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 | ||
The intelligentsia and politics
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
The succession of resignations from, and boycotts of, the Ministry of Culture by a number of established intellectuals in protest at the dismissal of Ali Abu Shadi from his post as head of the ministry's General Organisation for Cultural Palaces (GOCP) is not a matter to be taken lightly. We are looking at genuine outrage here, not, as the minister of culture would have it, at a campaign aimed at "blackmailing [him] by artificially inflating a marginal event into a full-blown crisis." Supporters of the decision to dismiss Abu Shadi have gone even further, claiming that its critics are driven by a desire "to promote depravity and pornography." Public opinion seems to be evenly divided on the issue, with some applauding the decision as a defence of moral values and others condemning it as an attack on freedom of expression.
The chain of events leading up to the present crisis was set in motion when Mohamed Gamal Heshmat, an undeclared member of the outlawed Muslim Brothers who was elected to parliament on an independent ticket, submitted a request for information to the Minister of Culture concerning three novels published by the GOCP. Heshmat warned against the danger of repeating what happened with Haydar Haydar's book, A Banquet for Seaweed, last year, and accused the ministry of spending taxpayers' money on publications of a pornographic nature. The government reacted with what many saw as unseemly haste: just three days after the request for information was presented, the prime minister, on the recommendation of the Ministry of Culture, signed the decision dismissing Abu Shadi. The real surprise, though, was not in the timing of the reaction but in the reaction itself. The government's response to the challenge from the Islamists this time around was the exact opposite of its reaction to the campaign they launched against A Banquet for Seaweed last year, when it counter-attacked by suspending the Labour Party, which had spearheaded the campaign, and closing down its newspaper Al-Shaab.
According to Abu Shadi, he was not the intended target, merely the scapegoat. The real target is what he calls the "enlightening trend" in Egyptian culture, whose proponents are being "terrorised" by reactionary forces. "The government has surrendered to the Islamists, and my dismissal will strengthen the enemies of culture," he says. Some commentators have linked the crisis in the field of culture to the general political situation and the possibility of a cabinet reshuffle. A few have gone so far as to claim that "many officials now fear for their future," and that the dismissal of Abu Shadi is merely an expression of that fear, not a principled stand. Some interpret the measures taken as a sort of "correction" of the government's stand on the Haydar Haydar book: in other words, as a concession to the religious right to make up for their defeat in the Banquet for Seaweed battle. The Ministry of Culture, for its part, has issued a statement announcing that it will not publish books which are prejudicial to religion or which go against society's moral and ethical values. The problem with this kind of sweeping statement is that it lends itself to more than one interpretation. Thus, whatever the government's intention in issuing the statement may have been, there is a real danger that it can be used to justify an inquisitorial approach to any kind of independent and creative thinking.
If the intention of the government was to neutralise the effect of Heshmat's request for information, this raises the important question of exactly who the government was hoping to appease: Heshmat as an "independent" member of parliament or Heshmat as a spokesman for the Muslim Brothers? All members of parliament enjoy parliamentary immunity and whatever they say under the dome of parliament is legal. But given that the Muslim Brothers as an organisation is not legal, can speaking in its name be legal?
There is a contradiction here that runs counter to the principles of transparency and hence to the very essence of the democratic process. The quid pro quo that seems to have been agreed upon is of questionable legitimacy. Moreover, the ambiguity that surrounds it is an open invitation to excesses by both sides, which are already mobilising their supporters for action. Resignations from the Ministry of Culture are continuing. Many intellectuals have decided to boycott the activities of the Ministry of Culture. Meanwhile, Mohamed Abbas, who fired the first shot in the Banquet for Seaweed battle, has declared his intention to take part in the new round and is using the Minister of Culture's own statements as proof that the ministry is harming religion and ethics.
