In a moment of reflection, I realized how daunting and complex the task of documenting history truly is—especially when narratives multiply, scenes become entangled, and documentation disappears.
We live in an era where events seem bigger than memory, information travels faster than documentation, and testimony is left to individuals rather than preserved by institutions.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing a nation can face is when its memory becomes a series of personal flashes—told by individuals rather than preserved in archives, passed through stories instead of documents.
What’s even more alarming is the use of artificial intelligence to fabricate historical documents with such precision that they appear authentic, aligning with the narrative of history while subtly distorting truth.
After fourteen years since the January 25th Revolution, I find myself revisiting and recounting pivotal moments in my life and Egypt’s history. My memory—and what I documented in my own handwriting—is my reference. But I can’t help but wonder: has my recollection of events been shaped by the truths that surfaced afterward?
I ask myself:
- Where is the speech by President Mubarak in which he announced his resignation and tasked the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces with leading the country?
- Why isn’t this speech—so historically and constitutionally significant—treated as an official document preserved by the state?
- Why do we find King Farouk’s abdication document preserved in the National Archives, yet not a single official record of a critical turning point in our modern republican history?
- Where are the minutes of meetings from President Mohamed Naguib’s era—whose presence was erased from textbooks after his ousting and exile in 1954, despite being a prominent national figure?
Even worse: there is no trace of any official documents issued by the presidency during Mohamed Morsi’s rule. No minutes, no correspondence, no published decisions that could serve future researchers studying that period a decade or two from now.
Can a state the size of Egypt be run without a written record?
Or are there documented records that exist but remain hidden from us?
Or has someone decided that writing is a threat, that transparency is dangerous, and that history can be controlled through silence?
In countries that respect their memory…
In established democracies, history is not viewed as a personal narrative—it is public property. Archives are not state secrets but repositories of knowledge for future generations.
In the United States, the Presidential Records Act was enacted in 1978, stating that all presidential documents—letters, emails, notes, minutes—are the property of the American people. These records are automatically transferred to each president’s “Presidential Library” and made accessible to researchers after a classification period, usually between 5 and 12 years.
Example: President Eisenhower’s library contains records of his daily meetings and discussions on the 1956 Suez Crisis—now publicly available.
In Britain, the Thirty-Year Rule mandates that all official government records be transferred to the National Archives and opened to the public after 30 years. Some departments are now reducing this period to 20 years.
In France and Germany, similar regulations apply. Presidential, ministerial, and official documents are preserved in state archives and gradually made available based on legal and security classifications.
This is how institutional memory is built—knowledge is accumulated, not buried.
A Personal Testimony: A Treasure in My Hands
Years ago, I came across a carefully preserved record of meetings held by Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat with a select group of politicians, intellectuals, and civil society leaders during the drafting of the National Charter in the early 1960s.
Between the lines lay a true intellectual treasure: candid dialogues, ideological debates, deep questions about social justice, the economy, and the idea of a modern state. The process wasn’t top-down decision-making—it was a real interaction between authority and civil society.
This record, meticulously archived, enabled me to understand that era—not through slogans, but through its written, living pulse.
This is what we need.
A living archive, not dusty slogans.
Memory Is Not a Luxury
We need institutional memory to preserve the nation’s history—not to glorify the ruler, but to hold him accountable.
Not to inflate heroism, but to understand decision-making.
Not to write myths, but to safeguard the truth.
When documents are erased, not only is the event lost, but the lesson is erased too.
That’s why I say:
It is not the ruler’s right to decide what is forgotten and what is remembered.
History belongs not to power, but to the nation.
If we wish to pass on a mature country to our children, we must pass along its documents, just as we pass down anthems and constitutions.
And now, I share with you the answer I received from AI when I asked about the legal and legislative status of document preservation in Egypt:
Yes, Egypt does have clear legislation regulating the preservation of official documents issued by state institutions, and it is binding on government banks and public bodies—but it does not comprehensively apply to all institutions, such as the Presidency and Parliament. Here are the details:
Laws Governing Document Preservation in Egypt
- Law No. 356 of 1954
- Established the National Archives, assigning it the responsibility of collecting and preserving historical documents after government bodies finish using them.
- Presidential Decree No. 121 of 1975
- Allows the President to create regulations for protecting official documents, even if national security requires that they remain unpublished for up to 50 years.
- Presidential Decree No. 472 of 1979
- Regulates how documents are preserved within government agencies and stipulates that they be transferred to the National Archives after specific time periods.
- Executive Regulation No. 270 of 2009
- Specifies how long documents should be retained within government agencies before being automatically transferred to a central archival location.
- The Constitution (Article 68, 2019)
- States: “Information and official documents are the property of the people.”
- Requires the state to ensure their preservation, digitization, and availability to researchers once their confidentiality period ends, in accordance with the law.
Exceptions: The Presidency and Parliament
Despite these laws:
- The Presidency, Ministry of Defense, Foreign Affairs, Interior, and certain security agencies are exempt from Decree No. 472 of 1979.
- They are not obligated to automatically deposit their documents in the National Archives.
- There is no explicit law regarding Parliament, but parliamentary mechanisms (e.g., committees of inquiry and legislation) allow it to request documents from the executive branch when needed, in accordance with the House’s internal bylaws.
Parliamentary Authority
- Parliament has the constitutional and legal authority to request documents from state institutions as part of its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
- However, Parliament itself is not subject to the same laws that compel automatic deposit of records in the National Archives.
Conclusion
Yes, there are laws that compel government institutions to preserve and archive official records and deposit them in the National Archives.
But there is no law that obliges the Presidency or Parliament to do the same automatically, as other entities must.
Still, Parliament can obtain documents from the government through its committees and constitutional powers.
