The Myth - Hassan Elsawaf

In the mid-nineties there was an ominous trend in Egypt, reflecting the mushrooming sectarian rift between the majority Muslims and the Copts. Provocative car stickers with captions brandishing religious orientation were ubiquitous in the streets of Cairo. It was a war of sorts and the numbers were escalating rapidly. Both Muslims and Copts saw the act as a stalwart defence of their religion. For a while, authorities seemed uncertain of how to deal with the problem, fearing widespread unrest. Then, one day, a crackdown was launched. It was announced that heavy fines would be imposed on anyone caught with a sticker or symbol in the car that bore religious connotations. For a day or two the country held its breath. Violent protests were expected and many believed there would be serious rioting. The huge surprise was that nothing happened. Without much ado, the stickers were removed and peace was resto red.

That myth was exposed.

Nowadays, there is a far wider myth which the Egyptian government has done an excellent job of perpetuating. It is the myth of the guaranteed advent of a theocracy if democracy is permitted. It has given the authorities a powerful mandate to perpetrate many immoral and unjust acts under the banner of ‘protecting national security’. What is perplexing is that they actually get away with it and manage to keep the country immersed in a quagmire of autocratic oblivion with ‘state of emergency’ laws and other draconian measures. How can Egypt move ahead under such bleak conditions?

Insisting that democracy be deferred for fear of allowing religious extremists access to power is like insisting a man who hasn’t bathed in years avoid a shower for fear of catching the flu. Well, Egypt hasn’t had a bath in decades and the flu can be treated!

Egyptians have become apathetic. They are no longer capable of making rational decisions. When it comes to the murky area of what would happen if the political picture were to change for more openness and transparency, many are apprehensive. The prevailing view seems to be that the country is seaming with frustrated religious extremists anxious to turn Egypt into another Iran. Their numbers, if it’s free elections we have in mind, would easily dwarf any secular opposition and the nation would quickly plunge into chaos.

That is the view that even well-educated opponents of the current regime espouse. There seems to be a consensus that there is no alternative to religious domination, thereby rendering any well-intentioned discussion on political reform a non-starter.

When a society is ruled by the whip, myths become an auxiliary instrument. The simplest argument to expose the current myth is that it is only under a dictatorship that religious extremism has become a threat. Religious extremism thrives under oppression, feeds on minds crushed by tyranny and explodes when mouths are gagged. More dictatorship is definitely not the answer.

Religion is always a touchy area in countries ruled despotically. Since healthy secular opposition is persistently thwarted, the only remaining channel is religion. Many flock towards it in the belief that the way of God is the only way to counter the immoral behaviour of the regime; others get swept into it by intimidation.

Election results in syndicates and unions show strong Islamist support, a misleading phenomenon. Part of the support is due to intimidation by the extremists, going as far as to physically prevent opponents from voting; another part is apathy on the part of a population long disenchanted with the notion of voting in a country in which results are usually preordained. Turnout is thus extremely low. Most people don’t vote because they have lost trust in the voting system, be it in the syndicates, parliamentary elections or presidential referenda. If that trust is restored, people would vote for a better way of life, which means neither the Islamists nor the existing charade.

The authorities claim they are doing all they can to eradicate terrorism. They conveniently avoid the real reason behind the spread of terrorism, namely despotic rule. The way the authorities reason, with the tacit support of parochial outsiders, is that terrorism must be eradicated through violence. That, unfortunately, only invites an avalanche of terrorists in the waiting. The government would have you believe they are fighting extremism for the sake of the masses. Fiddlesticks! They need the extremists. That is the only way they can justify what they are doing. Without the fanatics they would have no argument when asked why they do not hold free elections.

It is high time we use our heads and refuse to be sucked into this ridiculous myth