The battle lines are as sharply drawn this time as they were in the previous confrontation between two schools of thought, one attributing itself to enlightenment and anti-obscurantism, the other to conservative values, anti-depravity and the defence of religious values. Each side sees itself as "politically correct" and the other as just the opposite. But on which side of the confrontation line does the government stand? The only thing the two sides agree on is that it has switched its stand by 180 degrees, which only exacerbates the crisis and increases polarisation.
Another factor that can be said to have sharpened polarisation at the societal level, especially among the intelligentsia, is the ambivalence brought about by the duality in the status of the so-called "independent" members of parliament who are in fact members of the Muslim Brothers. These are acting legitimately as members of parliament but illegitimately as members of an illegal organisation. This means that there is a relationship between the crisis in the status of the Muslim Brothers on the one hand and the crisis in the ranks of the intellectuals on the other. Removing duality in the status of the former thus becomes a prerequisite for overcoming ambivalences and deep polarisation in the ranks of the latter.
Actually, we are seeing a familiar form of conflict that erupts in situations where the actors feel they are not masters of their fate. Suddenly, society appears to be split down the middle, and the behaviour of one half of society seems to neutralise that of the other. Harmony is restored only when all parties feel they have regained control over the course of events. Differences are then perceived not as being over ultimate goals but only over the reasons for choosing those goals.
It is useful here to recall the advice given by the veteran Italian Communist leader Palmiro Togliatti. Writing his thoughts down for posterity in a document that came to be called his political testament, the self-avowed atheist described himself as a man of politics and not an academic. As such he always viewed matters from a political, rather than a purely abstract and academic, perspective. Thus the answer to the question of whether God existed lay not in his own personal beliefs or lack thereof, but in the fact that fully one third of the Italian people were members of the Christian Democratic Party and hence devout believers in His existence. In that sense, God existed as a force to be reckoned with regardless of his own feelings on the subject. And so Togliatti, the consummate politician, came to accept that he had to deal with the existence of God as a reality. This approach to the problem makes the conflict underway more easy to overcome.
The field of culture deals with human relations on earth, where convictions face other convictions and where people must learn to be tolerant with one another provided given rules are respected, notably, democracy, transparency and the renunciation of violence as a means to impose one viewpoint rather than another. This is difficult to achieve as long as the duality marking the status of the Muslim Brothers is not overcome.
Farouq Hosni professes surprise at the escalation of the new crisis involving his ministry, and notes that although when he was first appointed 14 years ago, the members of parliament who belonged to the Muslim Brothers were even more numerous than they are today, no problems arose at the time. But the minister has overlooked an important difference between the situation then and the situation now. At the time, the Muslim Brothers were in a tactical alliance with a liberal party, the Wafd, and had to observe certain constraints imposed by this alliance, while today they are free to pursue their strategic objectives unhampered by any tactical considerations.
The time has come for a national dialogue over the fundamentals of the society we seek to establish, a dialogue and not a clash over the future of our cultural values. Top intellectuals who enjoy credibility in the eyes of all the parties concerned should be invited to take part in the dialogue, given that it is only civil society, not the state, that can overcome conflict in this matter.
It should be remembered that Israel has every interest in exacerbating clashes, not promoting dialogue, between Egyptians, because an Egypt divided against itself is infinitely preferable to an Egypt speaking with one voice. This issue too should be on the agenda of the debate among Egyptian intellectuals from every trend, as they face the possibility that their internal squabbles will distract them from facing the cultural challenge represented by Israel, especially in the context of regional peace.
Globalisation is Israel's ally. Isolationism can no longer be invoked to escape the relentless stream of news and views with which we are inundated every day. How can media satellites be prevented from beaming their programmes to every corner of the globe? On the other hand, science itself, and not only media technology, is moving forward at an exponential pace. Concepts are becoming more and more complex, even beyond our human ability to comprehend them. Can we afford putting restrictions on our imagination at a time when developing it beyond every conceivable limit has become an issue of survival?
Related stories:
Floating bureaus
Back to the village
The crux of the matter
Democracy and cultural 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 |
