 عندما نمتلك السؤال والمدريتر والمدريتر وكنت أخبرت أني أحب أن أمدريت أو إشارة أولاً حقاً أنني أخبرت أنه مجموعة جيدة في نبيل فاهمي هو أبرومنان تبلومات ومجموعة أكاديمية لذا ما أفعل here أجد أن أفعل my homework just in case عندما أفعل my homework and researching the net about nabil أأتي لأجد شيئاً أخبرت him to give me latitude أأتي لأجد إسمعيل فاهمي أخبرت أخبره إسمعيل فاهمي who was a minister for funeral affairs in Egypt from 73 to 77 ويأتي لأجد شيئاً عندما أفعل that أخبرت إسمعيل فاهمي أخبرت إسمعيل فاهمي أعتقد أنه سيكون مجموعة جيدة سيواجد رسالتنا with the Arab countries and destroy our leadership of the Arab world وعن أنت بشكل جيد لديها رسالات تحتها أخبرت بشكل جيد ويأتي لأجل أو أجل مع حالة فاهمي هذا ليس سؤال تصدر إسمعيل فاهمي لأن عندما أفعل لأجبني الممارسة ، فهي ربما only for a minister who resigned in Egypt, modern history, own principle. After that, he joined the Luft-Barty as a member of parliament for Egypt in 1984. That takes us to Nabil and you can see a lot of the DNA have passed along. He is a very prominent diplomat who served as Egypt ambassador in Japan, then served for two subsequent terms as our ambassador in United States. He had a bachelor degree of science and wait for it. It was in physics and mathematics, two of the most difficult subjects really to study or at least to me that's why I became a doctor. Then he accepted to be a foreign minister in Biblawi government and he was saying to me he insisted that his first foreign visit was to Sudan. So it just shows us how the man think and how he want to bullurize the foreign policy of Egypt during this difficult time. He got his honorary PhD from the Ministry Institute at Middlebury in 2009. Nabil also is the founder and the dean of the School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the American University. Nabil will take us through a beautiful journey, a century of politics. He will talk about the 1919, its strengths, its short form and how really it led to subsequent three revolutions to follow in one century. Without any further ado, I would like to introduce His Excellency Nabil Fahmi and after that we'll have a question and answer session. Thank you very much Dr. Khanna that was very nice of you. I'd like to thank the three hosts of this event. I think it's a wonderful opportunity for me to be back in London Brexit or not but it's also an opportunity to come here on a very important and momentous occasion which is the centennial of the 1919 revolution in Egypt with everything that it holds for us and it's a very important place in history. Before getting into my speech however I want to issue a personal expression of gratitude to James Watt. James is an old friend of longstanding when you get on in age you use that term rather than old but also a very acknowledged and talented diplomat and I've had many many occasions to engage with him in the past and we've been able to move things forward and manage things where we disagreed in a very civilized and constructive fashion so thank you James for suggesting that I come here. Ladies and gentlemen I'm both a practitioner I'm actually more a practitioner than an academic or a politician although I've I argue that I've actually been a practitioner in all three of them different periods of time because of that I'm very careful about looking at history and how I use how I assess and then how I use my conclusions of historical events. I will admit that on many occasions I've used what I found useful to serve policies or arguments that I was putting forward but when I put my leg into the other side of the story the more academic part of the story and I become a bit more careful in drawing conclusions so I come to you today a bit hesitant I don't like to assess things so far back it's not only because I may not know all the facts I fear a serious historian you can do rigorous work and get as many facts as you want but it's because assessing isn't only about facts it's not about hard assets it's about a lot of intangibles what's the context of these decisions what how are the decisions taken what was expected at the time and therefore I made it a point to use the world polity rather than the word politics in title of my speech because for me polity made the whole context of the body politic of what was happening and yes it's useful to to assess from afar because you can be objective but at the same time and I can tell you from my own personal experience occasionally one looks back and sees everything as flowery and wonderful because the situation you're passing through at a point of time is challenging and you can look back and hold those events the standards that you've said now that didn't exist then and then unfairly judge those events in an unfair fashion so I just wanted to make that point because I think any historical analysis and evaluation needs to be done with the respect of context and the context may be different so let's do these things a bit cautiously to focus my discussion today I'm going to refer to basically four events focus is going to be 1919 but let me throw four events at you 1919 revolution in Egypt which resulted in the independence from britain the establishment of constitution and a political system that did not exist prior to that 1952 revolution which shifted from a monarchy to a republic among other things the january 25 2011 where we hit we witnessed a contemporary evolutionary awakening although and it ended in uh Muhammad Muhammad khosni مبارك's end of term and then we moved on