CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
The history of the 20th century is full of examples that demonstrate that violence resistance against unjust power systems, dictators or external occupation is likely to generate further violence as was seen for example, in the Russian and Chinese revolutions and decolonization wars in Africa and Asia (Alexander, 2010). But it has also been characterized by many powerful nonviolent struggles; some of these are widely known e.g. the Gandhian freedom struggles in lndia, Martin Luther king Jr’s civil rights campaigns in the United States among others. Although the power of nonviolent resistance does seem weak and inefficient in the face of accent power asymmetries, it has proven to be a very strategic tool in the hand of marginalized communities to redress structural imbalances and claim right of justice and self-determination( Hassan,2011).
          Fundamentally the events that began in the beginning of 2011 in the Arab world were unprecedented in history. In the words of Oviasogie (2012) there was mass public protest that swept through the region with attendant effect for the future.
           The demonstration sent away long serving presidents out of their countries who prior to then saw themselves as manifest destinies or God ordained right to rule. The government and regimes in the regions prior to Arab spring were a salad of autocrats that viewed any other centre as competition. Persistence was the hall mark of the regimes. For instance, the Al-sand governed Saudi Arabia since 1932, Sultan Assad family reigned in Syria since 1970, and Qaddati ruled Libya since 1969, Mubarak since 1981 and Ali Abdullah Sallah ruled in Yemen Arab republic in 1978 and again as the President of Unified Yemen in 1990 to mention just a few cases of longevity (Sorenson, 2010 Anderson, 2009). These mighty men kept their regimes by embracing patron age, the violation of human right, repression by state security agents among other mediums. The Arab spring according to Maogoto and Coleman (2011) is an example of the pitfall of centralism.
          In Egypt, the story was not different, Egypt before the Arab spring was in a deep multi-dimensional crisis (Shorbagy, 2009), the nature of democratic practices in Egypt had assumed diverse dimensions. The constitution of modern Egypt has always given the president virtual monopoly over the decision making process, devoting thirty 30 articles 15% to Presidential prerogatives. Bassem (2012) viewed number of republic embracing Arab socialism such as Syria and Egypt regularly hold elections and these are not fully multiparty system. Most importantly they do not allow citizens to choose between lots of different candidates for presidential elections in addition to corrupt practice with the elections. These are the nature of messed democratic practice in Egypt until 2011 when Egyptian decided to take the bull by the horn by engaging in non-violent revolution aimed at getting Hosni mubarak out of office.
           In spite the legitimate and moral demands of Egyptian protesters, they resolved not to be satisfied until justice had become the yardstick in enthroning democratic values and changes in Egypt. Prior to the above scenario, Mubarak had before been reelected by majority votes in a referendum for successive terms on four occasions in 1987, 1993, 1999, and 2005. The referendum in itself and its results are questionable. No one could run against the president due to a restriction in the Egyptian constitution in which the People’s Assembly played the main role in electing the president.
        However, after increased domestic and international pressure for democratic reform in Egypt, Mubarak asked the  Parliament on 26 February 2005 to amend the constitution to allow multi-candidate presidential election by September 2005.  Previously, Mubarak got  his position by having himself nominated by parliament, then confirmed without opposition in a referendum, but electoral institutions and security apparatus remain under the control of the president.
After Mubarrak’s re-election in 2005, several political groups both in the left and right announced their sharp opposition to the inheritance power. These political groups were some of the major opposition parties that filled candidates to compete with Mubarrak in the 2005 Presidential election. These are New Wafd Party, Tomorrow Party, Solidarity Party, Democratic Union Party, Umma Party, National Conciliation Party, Egypt 2000 Party, Constitution Party and Egyptian Arab Socialist Party. Sharp (2005) noted that the election which was scheduled for 7th September, 2005 involved mass rigging activities. Notably, before 2011, Egyptians especially Muslim Brotherhood has been nursing the anger of the 2005 rigged presidential elections. The worsening part of it is the banning of Muslim brotherhood from contesting any election in Egypt. The Muslim brotherhood is considered the largest Islamic group in Egypt. Sharp (2005) maintained that Egypt’s largest Islamic group, the Muslim brotherhood was not permitted to stand candidates for 2005 elections because the organization was banned by government which prohibits political parties with stated religions agenda from contesting election.
          The Egyptian presidential election held in 7 September 2005 was largely rigged in favour of Hosni Mubarrak. The Egyptians were nursing the anger before being moved to engage in non-violent protest movement with the successful ousting of President Ben. Ali of Tunisia by Tunisia protesters. Added to the issue of electoral rigging were the issue of deep political, economic and social problems and the absence of reform in the name of consolidating power and authority.
The protest by Egyptians over these abnormities signifies giant strides in the  history of Egypt. It awakened the civil societies that had been dormant for a long period of time and signaled the birth of political consciousness and to this effect, this study aims at examining the non-violent revolution in Egypt and the attendant democratic changes in Africa.