Mubarak Was Not the Only King

Listen to the article, the audio text is automatically generated by a machine system.

Under the republican system, President Mubarak was not the only king, nor the first or the last king, but he was the king whose reign lasted until his true nature was revealed. The essence of the transformation that occurred at the head of power after the July 23, 1952 revolution was not the abolition of the title of king and monarchy and royal system, nor the establishment of the title of president and republic and republican system; this is a change in names and forms. However, the change in essence and content is: what happened after July was the tripling of the president's powers compared to the king's powers without the constraints and obligations imposed by the constitution on the king. Before July, the supreme authority was divided and contested among three parties: the king, the occupation, and the national movement through parliamentary governance. But after July, power was gathered, concentrated, and monopolized completely without division or contestation in the hands of the ruler. The president after July is a king in every sense, possessing powers that no ruler has enjoyed since the era of Muhammad Ali Pasha; even the Pasha himself always had constraints on his authority, whether from within or outside. The presidents after July are kings in reality, with the powers of kings but without the obligations of kings; they do not wear crowns of royalty but rather a feather of presidency that places them above the state, the people, the constitution, and the law until God alone decrees a matter that has been enacted. This truth did not manifest sufficiently in the thirty years preceding Mubarak's era. However, it became clear without concealment in the last ten years of Mubarak's rule, where the historical conditions matured for the phenomenon of the president to be, in form and name, a king in substance and action.

The explanation lies in the difference between the two revolutions: the 1919 revolution and the 1952 revolution. The former was purely popular, so the people had a share of power afterward represented in the parliament, parties, and the rotation of power through elections. The latter saw the role of the people and its civil elite not exceeding the ceiling of welcoming it and hanging hopes on it, as they had no share in power afterward except for the role of mobilization and rallying.

Quoted from Al-Masry Al-Youm