31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002
Issue No.571
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002 Issue No.571 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Insults of the imagination
The chorus of accusations against Egypt in the American media grows ever more shrill and fantastic, writes Ibrahim Nafie
One is astounded by the spurious allegations leveled against Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries in the US press. The Egyptian government, they now claim, which worked so long to stamp out terrorism and extremism, is now accused of producing these ills.
However out of touch with regional realities such a contention is, it must be addressed. The only foundation upon which such an allegation rests is pure coincidence.
That the past 20 years saw a rise in terrorism and extremism has led some to jump to the conclusion that the government in power during this period was at fault. Fueling this precipitous logic is the flood of hackneyed premises that have become all too familiar since 11 September, and that make it all the more imperative to underscore some axiomatic truths.
Firstly, the growth of religious fundamentalism is a worldwide phenomenon. Research centres in the US and elsewhere have published hundreds of studies demonstrating that all major religions have seen a rise in fundamentalism. So if governments are to be held responsible for this trend it is only logical that all must share the blame. It is the height of arbitrariness to single out Egypt, for example, and exonerate successive US governments.
Nor do such studies make many connections between political systems and the rise of fundamentalism. The reason for this is straightforward: the very universality of the phenomenon compels us to search for an explanation that transcends customary classifications and typecasting of political regimes.
The rise in fundamentalism is one of those mega-trends that characterize certain epochs. Such trends are not the product of a single event but rather the congruence of a range of cultural developments.
Sociologists have increasingly sought to explain the rise of fundamentalism within an overall context of post-modernism: specifically, they suggest the experience of modernism, with its stress on material needs, ignored an essential spiritual dimension, and that fundamentalism is one of the more extreme reactions to modernism's moral vacuum.
Tellingly, the US has experienced a tremendous rise in fundamentalism. Over the past 30 years fundamentalist movements have gained an ever louder voice. Suffice it to say that the combined forces of the secular conservative right and the "Bible belt" led to the downfall of the Carter administration and the rise of the Reaganite Republicanism in the 1980s.
If blame has to be cast upon governments then Washington, where alliances with fundamentalist movements have become an integral feature of the political dynamic, is a prime candidate. Yet not only has Egypt been singled out as the leading breeder of terrorism, by some convoluted logic it does so because it is not democratic.
Again, studies on religious fundamentalism are enlightening. Although the relationship between democracy and terrorism is complex, many analysts agree that democratic societies are the most vulnerable to terrorism. After all, totalitarian or despotic regimes can nip the problem in the bud.
This is not to imply a causal relationship between democracy and terrorism. Quite simply, it means democratic societies are less immune to assault. Emerging democracies -- under tremendous economic and social strains -- are even more vulnerable. During the past two decades the only way to preserve Egypt's nascent democracy has been to carefully manage, and occasionally reschedule, the difficult phasing-in of reforms.
When President Mubarak assumed power in 1981 Egypt was recoiling from a devastating terrorist attack. Elsewhere, the assassination of a president would have resulted in an uncompromising totalitarianism. But in Egypt, following the assassination of Sadat, President Mubarak remained committed to democratisation. The expanding scope of civil liberties, freedom of the press and political party activity, it was hoped, would counteract religious extremism and terrorism.
Sadly, this proved not to be the case, and terrorist violence grew in the '80s. Lending impetus to the phenomenon was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the beginnings of the break up of Yugoslavia, and associated attempts at ethnic cleansing. These developments generated a sense that the Muslim world was under attack.
Simultaneously, extremists in Egypt took Mubarak's commitment to democratization as a sign of weakness, and reinforced their offensive against the Egyptian state and society in the early 1990s.
It became imperative to rethink our strategy for democratic transition, particularly as we were simultaneously engaged in a process of economic deregulation. The government was thus forced to close off many of the legal avenues that had enabled extremist organisations to flourish.
Eventually, after seven years of head-on collision, the government succeeded in defeating the extremist organisations. The proof of this resides not only in the complete absence of terrorist acts in Egypt over the past four years, but also in the organisations' inability to find new recruits among the young.
Egyptian society had to make enormous sacrifices to attain this victory. But any objective cost-benefit analysis would conclude that the returns have been worth it. The threat to society posed by jihad style paramilitary movements has virtually vanished and the tide of ideological affiliations has turned firmly towards healthy democratic development.
© 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