and in June and July 2013 to a situation where Muhammad morsi the elected president at the time was removed now I tend to use terms carefully and you'll understand why I describe each one of these a bit differently or at least the the last two since 1919 or actually 1919 the first of the four it was unique because it was basically initially a call for the rejection of foreign rule that's how it started these subsequent movements in Egypt the other three tended to be initially a domestic interest rather than of international interest although the international dimension also came in quite quickly there is however a common element in all four all four of these events were a call for freedom and I argue that 1919 was the the beginning of a century of a call for freedom in Egypt and in many ways with the achievements and disappointments these four events tend to be uh connected in in one way or the other again being torn between practice and academia uh one tends to define revolutions only as a success if they actually actually only as revolutions if they actually change political structures and or political practices uh the standard set in 1919 however which was not met in all the other cases was a very high standard at the same time I argue that the achievement of 1919 which cannot be little did not conclude successfully because it was not sustained and therefore the emergence of three other events were in were in effect a result of that if you look at from 1919 to 2011 the major structures in Egypt were a monarchy and four presidents 100 years 92 years from 2011 to 2019 eight years we've had four presidents so and actually if you drop the last four you even in those four years just have four presidents since 1919 Egyptian polity has gone through incremental progressions forward as well as numerous regressions backward as the body politic tries to find the center of gravity tries to find where exactly it's comfortable with and the irony of that or the reason for that is that we've tried to define political aspirations of the people according to the political system at the time what could the system cope with one in actual fact the political system should be defined by what the aspirations are and since we haven't been able to برج that gap we've had these continuous issues of progressions and regressions I think one of these things that are extremely important about 1919 also is its composition it initially started by the liberal elite but was immediately very very quickly supported by many many more people of different categories not only in the urban areas but also in the rural areas and it started as a struggle for independence but nevertheless was possibly because of that was able to evolve in a process where Muslims Christians people of no faith rich poor leftist rightist Islamists all found reason to accommodate themselves in spite of their different opinions on many many contentious issues there were problems there were disagreements but the ultimate result is that Egyptians were able to come together and that's why I actually and I and the title of this of this today event is very important 1919 did not only succeed in creating structures that by which Egypt would be governed it did not only succeed in establishing a constitution the process itself as I said brought the people together but I think most importantly 1919 helped establish the national identity of Egypt which governed who we felt we were for many many decades thereafter the content of the of the constitution then was basically a very inclusive constitution it involved everybody and everybody had the same rights as citizens within that national identity irrespective of whatever faith gender political inclination you had and I can go on and give you examples and details of different parties whether it's Hezbollah the national reform party the people's party the weft party they all had and I would add to them Islamist parties as well they all had different inclinations but they felt that the national identity of Egypt was one that they could work within and pursue whatever objectives they may have at a later point and this pull factor in spite of the fact that it was initially started by liberals who took the issue of independence as the primary catalyst and who took liberalism concepts from Europe much more than from the middle east as their core but they were able to use those elements because of the inclusive nature and gather Egyptians generally around them now it wasn't it wasn't only by the way something that was purely of Egyptian context it was about each Egyptian independence but at the time you saw other Arab countries in the middle east asking to be recognized in the process of what's happening in Egypt that happened from Syrian politicians it happened in the Sudanese revolution in Iraq and in the Palestinian they all referred to what's happening in Egypt and consequently wanted to pursue again the same independence posture so the implications of that revolution regionally way before there was the internet or social networks or frankly television the implications then were much wider than one tends to appreciate now another point to take into account in the Egyptian context like any healthy society we always like to disagree and there are different assessments of the 19 revolution in Egypt today but I find very few people actually find it to be something that was detrimental to Egypt I actually don't know any who do I know some who will argue that it was