Intellectuals and the modern state
We have mismanaged our conflict with Israel, partly because we kept our best minds away from public life, says Mustafa El-Feki*
The Arab intellectual is a term that is not linked to education alone, not even to political savvy. It conveys a certain awareness of the world, an ability to call a spade a spade, an aptitude for becoming a part of the course of history, a reflection of the spirit of the age. Modern Arab history abounds with names of heavyweights who combined knowledge with activism, culture with civil service. Ahmed Lutfi El-Sayed, Satei El-Hosari, Taha Hussein, Tawfiq El-Hakim, Omar Abu Risha, and Naguib Mahfouz are only a few examples. The relation between the intellectual and civil service is in essence an extention of that between the intellectual and the sultan. The court of Islamic caliphate has known a procession of intellectuals -- poets, writers, scholars, thinkers, and artists -- who befriended the ruler, gave him sincere advice or just sang his praises. But history proves that a silent crisis brewed between the intellectuals and authority, for intellectuals were often used to justify policy and serve the regime.
A few years after the 1952 revolution, a "crisis of intellectuals" surfaced in Egypt's political life. The crisis brought to the surface several difficult questions, especially that of loyalty versus experience. The Egyptian revolution, in its first years, went for loyalty. The Free Officers placed trustful helpers in most important government positions. Most economic and diplomatic posts were "militarised" so to speak. Officers were placed atop most companies at home and led embassies abroad. This pattern -- repeated in other Arab countries -- led many intellectuals to bend over backwards to please the regimes in return for a piece of the action.
I am not mentioning this to put down Arab intellectuals or deny their great worth, but to point out to the state of fear in which some Arab regimes have kept the best minds of the nation. It is Arab regimes that have turned their back on culture and distanced themselves from the intelligentsia. The following points may shed some light on this dilemma.
1. The problem I am addressing is an oriental problem, one that concerns Arab societies more than others. It is about the relation between the state and the individual; more specifically, the state and the intellectual. Therefore, this is a socio-political problem, not just a political one.
2. The interest of the public in political life has dwindled over the past few decades. This places a certain responsibility upon the intellectuals, by virtue of their moral role and cultural obligation to society at large.
3. When the culture of freedom spreads and the culture of dependence disappears, the intellectuals become more enthusiastic about participation in public life. In contrast, when dictatorship is the norm and tyranny becomes a byword for government, most intellectuals flee, fall silent, or take refuge into their ivory towers and cultural ghettos.
4. Some governments, admittedly, open up to the winds of progress before the grass-roots do. There are times when regimes turn more liberal than certain individuals or religious and cultural institutions. This phenomenon calls for close examination, for it involves historical, political, and cultural complexities.
5. Restriction of freedom, fear of innovation, and hostility to new ideas can drive the intellectuals away from public life. Intellectuals may prefer to withdraw to the relative safety of low-key careers in order to protect their lives and families. I recall here the wave of intimidation that swept through Egypt in the past few years, when charges of blasphemy were brought in court against intellectuals. Needless to say, all of these charges were based on a poor interpretation of religious texts.
6. The relation between education and culture will remain a basic element of the process of reform. Education is responsible for the formation of the personality of the intellectual. Education prepares the young for modern life and objective debate. Culture is not education, but it is affected by it and interacts with it.
7. Modern culture is closely linked with modern technology. We live in the age of the computer and the Internet. Modern intellectuals are different from their peers of the last century, because the concept and tools of culture have changed.
8. The attitude of regimes to culture is different from their attitude to wealth, for example. Regimes place restrictions on culture, but have no problem with wealth. Some of our leaders are more interested in wealth than culture. As a result, intellectuals, normally not the wealthy types, get alienated.
9. Differences that surfaced in the cultural arena over the past few years reflect a crisis of a special type. Intellectuals are staying away from public affairs, either because public freedoms are limited, or because they can find no proper role to play in political life.
10. The clash of generations has also caused a rift among intellectuals, allowing the authorities to pick and choose among supporters eager to show their loyalty and sing the praises of the leaders.
Why am I bringing all of this up? Because I believe that a whole movement of reform should lead the Arab region forward and protect it from national crises, military upsets and political catastrophes. Arab intellectuals -- writers, analysts, modernists included -- are an integral part of any reform process.
According to news reports, about 25 US policy makers, most of them Jewish or pro-Israeli, are drawing up the Middle East map, envisioning the nature of regimes that should survive in this part of the world, and seeking ways of strengthening American domination over the region. The interesting part of this news is that high-powered minds are in charge of planning on the US side. Minds -- not armies alone -- will ultimately decide the outcome of the ongoing conflict.
One must admit that we have somewhat failed in managing the Arab-Israeli conflict. We allowed the State of Israel to get ahead of us militarily and technologically, even acquire nuclear weapons, because we failed to recognise the facts, speak in one voice, appreciate time, and seize opportunities at the right time.
This is where Arab intellectuals are most needed. Intellectuals are the vanguard of their nations and the mainstay of progress. They have to act outside the confining boundaries of their jobs, above the limitations of their rehearsed scripts. They should be the civilised face, the living conscience of their nations and societies. The question of the intellectual versus the public servant is relevant, but more important is that of how to update our understanding of the modern state.
* The writer is chairman of the foreign affairs committee at the People's Assembly.
