Prohibition of Facebook is useless

IRD: In recent political events in Egypt, what media have been most active and effective?

YK: Answering this question requires scientific study, but as analysts have frequently pointed to the social networks in analyzing Egyptian and Tunisian political events, I have to say that social networks, and particularly Facebook, have the highest influence on fashioning and expanding these political revolutions. It was because of the vast capacity of these networks that the youth and protesters could succeed in coordinating among themselves. On the other hand, the role of the traditional media should not be forgotten.

In my personal opinion, Aljazeera (International TV Network) was one of the most effective and influential media in these events. This channel had set aside one its cameras to report 24-7 from the famous Al-Tahrir Square. Mubarak reacted harshly to that: he closed this channel’s bureau in Cairo.

In general, modern and traditional media together have a high influence on public opinion and on directing it. However, it should be noted that if citizens of a certain country have comparative welfare and freedom, the media cannot easily encourage them to protest. The background must have been prepared and the people must believe  that the current trend is not in their or their country’s interest.

IRD: What are the differences between TV networks such as Aljazeera, Al-Hayat, and Al-Mehwar, and internet media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, in Egypt?

YK: I was unable to watch Al-Hayat or Al-Mehwar, and apart from Aljazeera and other international channels such as the BBC, VOA, RT (Russia Television), and CNN, I have no information about the quality of other network’s programs. Among modern media, I was mostly informed from news and people’s opinions in Egypt and other regions of the world through Facebook and Twitter. Generally speaking, it seems that modern media, particularly social networks, have been playing the greatest role in harmonizing and uniting people, and traditional media have only had an informing role. Anyhow, in our analyses we should consider a complicated collection and avoid shallow-mindedness, because in today’s world and in certain countries, there are indeed many complications and perplexities.

IRD: In the 80-million population of Egypt, one out of four people are internet users. How much do think this could affect the development of the revolutionary evolutions in today’s Egypt?

YK: According to your numbers, 20 million people have access to internet then, which is not a low number in the adult population of this country. On the other hand, although we are living in the communication era we still cannot ignore or underestimate the role of verbal communications. At any rate, for a public revolution, there is no need for all or most of the people to have been supplied with communication tools. If there are shouts and screams, their echo will be heard – through the media.

IRD: In your opinion, the influence of the internet on politics in today’s Egyptian society: is it mainly to the advantage of democratic demands in the public movement of the Egyptians? Why?

YK: In my belief, if the media are obliged to their professional obligations and duties, they have the capacity to be an effective factor in the spreading of democracy, freedom, peace, and collaboration inside and outside of countries. There is no doubt that modern media, especially the internet which, contrary to the traditional media, has no owner or proprietor, has accelerated the process of democracy all around the world – and in Egypt, too—and this is one of the benefits such networks. Why? Because as we were saying in the old days: “Power is Knowledge” or “One who Knows is Capable”. New media has caused faster circulation of news and information around the world and no government can own and control information any more. What frightens dictators and terrifies governments the most is people becoming aware, and what brings millions of people to the streets and squares is learning about the unknowns through the media. No one can censor, burn or easily control electronic waves anymore, as they had been doing with physical media.

IRD: While according to the latest (American) Pew poll, more than 80 percent of Egyptians approve of stoning adulterers and executing heretics, don’t you think that using the internet to overthrow the Egyptian current political system signifies the great influence of this media in the further distancing of Egypt from an undemocratic society?

YK: You know, democracy is an idea, a thought, a culture. Therefore, it cannot be easily imported or exported like merchandise. As long as the thoughts and minds are fixed and frozen and are not able to adapt themselves to scientific, artistic, communicational, industrial, and other great realities and developments, democracy cannot happen at once. To be created, developed and internalized, democracy takes time. However, there is hope that new media might cause different nations to improve.

IRD: A while ago, Al-Azhar University prohibited Facebook. How much can such verdicts impede the influence of internet media on development of the Egyptians’ democratic demands and movement?

YK: Why did they kill Galileo? Because what Galileo had found out through scientific and logical ways was opposed to what churches and clerics were teaching people. Prohibiting Facebook and other social networks might tranquilize the reformation process in short while, but in the longer term, it will not only be useless but also harm the credibility of the announcer of such verdicts or their universities. A university is a place where you can discuss ideas freely. A university that tries to restrain any innovations or new ideas is not a university any more.

IRD: Why do the people of Egypt often use Facebook and Twitter to synchronize their time and slogans?

YK: This is the capacity and functionality of social networks; why shouldn’t they? The Egyptians and other nations use various social networks for non-stop connection to millions of users in their own country or in the other countries of the world.

IRD: The number of internet users in Arabic countries grew from 16 million in 2004 to over 65 million in 2011. Can the influence of the internet on the Egyptians’ democratic demands give us hope that such a process might occur in other Arab countries that also have numerous internet users?

YK: As I mentioned, the access to, development, and possibility of using the internet can gradually substitute dictatorship with democracy in Egypt and other Arab countries, and then internalize it. The role of the media in development of democracy in the world is vital, hopeful, and inevitable.

IRD: In your opinion, what can be the effects of a total disconnection of the internet on political revolutions in the Middle East?

YK: As we saw, the people of Egypt have finally won, and the temporary disconnection of the internet could not force the protesters to give up their demands. Hundreds of radio, TV, newspaper and other journalists were watching them from around the world, and they were sending news via different means. Also, one should not forget that portable satellite transmitters, which need no phone line to send information, are available. Fortunately, in today’s digital world, restraining information by governments is decreasing.

IRD: Is it possible that in Egypt and other Arab countries, the internet could be used for establishing an undemocratic but non-secular regime in Egypt?

YK: Unfortunately or fortunately, I have to say that anything is possible. The media are just tools. What is important is who, how, and for what purpose uses it. Through media, you can make wars (Yugoslavia), encourage people to kill each other (Rwanda), brainwash, justify or teach superstition, or else you can promote peace, internalize harmony, learn collaboration, appreciate philanthropy, and walk in the path of public interest.