not as successful as one claims others who will argue that it was more successful than one could have expected given that we were colonized at the time but if you compare it to the other three events I mentioned this actually continues to have 100 years later a lot more support a lot more positive response a commentary on it than any one of the other three irrespective of what was right and what was not but my critique to 1919 is with all of its marvelous achievements if it had established a sustained and it established a pluralistic political system but had it achieved a pluralistic political culture it would have been much more sustainable than it was then then we actually seen now again I'm moving rather quickly here but historians will tell you of examples of problems including British involvement in trying to put a cap on this trend and specifically on trying to draw differences and arguments between the different Egyptian parties are interpretations of the constitution adopted at the time encouraging the king to play not a sovereign role but much more of an executive role and consequently and the constitution did at the time allow him to play a significant role so there were problems and there were difficulties by the 1940s you could read into the environment in Egypt at the time that people were starting to complain about we achieved freedom but we didn't achieve equanimity or at least aren't treated equally and again talk started to emerge about corruption especially the influence of the monarchy on the system and so on and so forth slowly that talk moved towards okay how do we act on these things in other words other revolutions and that's really the beginning of the process until we reached in 1952 as I said do not underestimate what happened in 1919 because of the fundamental structural change that occurred in Egypt including in institution making but more importantly what it did in terms of defining what Egypt what Egyptians thought they should be and the one of the strongest tests if you want Egyptians were trying to or were complaining that practice was not commensurate with the content of the constitution itself so they weren't actually comparing themselves with another country they were saying that this is not the the the practice that we expected to get with this constitution and that's what led up to the crisis ultimately with the with the king with king Ferouh in 1952 now the 1952 events about the Nasser and the free officers basically picked up the social agenda the issue of social justice as the core of their message it wasn't initially about a foreign power it was basically about disparities inside Egypt itself and both the issue and the personalities particularly in Nasser were very attractive issues to population as a whole it gained support very quickly but as it gained support very quickly both inside and outside Egypt the form of government moved from a more liberal pluralistic system to one that much more central focused on a strong hand of government and as the years went by the concept of liberalism slowly started to erode in our system and I would argue that 1952 was caused by the lack of sustainability in 1919 but in actual fact it didn't build on 1919 to move further towards the objectives of the constitution in the 1920s but rather the other way around and again the 1952 was initially domestically driven it did not come from the liberal elite it came from the military and it was basically focused on a social class it was the beginning of the slow erosion as I mentioned of the liberal system and if you want even a tighter context for pluralistic for a pluralistic political culture Arsadet who succeeded Nasser he everybody talks about his foreign policy positions but they ignore his domestic positions in actual fact he started or he once again opened the door for a multi-party system in Egypt first by what we call Manabar or if you want platforms or podiums and then ultimately parties but that being said and to be fair while he encouraged the number of parties that emerged he was not again personally purely committed fully committed to pluralistic politics which basically means people have the right to share power people have the right to hold you accountable besides expecting the efficient management of public goods and services so I would argue that while Arsadet's years in office were softer in terms of practice than Nasser's in terms of politics and while he did open the door for the emergence of the of political parties including the return of the weft party by the way he himself fell back into his own regression and less than a few weeks before he was assassinated he actually put all of his opposition in prison at the same time left right and center which is not the normal thing you would do مبارك came in after Arsadet and spent 30 years in office first step first number of years were actually marvellous first thing he did was release everybody in prison all the politicians from prison second thing he tried to do important thing I mean there were many many things was okay let's recenter Egypt in the middle of the Arab world so we can manage our regional context properly and gain the benefit of our context that being said and both Arsadet and مبارك by the way initially with Arsadet continued with مبارك allowed for the return of the Islamists the Muslim brotherhood into the political party system there is no question that the مبارك era was more open than eras before it since the beginning