Mixed messages

A recent government poll paints a confusing picture of a society where corruption is simultaneously condemned and coveted, reports Gihan Shahine

---

A recent government survey of more than 2,000 people in three governorates -- Cairo, Sohag in Upper Egypt and Daqahliya in the Nile Delta -- foregrounds the ambiguous attitude of many Egyptians to those in authority.

The study was conducted by Ahmed Abdallah Zayed, dean of Cairo University's Faculty of Literature. Commissioned by the Cabinet's Decision and Information Support Centre, it was funded by the Ministry of Administrative Development.

A majority of respondents listed businessmen, especially those with close links to authorities, as the "most corrupt" group in society. They were followed by senior government employees, policemen, the judiciary, people working in the media and university professors. More than 50 per cent of the sample thought they were victims of injustice while 40 per cent conceded they had resorted to connections to secure jobs or other social rights. Twelve per cent of those polled said they thought bribery the only way to guarantee their rights.

The general impression of 75 per cent of the polled sample was that injustice had become more entrenched in the last five years. The groups that felt most persecuted were those living in rural areas (50.2 per cent), male respondents (51.2), those aged between 18 and 34 (51.2 per cent) and the illiterate (52.9 per cent).

The perceived gap between rich and poor was a particular cause of frustration. The report found that 70 per cent of the population defined itself as poor.

Leftist commentator Salah Eissa points out that the findings of the poll are at best "impressionistic", arguing that while they may reflect the opinion of many more work is needed to assess whether or not those opinions have any basis in reality.

"Many civil servants, for instance, complain that they are underpaid yet it turns out they hardly go to work," Eissa told Al-Ahram Weekly. He also believes it is important to know the social status of interviewees and who or what they think is the source of the injustices they perceive.

"It was intriguing, for instance," he says, "to see half of the population complaining of poverty while carrying mobiles."

Cairo Institute for Human Right Studies' Bahieddin Hassan expressed alarm that half of the people in the survey said they felt desperate in the absence of any effective mechanism to counter injustice. "It is worrying that nepotism and bribery are seen as the only way to secure rights."

"No one," says Hassan, "mentioned qualifications or recourse to the law as a way to improve their position."

Psychiatrist Khalil Fadel, author of The Pains of Egyptians, says the poll's findings overlap with his clinical experience. "Egyptians have reached a stage where nepotism and bribery are seen as the only reliable defence mechanism in the absence of social justice."

He paints a bleak picture of society. "Crime has proliferated," he told the Weekly. "And in many cases the criminal is driven by despair and a deep conviction that the rich are not entitled to their wealth, that they did not acquire it through work. There is a clear lack of trust between people, no sense of security and a loss of integrity in Egyptian society."

Eighty three per cent of interviewees said they thought corruption had become more endemic in the last five years. It extends, they said, across the board, including government departments as well as businessmen, small traders, the police and local councils.

The poll also revealed how little faith the public places in official statements, especially those pertaining to the economy.

Yet if the survey revealed widespread discontent with standards in public life, the flip side is it showed, too, that probity was not greatly valued on an individual level. Only 16 per cent of those interviewed said they were consistently honest and 71 per cent conceded they lied on occasion.

Double standards appear to be the order of the day with 54.7 per cent of the polled sample complaining that hypocrisy and dishonesty were widespread. Yet when asked about their own behaviour 53.6 per cent said they were motivated chiefly by personal interests, and 12.4 per cent replied that they would be willing to resort to illegal means to turn a quick profit.

Politicians, followed by policemen, ranked on top of those the public believe say one thing then do another; more surprisingly they were followed by clergymen and the judiciary.

It is attitudes to religious figures that best foreground the confusion that the survey appears to reveal. While 43 per cent of interviewees claimed clergymen behaved in a hypocritical manner 50 per cent said they offered a suitable role model. Scientific, political and artistic figures were barely mentioned as examples worth emulating, though 35 per cent of respondents said they had adopted a family member as a life model.

The same respondents who accused the government of being corrupt, says Eissa, also revealed in the survey that they would like to secure a government job for themselves, citing prestige, flexible working hours and access to bribes as the reasons. The real problem, he concludes, is not that those interviewed in the report are actually against corruption, it is just that they feel they are not getting their share of the cake.