persons with differing expectations for a future government protest against the rule of a wealthy, aging dictator, the dictator may choose to retire and let the military take control. The Egyptians have verified that you cannot change from a dictatorship to a republic or democracy just by protesting. Such a change takes years of advance planning, commitment by a cohesive group of influential leaders, the support of a large fraction of the public, and lots of groundwork before pushing for the change.
Egypt has switched from an individual dictatorship to a military dictatorship. It may keep the latter, switch back to an individual dictatorship, change to an oligarchy, or change to a theocracy. There is little likelihood of a more democratic government in Egypt in the near future.
Comment by Pat on 11 February 2011:
Sheldon, help me out on this.
From Boétie :
“Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing;”
“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.”
I agree the American people have become used to (and dependent upon) big government, the tyrant. However the tyrant here is not simply a single “he.” It is a monstrosity of politicians and well-placed bureaucrats (czars) who cannot simply be ignored. How do we in a meaningful and effective way “refuse to consent” and “serve no more”? And do so peacefully so that we are “at once freed”?
Certainly at the ballot box, but that’s not “at once.” It’s a long road to true individual liberty.
Pat
Pingback by ‘Massalama’, Mubarak! « ILBlog on 12 February 2011:
[...] artigo ‘O que os egípcios estão nos ensinando’ [What Egyptians are teaching the World”], Sheldon Richman, editor da publicação The Freeman, ressalta a importância das ideias sobre [...]
Comment by Kim on 12 February 2011:
“They are a tiny fraction of the nation”
Exactly. There are approximately 90 million people living in Egypt.
Only 1 million of them are actively protesting.
I think the dictatorship will be replaced by a new Islamic dictatorship. Very sad for the many non-muslims in Egypt.
Comment by Artemis on 12 February 2011:
Kim contends that “only 1 million” of the roughly 90 million protested against Mubarak’s regime. 1 million were in Cairo, plenty more in Alexandria, Suez and elsewhere in the country.
Only 500 people came out to show support to Mubarak’s regime.
So Kim, where does that leave your argument?
Comment by Artemis on 12 February 2011:
Roger McKinney:
“the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the protests”.
A worn-out claim which has been disproved time and again.
“The MB will be all for elections until the first one is over and they have won. Then just as Khomeini did in Iran, Hamas did in Gaza, and HezbAllah did in Lebanon, elections will end”.
Are you making this up as you go along? (a) There are regular elections in IRAN. (b) There was an election in GAZA and the resulting Hamas victory has been ignored only by the U.S. and its craven allies. (c) There are regular elections in LEBANON.
Try to keep up with the news.
Comment by Dr. T on 12 February 2011:
@Artemis: Elections are meaningless when the existing government chooses who will run and doesn’t allow anonymous voting. What McKinney and others meant was that there weren’t any meaningful elections.
When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, there were regular elections. Hussein selected his “opponent.” Voting was mandatory. Hussein always got more than 95% of the votes. Does that mean he wasn’t truly a dictator?
Comment by Scott on 12 February 2011:
For some reason, the fact that 20 days of protests can completely change a world power’s government doesn’t seem shocking to very many people, nor disturbing and troublesome to anyone. The reports from CNN actively calling for Mubarak’s removal only days into the “revolution” seemed incredibly cheap and hollow – where was the in-depth reporting on Mubarak’s regime of terror or horrible management of Egypt for years leading up to this? If things were so bad, which they might have been, why was the media attention devoid in the years leading to this event? Whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood was behind this really doesn’t matter, its obvious that the cleric’s will support any sort of disruption in governmental operations to create the appearance of support for their terror beliefs. Egypt will go from being a western ally to a terror threat within 10 years, just like Iran did.
Comment by Dr. T on 14 February 2011:
The military dictatorship has disbanded the Egyptian parliament (that had little power) and “suspended” the constitution (primarily to shortcircuit a call for elections).
“Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”
The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again”
Comment by Paul X on 15 February 2011:
The problem is not that the people don’t realize a tyrant rules through their consent (although that certain is yet another problem). The problem is, who will go first? Who will withdraw consent first? Who will refuse to pay taxes first?
The Boetie idea here is appealing, but there are practical considerations that need to be dealt with.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 February 2011:
Pat, Boetie was addressing himself to the bureaucrats and soldiers too. They don’t have to follow orders. There are more of them than of the tyrant and the cadre around him.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 February 2011:
Paul X, who went first in Egypt? This problem obviously is capable of being overcome.
Comment by Willis Carty on 5 February 2012:
gfziagbzuiawg http://gfziagbzuiawg.com gfziagbzuiawg.com
Comment by Floyd Heidkamp on 6 February 2012:
nice blog
Comment by Pozycjonowanie Wroclaw on 7 February 2012:
We don’t trust this remarkable submit. Nevertheless, I saw it gazed for Digg along with I’ve determined you can be appropriate so i ended up being imagining within the completely wrong way. Persist with writing top quality stuff along these lines.