of the republic uh was it a western european democracy no but you could express your opinion on many many things until you sort of hit the wall and that was not necessarily frequent but it happened uh there were maybe the former parliamentarians in the room here can can correct my correct me but there were over 100 parties in Egypt I can't name seven frankly of them but there are over 100 parties or were over 100 parties that started with Arsadet and went through uh with مبارك and he did not use it wasn't rough with unopinion issues so I could argue that 30 years there was a lot more room to discuss and what I'm focusing here on is political discussions the economic discussions and the sort that went to much higher and wider level but I'm basically talking about the issue that we deal with when we talk about democracy basically political discussions so I would argue that مبارك actually left a lot more room for a much longer period of time but to be credible he had a much longer period of time as well so one would have argued that given that time he should have been more successful than Zadet or even Nasr in creating if he truly believed in this in creating a political culture in Egypt that respected a multi-polar political culture and that frankly did not happen I would argue that we had a multi-party system but one that was artificial and if I challenge anybody here who can name 20 of the parties that existed at the time and that's just one example and all of you here are interested in Egyptian parties through myself and that's the point I make I think that مبارك gave a lot more room for people to work but on establishing a political democracy there was quite a way to go 2011 I used to live 100 yards from Tahrir Square so I could not only see what was happening I could smell it I could hear it I was not an activist simply an Egyptian interested in what's happening and what happened in 2011 basically started with very limited ambitions it started on police day because it was a reflection of anger against the police and there were specific incidents that they referred to where they wanted better police practices and then they wanted amendments to the constitution to ensure that you had a more democratic system but this was a grassroots system grassroots emergence again I don't call it a revolution only because I'm an academic now but as somebody in this street I would call it revolution I think it was a revolutionary awakening by any standard and the only real point where you can determine whether it was a revolution or not is the long term effects of it but anyway more importantly this was grassroots no leaders no no precise goal to change structures the precise goal was to simply get better police practices and ensure some transfer of power in the future it quickly emerged into something much larger but it also had another problem if you assume that in 1919 these were the political elite and in 1952 this was Egyptians from the military who had political views but worked within a structured system well 2011 they were neither that nor that they didn't have a a fixed system through which they would channel their efforts efficiently nor frankly did they represent either experienced politicians or military so this was truly a grassroots step that started one that did not have a defined goal that was major but as the days went on the goal expanded and the numbers increased and I argue that the core of this group were centrist youth irrespective of who joined them later or who tried to take advantage of them that's not unique to 2011 but I still think that while I'm not ready to academically define them as a revolution I do I think one should not underestimate the context and the importance of the awakening that happened then and therefore I will use the term revolutionary awakening quite comfortably if you listen to if you visit Egypt today you'll sense what I'm talking about because everybody wants a better situation whether it's 2011 youth whether it is the old guard before 2011 whether it is the middle class or frankly whether it is those who are in power everybody feels that the system is not efficient enough they will have different degrees of criticism but in actual fact the idea that governments are supposed to provide in an efficient fair fashion public goods and services and that individuals have rights of citizenship are issues being debated in Egypt today although we haven't reached yet the level where we would like to reach my conclusions are actually quite simple all of these revolutions starting with 1919 all of these events starting 1919 are intermittent progressions or regressions they had 1919 hasn't finished yet nor have any of the others if we were to have a sustainable structure as well as a sustainable political culture of a pluralistic political culture then I would tell you that 1919 has succeeded but that you cannot argue that because we haven't reached that point yet that 1919 was not successful or that it did not have a historic context and I would argue that among the four events I mentioned I don't doubt at all that in terms of the word revolution I think 1919 is the one that most strongly corresponds to the definition of revolutions I would argue that 1952 would be the second in line in that respect irrespective of whether you agreed with 1919 or 1952 because it did change structures I would not underestimate or belittle the importance of 2011 but it has not it did not result in a structural change and