 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 11 - 17 November 1999 Issue No. 455 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 11 - 17 November 1999 Issue No. 455
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Travel Books Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Believing in conspiracy theory
By Tarek HeggyOne issue that has captured my interest for some years now is the prevalence in Arab societies in general, including Egypt, of conspiracy theory. As far as many millions of Egyptians and Arabs are concerned, the following propositions have become virtual articles of faith:
The blueprint for our recent history and present reality was drawn up by the great powers, and what we are now living through is the product of their machinations; the powers responsible for this grand design were Britain and France in the past and the United States, aided and abetted by its protégé, Israel, in the recent past and the present; these plans were prepared in great detail by the great powers, leaving those at the receiving end little room to manoeuvre; accordingly, we bear very little responsibility for what happened in the past, what is happening in the present and indeed, according to some, for what will happen in the future.
A paradox worth studying is that this view is shared to varying degrees by very disparate groups. Islamists in general (the Muslim Brothers, Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya, Al-Jihad and even the most moderate of the Islamist trends) believe profoundly in the propositions that make up conspiracy theory. Socialists of every stripe, from Marxists to Nasserists, also subscribe to conspiracy theory, albeit less rigidly than the Islamists; for, while they believe in the theory and the propositions on which it is based, their belief is not shrouded in what a spirit of militancy, nor grounded in anti-Christian sentiment. Of course, this difference is due to the theocratic ethos of the Islamist groups and the more scientific, progressive and modern spirit of socialist ideas, even if the failure of those ideas to achieve their aims proves that they are inherently flawed. The third and final group is made up of ordinary citizens. Most are inclined to believe in conspiracy theory and to accept the validity of the propositions on which it rests without question.
Still, the three groups frame their respective views of conspiracy theory in very different terms. The Islamists consider that the history of the region is that of a conflict between Islam and the Judaeo-Christian world. As far as they are concerned, the Crusades never ended; now, they are simply being waged off the battlefield. The socialist group views matters from the perspective of the struggle between the forces of imperialism and the oppressed and exploited peoples of the world. As for the multitude of ordinary citizens, they reflect the climate created by the media. In societies not characterised by a high level of education and culture, the media can be used to brainwash the public.
In fact, the sources on which the three groups base their belief in the conspiracy theory have no basis in fact, history or logic. The history of the peoples of our region would have been the same, including their subjugation by Western colonialism, had the region been part of the Christian world. The West did not colonise us because we were Muslims, but for quite different reasons. We were backward and hence susceptible to foreign domination. The whole colonial enterprise was motivated in the first instance by economic considerations, and, to a lesser degree, by cultural, or "civilisational", considerations.
Those who maintain that our Muslim heritage was the reason we were colonised conveniently forget the reign of the Ottoman sultanate, when the Arab peoples were subjected to the worst kinds of abuse by their Muslim colonial masters. Throughout the 18th century, our ancestors were in a deplorable state of backwardness. We had been locked in mediaeval backwardness for over six centuries before the Zionist movement emerged as a political force capable of affecting events in any way.
Though in many ways wrong, the socialist reading of our history is right to approach the issue from an economic perspective. The economic factor was the driving force behind the West's imperialist ambitions in the region. But this was within a framework quite different from that of conspiracy theory.
As for the ordinary citizens enamoured of conspiracy theory, their logic is in a way understandable. Even the most outlandish statement, repeated often enough, can come to be accepted as true, especially in a society where half the population is illiterate and the other half displays only a very modest standard of education and culture.
The real issue is that most of those who subscribe to conspiracy theory know very little about the nature and mechanisms of the capitalist economy. The essence of capitalism is competition, a notion which means many things, some wholesome, others unhealthy. Given that all the ideological alternatives to the market economy have failed lamentably, however, we must not let our nostalgia or our emotional reaction to certain aspects of capitalism drive us back into the world of socialist ideas. Experience has proved that socialism is not a viable system.
Competition works to the benefit of individuals and the enhancement of their quality of life because, by definition, it leads to a process of constant upgrading of products and services, which in turn often leads to a reduction in their cost. On the negative side, it sometimes deteriorates into vicious struggles among producers. Unless we understand this aspect of competition well and accept that it is an inevitable if unfortunate feature of the market economy, unless we devise a strategy to deal with it as a fact of life, we will not attain any of our goals.
This competition, one of the main cornerstones of a market economy, was responsible for the wars that tore Europe apart in the last three centuries, indeed, for the two world wars this century has witnessed. But after centuries of fighting amongst themselves, the Europeans came to realise that the advantages of putting an end to the strife that had convulsed their continent greatly outweighed the advantages of allowing a spirit of competition to continue ruling their lives. And so competition in its extreme form was displaced into other arenas. The rationale now governing competition in Europe is mutual coexistence and consensus on a framework of checks and balances in which competition operates.
