7 - 13 June 2001
Issue No.537
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 7 - 13 June 2001 Issue No.537 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Bothered and bewildered
Caught at a crossroads? Dazed and confused? Join the nation, writes Mohamed El-Sayed Said*
Where is the country heading? The question has become very difficult to answer. We seem to have lost our innocence -- or at least our clarity of mind and vision. No one seems able to propose a credible view of the future that could generate consensus. Intellectuals and politicians alike seem disoriented and confused as to the direction Egyptian society will or should take. There seems, indeed, no one capable of giving society at large, and the younger generations in particular, a clear sense of direction.
What we know is far from sufficient to light the path ahead. We do know that the momentum for democratisation gained in the early 1980s is dissipated, the multi-party system is not functioning, popular interest in public affairs is receding alarmingly, political participation is eroding, and no system based on the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights is in place as yet.
On the other hand, we are unwilling to give up the image we wanted to impress on ourselves and on the world around us. We sought to believe in the image of a progressive, open society, freely interacting with the outside world on the basis of equality and mutual respect: a society committed to the cause of democracy and the highest standards of human dignity, a society determined to construct for itself an effective political system reconciling the need for rapid mobilisation aimed at achieving development with the principle of popular sovereignty and political pluralism. We have not entirely given up on these ideals, but we infringe on them all the time, perhaps increasingly and in a more flagrant manner as time goes by.
In the past few months, a vast array of developments have made depressing news headlines: the regular arrest of Muslim Brotherhood activists, the arrest and sentencing of Saadeddin Ibrahim and his colleagues at the Ibn Khaldun Centre, and, most recently, the arrest of a large group of young men accused of homosexuality. We may add to this list the new legislation shackling civil society institutions.
All these events conflict violently with the image that the state continues to offer of itself. The contradictions, however, are simply overlooked. Fundamental violations of the democratic model are somehow justified in the name of democracy or, worse still, originality and authenticity. In the first case, credibility is lost. Indeed, the very conventions that underpin the political discourse are brutalised and twisted. In the latter case, when excuses for flagrant violations are made in the name of our cultural specificity and authentic political experience, identity, independence or originality, we simply make ourselves even more ridiculous. Such excuses are simply humiliating to our national identity, which is inevitably linked to some of the more notorious practices of totalitarian regimes.
Such justifications, furthermore, lack logical consistency, a fact that tends to mislead observers of our national scene. The Muslim Brothers are accused of plotting to infiltrate the professional syndicates; but what is wrong with such "scheming," as long as it is not linked to violence or conspiracy as defined by the law? Any political group is required to "scheme" if it wants to win elections in syndicates and other public associations or representative bodies. If such scheming is regarded as a crime against state security, why are all other candidates left free?
While the Muslim Brothers are condemned for religious fanaticism, alleged homosexuals are found guilty of religious laxity. The logical conclusion is that people should be religious only in the precise way and to the specific extent defined by the government; they must express their religiosity only according to the modalities it dictates. The point here is not just logical inconsistency; there is also the fact that the government has failed to define the ideal model of religiosity to which it wants people to conform. In principle, therefore, the government can arrest people for having violated a model of religiosity that is not defined in philosophy or law. This vague definition of criminality jibes perfectly with the inadequate respect shown for the procedures the civil code establishes.
The confusion is greater yet in the Ibn Khaldun case. It was the government, after all, that initiated the open door policy; and that policy calls for free interaction between private actors at the domestic level, on one hand, and the outside world on the other. It was the government that ratified bi- and multilateral cooperation agreements with various foreign states and international institutions, allowing private entities in Egypt access to development assistance granted by these states or international institutions. Why should it not come as a total surprise to public opinion, then, when the Ibn Khaldun Centre, precisely by acting in conformity with the letter and spirit of these agreements, is convicted of criminal behaviour? Here are paradoxes within paradoxes.
The legal system itself is intrinsically contradictory, and so vague that people are suddenly accused of a "crime" they had been committing for years under the eyes of various law enforcement agencies. Not only did the prosecution fail to define the crime adequately; worse still, the behaviour suddenly defined as criminal is exactly what people are urged to do according to the open-door policy. Since all other private entities that interact with the outside world are guilty of the same crime, it is impossible to take them all to court; therefore, the Ibn Khaldun Centre, and possibly several other private institutions, must be singled out for punishment. Yet any of the tens of private institutions that prepare detailed feasibility studies for foreign companies continue to act in the same way as the Ibn Khaldun Centre did.
I have restricted my comments here to a formal level, since formalities distinguish laws from habits, traditions, norms or philosophies. The most basic need of any organised society is the existence of formal laws that are consistent, clear and applicable to all. We need not comment on the substance of the laws that make the individual cases mentioned above "criminal," simply because these laws contradict the image of democratic development the government has never renounced in public.
Where all this is taking us?
Pessimists are inclined to see the situation as a slippery slope leading back to closed and authoritarian politics. This characterisation overlooks certain major gains, however. Diversity and pluralism are now entrenched in national politics. Levels of democratic consciousness are high, as shown by many unambiguous public opinion polls. Traditional forms of control are rapidly becoming obsolete and ineffective, thus making a new and democratic structure of compromise vital for the very survival of society, let alone its peaceful development. Power resources are now distributed far more evenly within society than they were the past. Civil society has accumulated experience and knowledge, and even the formal institutions of the state are gaining greater activism and relative autonomy from the bureaucracy and the executive branch of government. Indeed, the new parliament is demonstrating unprecedented vitality, most recently in a series of discussions on national issues. Freedom of expression, while not fully codified, has come a long way. In brief, a new democratic bargain and a new structure of compromise are even more necessary than they were a few years ago.
Are all these positive developments adequate indicators that the democratic model will triumph? Certainly not. The complex mixture of gains and reverses and the intrinsic ambiguity of the present political situation underline the transitional nature of the present juncture in our national history. The conflicting signs should simply alert all democratic forces in our society to the need for greater coherence and their responsibility to future generations. A new, more vibrant national dialogue is necessary to clarify ambiguities and to set democratic parameters for our society's development.
* The writer is deputy director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
© 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 |
Recommend this page