Mubarak was not the only king

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

Under the republican system, President Mubarak was not the only king, nor the first nor the last king, but he was the king whose reign lasted so long that his affairs were revealed. The essence of the transformation that occurred at the head of power after the revolution of July 23, 1952 is not the abolition of the title of king, kingdom, and monarchy, nor is it the establishment of the title of president, republic, and republican system. This is a change in names and forms. As for the change in substance and content, it is: What happened after July was that the president’s powers were tripled by the king’s authority, without him having the restrictions and obligations that the constitution imposed on the king. Before July, the supreme authority was divided and contested between three parties: the king, the occupation, and the national movement through parliamentary rule. But after July, full power was gathered, concentrated, and monopolized, without division or conflict, in the hands of the ruler. The president after July is a king of the three, a king who possesses powers that no ruler has enjoyed since the era of Muhammad Ali Pasha, or even the Pasha himself. His authority has always been subject to restrictions, whether internally or externally. Presidents after July are kings in reality. They have the powers of kings and do not have the obligations of kings. They do not have crowns of kingship on their heads, but on their heads is the feather of the presidency, which places them above the state, the people, the constitution, and the law until God alone decrees a matter that has already been done. This is a fact that did not appear sufficiently in the thirty years preceding the Mubarak era. But it became clear and unambiguous in the last ten years of Mubarak’s era, when the historical conditions matured for the phenomenon of the president to be equal in form and name to the king in content and action.

The explanation for the matter lies in the dispute between the two revolutions: the 1919 revolution and the 1952 revolution. The first was purely popular, so the people had a share of power after that, represented in parliament and parties, and the transfer of power through elections. In the latter, the role of the people and their civilian elite in it did not exceed the limit of welcoming it and pinning hopes on it, and they had no share in power after that except for the role of mobilization and mobilization.

Quoted from Al-Masry Al-Youm