therefore I add the word awakening after revolutionary rather than simply stop at revolutions and what happened in 2013 onwards well I won't debate when the Muslim Brotherhood or the Islamists got engaged on 2011 they were not initially behind it as I said it was about centrist youth like any smart political organization they jumped at the opportunity when they saw a vacuum a vacuum created most of all by the erosion of liberal of liberal politics four or five decades before that so what happened was you had youth on the ground and even the more senior liberal politicians in Egypt had not practiced pluralistic politics for generations so there was nobody really there to pick up on the aspirations of 2011 and the Brotherhood which were the most efficient immediately jumped in why did 2013 happen I've always believed in freedom of speech freedom of faith you name it you can think and express yourself any way you want within the constitution sure every country has to have its rules and procedures but in essence I'm sure some people back home don't like my views but they have to cope with the fact that I'm as Egyptians anybody else and that's the same context that I apply frankly with the Muslim Brotherhood if they were Brits I'd send them back to you by the way but they're not they're Egyptians they're Egyptians so but what's the problem the problem for me even for somebody who is a strong believer in differences of view the problem really is that for the Brotherhood Egypt is part of the Oma for me the Brotherhood is part of Egypt so it comes into an issue of identity is the Oma the identity or is it Egypt the identity as I said were they to accept a place in the system but accept the national identity of the country then they would have found much more resonance they wouldn't have acted the way they did by the way and they would have found much more resonance than they did once you start projecting the country that it's part of something larger than your national identity which was defined clearly in 1919 has historical background but in 1919 that's really where the problem was so 2013 2013 I don't really it did not change structures it changed direction it was a recreation of direction so and it did have wide ranging support but it didn't really result in a change of the system of government but strangely enough if you look at these four events leading up to each one of them if you could do what you guys like to do here which is analyze things objectively at arms length five or ten years before each one of them you would have concluded that this event is never never whether it was 1919 1952 2011 or 2013 my concluding remark I think 1919 will remain a historical landmark in Egyptian history that is not challenged or you cannot challenge credibly I think it has had a much larger impact on national identity in any other event in contemporary Egyptian history it was and everything after it all the polity after it was a call for freedom and which remains an aspiration we strive for in Egypt today thank you very much thank you very much for such a beautiful trip and I'm sure you raised quite a few issue which will raise considerable questions and I take the view that the 1919 while you accepted have basically established independent created a parliament and a beautiful constitution in 1923 but however it has failed to create pluralistic culture and multi-party systems which was practiced for a short period in Egypt till the 1952 the people may take the view that this strong hand of nasa regime have really killed any hope of a multi-political party system and they have gone deliberately to eradicate such a polarity within the Egyptian society however it is of you you raised that the 1911 was revolutionary awakening in sorry revolutionary awakening in academic sense and not a revolution maybe people will take some different view so as we have a 15 minute for questions I may I take may I use my brogative I was German to ask you a simple question there was two men during their period and this they were contemporary to each other and both they were liberal and both studied low but Mustafa Kamil really took the view of the rise of the caliphites and he believed in it particularly after the failure of the ottoman empire and Sadzah Loul took completely different view why one man succeeded and the other have not got a grip during that period in Egypt let me just first comment on your introduction what I said was 1919 in my mind succeeded in many many ways but its successes were not sustainable and that's which is specifically the sustained multi-party political culture that was not sustainable and that's what led to 1952 so you can one can blame 1952 with a lot of things but the culture didn't exist I mean 1952 actually occurred because the culture didn't exist not it didn't cancel the culture it was very very open in saying we moved in the opposite direction rather than moving forward in that direction the other point I think it's again I think it's important to rather than trying to judge one success of one leader or the other look at the context 1919 started with we want independence from the brits we want to attend the peace conference that brought Egyptians together and ultimately the polity the success or failure of one politician versus the other is a function of who can deal with the context as a whole I would argue that the ability and first of all the sense of politics is important the sense that there's one of my mentors many many