Participatory tolerance

Copts must play a greater role in political life, argues Emad Gad*

---

Over the last few weeks Egypt has experienced a crisis. On the surface the crisis revolves around Wafaa Constantine. Beneath the surface it has revealed an unprecedented degree of sectarian tension and polarisation among Egyptians. During the crisis Egyptians' characteristic tolerance and moderation have taken a back seat, as has the normal objectivity and enlightened views of parties to the crisis.

Now, after the dust has settled and emotions have calmed, we can think about the issue from a purely national perspective and attempt to establish objective foundations on which to deal with such issues comprehensively, rather than using stop-gap measures aimed simply at closing the case, despite residual resentment.

Looking at what was written during the crisis, most expressed a purely sectarian viewpoint, with one party attacking the other. Such articles were far from taking a national approach. Most of what was written was a one-sided attempt to lay the blame for the crisis completely on one side. Some made allusions to parties abroad attempting to harm our national security and national unity, while others in Egypt attempted to draw strength from abroad in an attempt to pressure the Egyptian state. Both of these approaches carry dangers. Meddling from abroad cannot be denied, and thoughts of using outside intervention, despite its dangers, did cross the minds of some. But neither of these arguments addressed the central, domestic issue objectively, or from a national standpoint. Ordinarily such issues are managed in such a way as to create problems later. The case is closed but not resolved, leaving everyone dissatisfied with the outcome.

There were some articles that dealt with the crisis objectively, attempting amid all the clamour to provide an Egyptian, rather than sectarian, perspective on the problem. Some writers offered a wholly Egyptian appeal, seeking to face unresolved issues and eliminate the root cause of the resentment, encouraging the public to adopt a long-term view of the crisis with a view to promoting tolerance.

One such author was Rifaat El-Said, leader of the Tagammu Party, who was moved by the sectarian strife and the media uproar to offer a working programme that I believe could be used as a framework for discussing pressing issues clearly and transparently. On this basis we might forge a truly Egyptian national discourse with which to end the state of sectarian tension and resolve once and for all the problems, most of which are, in any case, of our own making. The most serious of these problems stems from ignorance, compounded by an absence of imagination and creativity and, perhaps, a lack of courage.

El-Said called on Egyptian Copts to abandon their political passivity and actively engage in existing political parties in order to blaze a new trail to express their views. Egyptian Copts could then make their demands known and urge political parties into taking properly Egyptian, national stances. "If they formed an effective electoral bloc they would be able to have a real impact that no one could criticise," he wrote.

Such a framework is one we should all work to cement in our political life if we truly wish to maintain domestic cohesion. This will require constant work to establish the foundations for a long-term treatment of a problem from which we all suffer -- the prevalence of political passivity and alienation from political life. Although this is a national characteristic, it is most prominent among Copts.

Since any successful treatment must be based on a proper diagnosis of the illness, we must confront at the outset the lack of public transparency and the absence of the role that should be played by executive bodies authorised to deal with such issues from a national perspective. This absence has given other parties the opportunity to circulate whatever stories they wish, leaving no space for alternative versions. Even more seriously, some sections of society have begun to accept only those versions that concord with their own views without even thinking that there may be another side to the story.

Turning to the issue that led to the strife, we find serious sectarian polarisation as each group focussed on its own version of events. Indeed, the two versions were contradictory. This state was fed by a media frenzy that showed little concern for the future of the country, its security or its stability.

Anger and resentment accumulated in the absence of a truthful version of events and as each party wove its own story and reached conclusions that suited preconceived beliefs -- and all of this in a climate made tense by outside voices flinging accusations and throwing oil on the fire.

Sectarian debate became the talk of the town. There was a complete absence of moderation and little attention was paid to the feelings of fellow citizens. Discussions were inflamed and accusations were hurled that could not have originated in the issue at hand. Talk at home and in informal gatherings turned to purely sectarian subjects.

What we witnessed was the product of decades of resentment, the result of an intolerant educational policy and a media discourse totally lacking the values of citizenship.

The crisis revealed a state of sectarian strife unprecedented in contemporary Egypt, exceeding even that which existed at the end of Anwar El-Sadat's era. It is incumbent on us all to persevere and work to put an end to it. We must move beyond an individual case and reach the stage when we act on purely Egyptian grounds.

Greater political involvement on the part of Copts is urgently needed. Copts must abandon their isolation and their aversion to politics, particularly party politics. But it would not be helpful to speak, for example, of a parliamentary quota system based on sectarian identity. Such a move would be fraught with danger. Copts are Egyptian citizens, and they must involve themselves in public life and abandon that mentality that leads them down certain educational paths that end up isolating them from public life.

Given the number of Egyptian Copts political parties will be forced to shape their electoral platforms with an eye to winning Coptic votes. At which point we can expect an end to sectarian discussions, slogans and platforms apart from among a few extremists.

Public figures should adopt a national spirit, with national identity taking precedence over narrower sectarian divisions. We cannot delay an appeal of this kind on the pretext that there are pressing problems, and that political and party work is a long, complex process the fruits of which will only come years later. We must begin to look at the issue from the perspective of national identity, and over the long term. In doing so we will discover that this is the only means to develop a modern, civil nation state that respects citizenship, upholds the values of tolerance and respects pluralism, whether religious, cultural, or political. The time has come to speak, and speak loudly. There is no place, and no future, for sectarian discourse.

Parliamentary elections are due in less than a year. This is a golden opportunity for those eligible to register to vote. Prospective voters, though, must be convinced that their votes matter and that, with the passage of time, they will alter this atmosphere of sectarian tension. It is not important which party prospective voters join; the important thing is to participate in elections.

If Copts renounce their isolation and involve themselves in public life they will be an electoral force to be reckoned with, a force that can bring true patriots, regardless of sectarian identity, to parliament. And it is at this point that issues can be addressed using democratic means far-removed from sectarian discourse and talk of quota systems. And this is also the point at which no one will pay attention to talk from abroad, whether to denounce it or embrace it.

* The writer is director of Arabs Against Discrimination, a Cairo-based NGO.