A safeguard for all

---

One word that has gained in popularity of late is citizenry. Everyone is using the word with a sense of excitement, as if it were newly coined. The reason for this is the sudden rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group's impressive performance in the recent elections renewed fears for the future of Copts in this country. Will they be treated as second-class citizens? Might they be asked to pay jizia -- a poll tax exacted from dhimmies (second class), or non- Muslims? Citizenry is supposed to provide an exit from such dilemmas. Citizenry, goes the argument, transcends sectarianism. As such, it's good for minorities. But think again. There is more to citizenry than blindness to faith.

Citizenry is the measure of the legal and political standing of the individual. We must all be citizens, regardless of our religious inclinations. The great thing about citizenry is equality. For citizenry to mean anything citizens must all share the same rights and obligations before the law.

Everyone should be encouraged to think and work freely, regardless of colour, creed or class. Such equality is unthinkable outside the framework of a modern, democratic and secular state. Any other type of state subjects individuals to authoritarian rule. The transition from sect to state, from subject to citizen, lies at the heart of modernity. This is why citizenry is part and parcel of the process of modernisation.

Following the 1952 Revolution the state maintained much of the pre-modern legacy it had inherited. Under President Anwar El-Sadat -- a man who took to calling himself the "head of the family" -- the system of government was patriarchal. The ruler called the shots. Wars were started with no prior consultation with the public. Peace was made under the same conditions. When faced with opposition over peace with Israel, El-Sadat simply disbanded parliament. A one-party system, then limited pluralism, central planning and then privatisation were all introduced from above. The state was the ultimate nanny -- knowing best and rewarding loyalists with positions of authority from which they could tell technocrats what to do.

Until recently all elections were a charade. The public were citizens only in name. In reality they were told what to think and how to act. Those who dared to object were punished as an example to the rest. And this happened in an autocratic state. Think of what might happen in a theocratic state. Think of what can happen when rulers speak not just in the name of the nation, but in the name of God. Citizenry is not a Coptic issue. Citizenry is a safeguard for all.