years ago told me never make the best enemy of the good and he was a very ambitious person and he actually got noble price so it's not somebody who was not creative but my point really here is politicians in particular have to stand on principle but no when and how to compromise without violating principle it's not about getting 100% of your result but it's not also about for the sake of remaining in power you drop your principle and move on so I would argue context differs different constituencies respond and also the practices of each politician is an important issue here thank you very much now I open the question to the floor please make your question concise and don't make a statement please please can you introduce yourself my name is Abdullah Humuda I'm an Egyptian journalist editor of timesofegypt.com by any measure if any intellectual discourse valued on the basis of not only providing information but raising question I think you have succeeded on both counts I there are so many questions but I will go on one which is very simple and very significant 1919 will remain in the egyptian history as an iconic revolution and does not create much controversy like others was this related to the fact that it did not engage in socially change or economic restructuring and remained with a well-defined objective which was able to get all elements of the nation together that's a fascinating question in many respects I'd say yes but let me argue that it chose a nationwide goal that people shared which started with orobi years before the issue of independence nationalism that was the ideology behind it and it was it had leadership the political elite were the leaders the conceptualizers even when they differed and they differed on a lot of the the the the different steps in the dialogues the discussions with with the brits on the conditions for going to the peace conference and so on so they had the differences ultimately they kept moving with the specific objective of we want independence and we want them to create a national structure for governance thereafter as they started to deal with the other issues these social issues and economic issues or if I may because they didn't deal enough with them that's what where you saw some people building on the the debate about corruption what was not I mean he did not argue independence he basically argued social change in other words there had not been social change so yes 1919 succeeded because it had a clear message on which Egyptians could gather around but I think it wasn't sustainable because it had to deal with those other issues as well as you move forward I think NASA's goal of social change is a legitimate goal I don't necessarily share the execution of that and to achieve social change you're supposed to create social change at a higher wider level rather than reduce that particularly issue of again pluralistic politics so in many ways I'd say yes that's why it is considered to be it was considered to be so successful but I also think that's probably one of the reasons why it ultimately was faced with 1952 thank you Mr. Ambassador thank you so much thank you thank you Dr. Nabil for the well articulated presentation you're excellent in all the events that you have mentioned 19-19-19-52-20-11-2013 you haven't mentioned names at all is it intentionally or you don't believe in the role of leaders or you're going to mention again thank you for that question you correctly read was on my mind if I read to you my comments here you'd find all the names that being said I actually think the issues are larger than the names so I said the liberal political elite but I did not name them because there are the leaders that are known and there are many many others who played a role in the polity which is a bit different from the politics so I intentionally did not mention names from the beginning to the very yet but having been a practitioner mostly in diplomacy but and other things as well people do make a difference leaders do make a difference so I wasn't belittling any particular leader in any of this but I was just making the point that the issues are a bit larger than than the leaders and I did not want to make the mistake of not preserving the proper balance between different leaders but it's an excellent point thank you thank you I will start really take somebody from behind and then this lady please yeah thank you my name is john mckeago following on from the point about big names I think one of the difficulties in Egyptian politics after 1919 was the big personalities who were behind political parties and all that went with that even if they were liberals in their beliefs I mean I I understand that Saad Zarul towards the end of his life considered parliamentarians who opposed him almost to be traitors to Egypt he came to identify himself to an extent with the nation you can certainly see that in Gamal عبدل ناسر and then Anwar Saadat and Hosni Mubarak followed in Nasser's shoes possibly because a structure had been erected for them to do so perhaps you can see the same with cc today I just like your comments on that do you think that perhaps one of the reasons why a political قلتر of participation a liberal political culture didn't establish itself in Egypt as you said at the beginning of your talk do you think that was to some extent connected with the emergence of big dominating personalities which of course may have been inevitable given the stage of history thank you well it's it's sort