In an economic system based on competition, the strategic interest of the producer, or seller, is to remain a seller while ensuring that the buyer of his products or services remains a buyer as long as possible. This simple principle is the essence of the aspect of competition many in our part of the world regard as indicative of a conspiracy. Although in a way it does resemble a conspiracy, it is very different in terms of motivation and the rules which determine its inner workings. This law operates within advanced industrial societies. Its application outside those societies is also inevitable.
In other words, the economic system in force in the advanced industrial countries is based on conflicts fuelled by competition, which manifest themselves in endless attempts to capture the largest possible share of the market. The terminology and practices of modern management sciences serve competition in its various aspects (both positive and negative). Some of the notions that have become part of the lexicon of these sciences in the contemporary world are tailored essentially to serve the interests of the big fish who, by applying them, can successfully swallow the small fish.
The big fish eats the small fish; furthermore, the swift and efficient fish will gobble up those that are less swift and efficient. The huge conglomerates that have emerged in the past 20 years attest to the validity of this new law. There is no hope, after the demise of socialism, of replacing these laws with laws that can ensure success, abundance and the avoidance of these aberrations (for those who regard them as such).
Even the most widely-read and highly cultured intellectual would be unable to fully grasp these new realities if his cultural formation is based exclusively on a familiarity with the human and social sciences, with no knowledge of management, marketing and human resources. If his cultural baggage does not include a working knowledge of these contemporary sciences, he will be unable to grasp the essence of these laws. What he knows belongs in a museum.
Unfortunately, a number of Third World intellectuals know a great deal, but their knowledge does not extend to new areas. Still, these intellectuals continue to engage in lengthy debates, using obsolete terms of reference that confirm that they are unable to comprehend what is happening around them. These obsolete frames of reference are obstacles in the way of society's ability to take the only means of transportation that can carry it to the desired destination.
The unshakable belief in conspiracy theory that seems to have taken hold of the Arabs is based on a number of fundamental principles. It proceeds from the assumption that, while the conspirators enjoy absolute freedom of action when it comes to exercising their will, the parties conspired against are totally devoid of that prerogative. This endows the former with the attributes of motivation, determination, will and the ability to make things happen while stripping the latter of all these attributes, reducing them to objects rather than subjects.
It denies the parties conspired against any nationalist sentiment, attributing it exclusively to the conspirators.
It makes the conspirators legendary figures in the minds of those who consider themselves victims.
It assumes that there is no way the parties conspired against can foil the stratagems of the conspirators, making for a defeatist and passive attitude that runs counter to pride, self-dignity and the notion that nations, like men, can shape their own destiny.
I am profoundly convinced that human history is made up of a series of conflicts and that, moreover, the world stage today is the setting for numerous bitter and major conflicts. But conflict and conspiracy are two different notions. Conflict means persistent efforts by given parties to maintain whatever edge they enjoy over others, or even to expand that edge and the privileges and advantages that go with it. But it also means that contradictions are played out in a game that proceeds according to certain rules, which differ from one era to the next, so that whoever wants to achieve a position of any prominence must wage the conflict with the tools and according to the rules that will guarantee optimal results. Of course, conflict is a relatively more open game than conspiracy. Placing matters in the context of a conflict game encourages people to draw on their inner resources and to enter the game as active participants bent on affecting its outcome to their advantage. Belief in the conspiracy theory as the driving force of history, on the other hand, encourages people to adopt a passive attitude in the belief that they have no choice but to bow to the inevitable.
Another disastrous aspect of the rampant belief in the general conspiracy theory is related to undemocratic rulers like some of those now in power in the Third World. The undemocratic ruler contributes with his statements and information media to consecrating the belief in conspiracy theory, which is a useful fig-leaf behind which he can hide his own shortcomings. It allows him to blame the problems and hardships faced by his people, and his inability to respond to their aspirations, on outside elements rather than on the real reason, which is the absence of democracy and the existence of rulers like himself who are usually not the most efficient, capable, honest and cultured members of the society they represent.
Nations can only wage a global conflict successfully if they are properly equipped; if their leaders are men of vision operating in a climate of democracy through cadres characterised by a high degree of efficiency, ability, honesty and culture.
Although I have absolutely no doubt that the proponents of conspiracy theory are in fact nationalists who want only the best for their country and people, the sad fact is that, in the final analysis, their absolute belief makes them defeatists and advocates of the line of least resistance, which is to bemoan their lot without making a serious effort to do anything about it.
