It was just weeks before he left Iran forever amidst a massive nationwide demonstration against him that the Shah of Iran broadcast his last speech to the people, apologizing for his past mistakes. On November 5, 1978, he pleaded:
I heard the voice of your revolution. As Shah of Iran as well as an Iranian citizen, I cannot but approve your revolution. Let all of us work together to establish real democracy in Iran. I make a commitment to be with you and your revolution against corruption and injustice in Iran.
Not so for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He did not apologize for anything in his speech to the people on their day of rage today. He did not make any amends and in fact repeatedly reinforced his power and authority:
My instructions to the government stressed that they provide an opportunity to the masses to express their views.
The government committed to my instructions and this was clear in the way the police handled the demonstrators.
In my capacity as president of the republic and by virtue of all the power conferred to me by the constitution...
I address you today not only as president of your republic but also as an Egyptian citizen.
And then he used the phrase that has even come to be dreaded amongst Americans:
"I am shouldering my first responsibility to maintain the homeland security."
Like the Shah before him, Mubarak promised to change things. He promised that he cared about the people.
I will always take the side of the poor people of Egypt.
I have always been keen toward directing the government's policies toward economic reform to lift the suffering of the people.
He used phrases in succession that he rarely if ever had used before:
"impoverished"
"the poor"
"people of low income"
"unemployment"
"raise the standard of living"
"freedom of expression"
"healthcare"
"housing"
Like the Shah before him -- a man whose grave is in the heart of Cairo because he was refused burial in the nation of his birth -- Mubarak's big speech indicated how very out of touch he was with the reality of the people and the reality of his own shortcomings in addressing their concerns.
We will continue our political, economic and social reforms for a free and democratic Egyptian society, embracing modern principles.
I have always been keen toward directing the government's policies toward economic reform to lift the suffering of the people.
The problems facing us and the goals sought by us cannot be achieved through violence or chaos, they can only be achieved by national dialogue and conscious, concerted, genuine efforts.
His speech most spectacularly overlooked the irony that if it hadn't been for the "chaos," he would never have undertaken to speak to the public at 1 a.m. on a Friday night. In the end, his threats against the people, though carefully worded, were clear enough:
There is a fine line separating freedom from chaos.
While I take the side of the citizen's freedom to express their views, I also similarly adhere to defending Egypt's stability and security.
We should be conscious and aware of the many examples around us which drove people to chaos and mayhem where they gained no democracy or stability.
Meanwhile, the streets of Egypt are still packed. Journalists who can are reporting that the speech was meaningless to the people, as they continued to defy government curfews and demonstrate through the night.
The Shah's last speech was also ignored. He, too was trying to conceal his anger at the insubordination of his people -- the people he thought he owned, which he learned that he didn't. Resting, deep in the corridors of Cairo, today he must have shivered in his grave at the lesson he learned, which Mubarak will no doubt learn himself -- that is, if foreign governments do not interfere in the Egyptian people's demands and abilities to change the direction of their future.
Follow Shirin Sadeghi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ShirinSadeghi
First things first, Iranians are not Arabs. They also have performed the kind of revolution that happens right now....against the Shah over 30 years ago. The Iranian regime still has broad popular support, and the President is not all powerful there. The ayatollahs control him. During the Green movement, it was not about regime change. Just contesting the elections results (and a wake-up call for many regarding the theocratic regime). Nobody suggested to get rid of the ayatollahs altogether.
Also, as of right now, only Tunisia had ousted its long standing President. Egypt's might be on the brink, then he might manage to stay in power. Same thing in Yemen and Jordan. The other Arab countries with long-ruling dictators don't seem to share the Tunisian motivation. Algerians are already weary of all this violence. I don't hear anything from Morocco, Libya, North Sudan, Chad, Saudi Arabia, etc....
You just can't compare apples and oranges....Just sayin'....
Some Iranians do want a regime change but the grip of Islam is very strong. The only stability they enjoy is being a single-sect country.
Yes, the people in Iran want a regime change and more than that, they want to put the mullahs on trial for crimes against HUMANITY.
/s
Ben Ali initially gave a speech back in late December (2nd week of protests) where he made a lot of empty promises and asked people to calm down.
Then in Early January, with protests still going on and spreading around the country, he gave another speech blaming some terrorists elements for the uprising and protests, and also promised a cabinet reshuffle (this is what Mubarak did Yesterday), then few days later (1/13/2011), Ben Ali gave his final speech where he said: "Today, I understand your demand"..."Today, I will make sure we have a democracy in Tunisia"..."I was wronged by my advisers..." this speech is very similar to the Shah last speech.
The following day (1/14/2011), Ben Ali fled the country after more intense protests were organized throughout the country with people shouting "Dégage...Dégage...Dégage..." (meaning: Get out).
Now let's watch how this domino effect will be spreading throughout North Africa & the Middle East.
Courage is contagious, I believe all these dictators won't last another year.
Meanwhile, it is also clear that Egypt has no true organized opposition, just as the Shah of Iran had irradicated them all. What we are not hearing from these reports, is from those centers that Western reporters to go to, or have no knowledge of. Get ready for the Mosques to fill the vacuum!!
I would like that too. I am just pointing out that there is no attention being given to what the Islamists are doing.
Bahramerad-Did you even get the memo: "Shah died" years ago. Game has been over for you for 3 decades. Keep living in the past.
ding, ding, I'll go with door number 1
Leaders can get caught off guard when the don't at least listen to the message of their opposition. Mubarak is listening.
The murder of Khaled Said was cruel and gruesome. Egypt has a problem with police brutality. The whole region has a problem with brutality in general.
A leader is not defined by the most horrible misdeed done by someone who claims to support him. A leader is defined by what he does or does not do about it when something like that comes to his attention.
Judging by your picture you seem to be too young to remember what the Shah was about and what he had done for his country. He had many faults no doubt. And people like to recite the SAVAK song without really knowing what they are talking about. SAVAK's job was to purge the main opposition of the Shah that was a communist party called the Tudeh Party. In those days the threat of communism take over was real. In the end, based on Amnesty International reports, Shah's regime executed 300 people in almost 30 year of reign. IRI has executed 10,000 people in one day.
His achievements and shortcomings has to be placed in the context of history.
We often post our ideals in these forums with absolute terms without any room for compromise losing site of the fact that real life is anything but absolute. You have to accept the good with the bad, to a certain limit of course. We have that right here at home. We often accept many governmental indiscretions for the total good of society.
Plus comparing the Shah from the era of 1979 to the current events is futile at best. History has already judged that in the relative world that we live in, the Shah was a far superior option to what the Iranian people received, and for that matter the world received thereafter.
I doubt it.
"judging by your picture?" What young people can't have an opinion on history? So, why do historians talk about Alexander the Great? I guess they are old enough to remember.
Let's put the communist excuse aside, let's remember that the Shah toppled the democratic government of Mossadegh, so conviniently omitted in your comments. Sorry, sometimes its a little harder than your attempt to re-write history.
"Histroy has judged..?" really, or did you make yourself judge and jury, in the finest tradition of the Pahlavis?