of or the answer to that I can either address it by saying I agree with both sides of that argument or I can say that the reason for the problem though are both points you're making my my as the essence of my response or my belief at least is you will need leaders to إستانشوائد and implement big events and if you look at 1990 1952 irrespective of what one felt they had leaders therefore they were able to create change if you look at 2011 a very inspiring and if you are if you were in Egypt at the time very emotional societal event but in the absence of leaders it was not able among other reasons it was not able to transform itself into a structural a process of structural change now of course if you don't have pluralistic political culture then a big ego becomes a problem if you do then it's bound by okay you can push the limits and that's why I would argue that I think that one of the best achievements of 1919 I said the best one was the natural identity but the second best one which is actually a part of the identity was the constitution the constitution and it wasn't perfect it established rules of the game that allowed the process to evolve for a number of years before you got the frictions with the king and so on and so forth so whether you have big lead a big ego as big leaders or not if you have a solid constitution that helps contain everything so you have leadership which is positive dimension and you also have the rules of the game now there are there is a unique case where you actually don't have at least in written form a constitution right here okay thank you very much okay this lady but the culture is there and therefore the culture is there for the practices I respect thank you thank you this lady and I will allow for one more question from this young man and then we'll break down because I've been told to keep to time please my name my name is elaha مهتشام I'm a British Iranian academic working in London first thank you so much for covering such a span of time and enlightening us and it was very interesting for me to to see that as a former foreign minister of Egypt you haven't in your excellent talk talk about the role of foreign elements is it because you really don't think they had such a or or any major influence or are there any other considerations thank you so much thank you again I did I mean this is a very educated audience by the way I did make a passing reference that the of the British role and the effects regionally and internationally but you're right I intentionally did not focus on the foreign dimension personally for two reasons I'm Egyptian this is Egypt story it's our success our failures and I truly believe that foreign powers can help and they can be detrimental but if we do things properly that's what it's the governing context or secondly I you know excuse my my my candidness and I say this respectfully easy thing in the world is to to blame a foreigner okay we've done it doesn't solve anything so anybody who wants to blame can have it but I'm more focused on the Egyptian role and that's where I thank you very much I just allowed this young man and that will close the session well thank you very much my name is Sharif Haber-Hadeed I'm not actually I don't come from a political background I come from biological sciences background so I have a very simple question so you draw a comparison between the political حدث of 2011 and 1990 and since I'm from the generation that actually that witnessed and 2011 I have a very simple question do you think that's actually that maybe the political careers are due to the lack of education because for example when I was back in Egypt studying we didn't actually like in class we didn't get to know in depth what happened at 1919 and all the other political movements and we didn't even scrutinize all the political movements that happened back then so that's why when we actually when we started to do a political movements of our own maybe you can say we were quite like no obvious in a kind of way and very innocent as well so I would like to hear your comment on this thank you again my focus really throughout the talk was the implications of 1919 on everything else it wasn't a comparison per se of 1919 to 1952 and 11 and 13 but your point is valid if you look at 1919 and 2011 they both had a very important focus they wanted a different practices governed by the constitution what did 1919 do after the independence immediately was the constitution what were the 2011 movements pushing they were pushing better police practices and then they wanted revisions to the constitution to ensure that they had a role in the future but I would also اد you're confirming the point I'm making part of establishing a pluralistic political culture is an understanding of history understanding of how these systems work and then a period of congestion where you actually practice these because believe me from your age to my age I've made thousands mistakes and I only made them because I tried and if you don't get the chance to make them you're not going to be able to succeed so I may not have been elaborate enough but yes when I meant culture I meant including the lack of of education particularly in in politics thank you well thank you very much for a fantastic topic and thank you in a bill and thank you for being a fantastic audience who really holds to the heart and the spirit of the topics today given by نبيل and we're going for tea or something you take it from there now thank you