18 - 24 January 2001
Issue No.517
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 18 - 24 January 2001 Issue No.517 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Democracy and cultural politics
By Mohamed El-Sayed Said *
There is nothing like a cultural crisis for revealing a nation's mood in a given era. The situation in Egypt illustrates this rule of thumb. In an attempt to abort what could have been another major show-down between the government and the Islamist movement, Minister of Culture Farouq Hosni removed from office a number of major intellectuals heading the ministry's General Organisation for Cultural Palaces and publishing programme. The immediate cause is the publication of three novels said to contain obscene material, which a Muslim Brother MP found offensive to the nation's moral values.
The decision threw the country into yet another conflict over culture and cultural politics. The last such battle broke out during the summer over a novel by Syrian writer Haydar Haydar, who is accused of apostasy and insulting God and the Prophet Mohamed.
This long-standing crisis clearly shows a mood more conservative than in any earlier period of history, including the 13th and 14th centuries. The question is what kind of threat these crises pose to democracy and human rights.
Intellectuals here, and elsewhere in the Arab world, have made extensive use of this theme, arguing that the current attacks on modern culture and the products of cultural creativity are a major threat to democracy and basic human rights. Some push this argument too far, claiming that only in Egypt do we find such attacks on creativity generally.
This standpoint, however, distorts the real issues at stake in the present controversy.
In the first place, Egypt is by no means alone in witnessing attacks on cultural and aesthetic creativity, particularly in matters pertaining to sex, religion and lifestyle. Modern politics, indeed, is largely shaped by cultural contentions. In fact, this country is rather new to cultural politics in comparison with the United States, for example. In the latter, issues such as Darwin's theory of evolution have caused veritable schisms. Most major conflicts in American politics are cultural, and are recognised as such. Today, no issue on the domestic agenda (including economic policies) is as important in explaining voting patterns and political behaviour as abortion. Differences on this issue are both extremely heated and generalised to differences in world view, rather than simply political opinion or party affiliation. The zeal with which battles of morality and culture are waged in the US is unparalleled at this point, even though it echoes throughout the rest of the world.
It is also clear that cultural conflicts have spilled beyond national borders, becoming decisive in international relations. Traditionally, borders between cultures have been drawn along religious fault lines -- say, between Islam and Christianity, or Judaism and Buddhism. Today, however, moral issues unite guardians of these major religious traditions against what is seen as the encroachment of modern concepts of ethics and morality. Catholic clergy unite with Muslim lay ministers in the fight against homosexuality or abortion at major international conferences in Cairo and Beijing.
Culture and morality are not divorced from politics; they delve much deeper than politics into the big questions of life, meaning and society. In this perspective, explaining differences on these issues by reference to political affiliation or ideology may lead to gross misunderstanding.
Egyptian intellectuals who couch their disagreements with the state or with political Islam in terms of democracy versus authoritarianism or totalitarianism may be leaping to the wrong conclusions. A truly democratic personality may vehemently oppose a publication or a painting perceived as pornographic, blasphemous, or derogatory to a group or community.
Reasonable constraints on freedom of expression in matters pertaining to public morality, religion or religious symbols, minority rights, privacy and dignity may be introduced into the legal practice of nations without necessarily being seen as violations of democratic principles or human rights, if such constraints are measured in a responsible fashion. This is implied in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and emphasised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Rights are not absolute. An absolutist understanding of rights is the inevitable prelude to their absolute denial. More specifically, there is always tension when rights are partially opposed and their attainment in common entails an act of compromise. The right to free expression in this perspective should not be used or abused to deny the right to dignity or the right to privacy. It is even more fundamental that a balance be reached between the right to free expression and a group's right to the respect of its religious beliefs or symbols. Obscenity is also an issue here. Certain constraints may be introduced so as to protect public morality from extreme language, on the condition that these constraints are deemed necessary and reasonable.
In all this, of course, discretionary power is involved: who is to judge what is "balanced," "reasonable" or "necessary"? Such power does not exist in a vacuum; even with the application of judicial standards, discretion will always be in line with the tempo and moods prevalent in each and every specific era.
In our own specific case, these rules may be applied creatively with an eye on public peace. People in Egypt at this point are seized by a conservative mood, extreme religious sensitivity and a severe sense of vulnerability to what is generally called the cultural invasion. Many changes in the very fabric of society fly in the face of established norms and beliefs. In these circumstances, it is essential not to incite people to extremist religious propaganda and fanatic mobilisation, as witnessed in the case of Haydar Haydar's novel.
In this perspective, I agree with the general thrust of the minister of culture's argument. Egyptian intellectuals should take responsibility for a certain measure of self-restraint, even if this prevents them from making statements they see as crucial to their artistic purpose.
On the other hand, the minister of culture has made a number of mistakes. In the first place, the ministry's publishing policy should be known to all. This is a part of a larger mistake: that of not involving Egypt's intellectual community in setting the parameters of this policy in the first place. Indeed, the real differences on the substance of the policy are minimal and could be reduced creatively through dialogue and participation. On the other hand, the sudden removal of high-ranking officials from the publishing programme is alarming and could easily be seen as a major concession to religious fundamentalism that will whet its appetite for censorship. After the minister's decision, indeed, Islamists have broadened the scope of their demands, launching an all-out attack on freedom of expression.
Clearly, Islamist activists planned this latest onslaught on Egyptian intellectuals. Targeting intellectual life is now far more than a random expression of frustration with certain statements. It has become a point of strategy and policy. By using the themes of morality and apostasy, the Islamists are driving home the impression that the country is controlled by godless leaders, in order to portray themselves as saviours come to liberate the people from moral decay and apostasy. Targeting intellectuals is also another way of attacking the political system without really clashing with the government. In fact, by limiting their attacks to intellectuals, they implicitly suggest a new alliance between themselves and the government. In this perspective, the war against creativity is being waged to accustom the country to the idea of a conspiracy against morality and religion. This seems to be the general tactic through which Islamists plan to take over society and later the state.
In this sense, the current episode is at least indirectly about democracy. The irony in this specific case is that intellectuals have shown themselves to be almost totally lacking in political skills. The minister of culture has made mistakes. But the failure to build consensus around the need for sensitivity will push ordinary people into a closer alliance with fundamentalism. Public statements issued by intellectuals may also alienate those whose deep commitment to democracy and human rights does not accommodate pornography or blasphemy.
* The writer is deputy director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies..0
Related stories:
Floating bureaus
Back to the village
The crux of the matter
The intelligentsia and politics
No novel proscription 11 - 17 January 2001
Intellectuals' dilemma 11 - 17 May 2000
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
