Hala Mustafa and the Liberal Arab Predicament Part II

 

by David Govrin

 

2^nd part of 3

 

Mustafa’s Academic and Public Activities

As with other Egyptian liberals, the circumstances under which Mustafa operates are difficult. Alongside their self-censure, Egyptian liberal activists are denied access to the government-controlled communication networks.[11] Mustafa relates that she has come under physical and psychological pressures that limit her freedom of movement. She has, for instance, complained of tight supervision by the Egyptian security agencies, including telephone tapping and surveillance. She has pointed out that she fears for her life and that the “harsh security siege” in which she is placed has caused her to feel paralyzed. Moreover, some have compounded these problems by accusing her of serving as an U.S. secret agent.[12] She denies that her membership in the Supreme Committee for Policy Planning of the ruling National Democratic Party provides her with immunity.[13]

Recently, she landed in the middle of a controversy following a meeting with the Israeli ambassador to Egypt at her office in the Al-Ahram Center. The journalists’ union accused her of violating a previous union resolution that forbade any form of normalization with Israelis. She was summoned to the union’s offices for further investigation and received a warning for violating the union’s ban.[14] This episode, reported not only in the Egyptian press but also in the wider Arab media,[15] reflects the great many difficulties that face a prominent Arab liberal like Mustafa.

Although Mustafa is a liberal officially associated with the establishment, she displays great courage in expressing unconventional views. In published articles, she profoundly criticizes the involvement of the security apparatus in political life: “The real threat of Egypt’s state security apparatus … is that it continues to secretly manipulate the entire political system.”[16] According to her, it is no secret that the security services are deeply involved within the National Democratic Party to the extent that they select high-ranking officials and most of the party candidates for parliamentary elections.[17] Likewise, she has claimed that recruitment to all positions is made on the basis of loyalty to the security authorities instead of professional excellence and skills, political background, or experience.[18]

Mustafa has, therefore, claimed that if the security services’ “silent war” is not restrained, true political change and efforts to realize a “reform from within” will continue to be obstructed in Egypt. This will limit the progressive political elite and keep it ineffective; individuals capable of promise will systematically be treated as targets; moderate groups will be shut down, and citizens will be kept away from political life.[19] Mustafa maintains that the political dominance of the National Democratic Party of President Hosni Mubarak extends to the security authorities, the government bureaucracy, and the national media.[20]

 

The Egyptian Liberal Experience

Mustafa stresses that Egypt has the richest liberal heritage in the region, a heritage that dates back to the end of the nineteenth century. She ascribes vast importance to Egyptian liberals active then and subsequently, singling them out for praise because they worked to instill liberal concepts of government and individual freedoms, sought independence for the legal system from the political authorities, strove to develop the notion of citizenship and to institute religious reform, strengthen women’s status, and generate political pluralism.

During the 1920s and 30s in Egypt, the most important laws and regulations regarding constitutional and parliamentary life were published, and for the first time, basic individual rights and freedoms were approved. As far as Mustafa is concerned, the 1923 Egyptian constitution clearly reflected the liberal vision in matters of society-state relations, governmental methods, and relations between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.[21] For three decades (1923-52), Egyptians enjoyed constitutional rule and relative social freedom. Achieving independence from the British, the Egyptian parliament framed a constitution that called for Western-style government with a restricted monarchy. The press, universities, and intellectual life as a whole flourished. Liberalism took root in the cafés and clubs, only to be crushed after 1954 by the rise to power of Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Nevertheless, Mustafa is troubled by the fact that Egypt’s liberal experience did not produce a developed bourgeois class as occurred in Europe. There was a weak political foundation and not enough social power to spread liberal ideas. Mustafa believes that a lack of political independence prevented Egyptians from consolidating their experience of liberalism. The appearance in 1928 of the Muslim Brotherhood weakened liberalism from the beginning and destroyed the bridge between Islam and modernity, which earlier exponents of the reformist movement had established.[22] Additionally, by focusing mainly on the elite, today’s reformist liberals have failed to recruit wide support for their cause or to become a real alternative to those in power.

The revolutionary fervor of Arab nationalism during the 1950s also negatively affected the development of today’s reformist liberal trend. The nationalist Arab movement focused on the struggle against colonialism and demands for independence, and it came to be linked to a single-party system. Under these circumstances, pluralism was considered a form of fragmentation that conflicted with the movement’s core purpose. As the nationalist movement developed, it gave rise to the principle of a single-party system, which led to a single leader and a single voice.[23]

 

Liberal Values and Democratic Political Culture

The need to develop a democratic political culture in Arab society ranks as a central plank of Arab liberal discourse in general and for Mustafa in particular. She believes that the political culture includes all the issues leading to a democratic regime and that it plays a central role in speeding up or slowing down social change.[24] For her, it is not enough to build constitutional institutions, such as governmental parties and a legislative body. There is an urgent need for cultural and liberal values that will inform the laws and institutions with meaning and content.[25]

According to Mustafa, the stagnation of political life in the Arab world is attributable to two types of factors. The first are populist, pan-Arab, and Islamic trends that developed after the 1950s and are by now deeply integrated within Arab political culture. These trends inherently oppose pluralism, democratic transformation, liberalism, and other Western values. The second factor is the absence of a sense of individualism. Arab culture emphasizes blood kinship, clan affiliations, and family ties over the individual, something that contradicts individual rights and freedoms.[26] Therefore, the political culture still conveys a kind of collectiveness and anti-individualism that obstructs the road to democracy.[27]

Mustafa emphasizes that the meaning of liberalism is more extensive and profound than that of democracy. Without a liberal constitution, democracy would be flawed. As she states,

The democracy to which we strive is not a mere legal, constitutional, institutional, and partisan framework; but rather, it is at its core a theoretical democracy, a democracy that is cultural and social and which stems from the values of liberty and thus restores the individual’s value and appropriate stature in designing the future. [28]

 

Islamism

Writing on political Islam, Mustafa stresses that Islamist movements refuse to acknowledge that the state is the highest source of political authority but adhere to the rule of God (Hakamiyat Allah). Therefore, they insist on canceling modern civil legislation and propose to replace it with Islamic laws. This implies a deep-rooted change in the nature of the modern state system and the foundations upon which it is based. It also dismisses people’s right to choose an alternative to Islam or to recognize approaches that are beyond the scope of religious authority. Religious authority opposes freedom of opinion, thought, and faith. There is an inherent conflict within the Islamic movements over the principles of pluralism and open competition as forces in society, both of which constitute basic tenets of democracy. Thus, a large gap exists between Islamist declarations about their formal willingness to accept democracy and their lack of acceptance of its underlying principles.[29]

In an article published in the semiofficial Egyptian daily paper Al-Ahram, Mustafa harshly criticized the Islamic groups and the legacy of the Arab national movement. She called for self-criticism, allowing Arab societies to contend with the tremendous challenges that face them. She further warned against the gravest threats to the region, namely, the radical political and religio-political groups that overshadow Arab societies and their democratic, cultural, and social development. These forces focus on denying the “other,” by which they mean the West, including its culture and values, and seek to defeat it. They strive to impose their political plans, not just on themselves but upon society at large.[30]

Mustafa concludes that the Arab world must reflect critically upon its activities. Arab society must hasten modernization while steering clear of slogans or erecting conspiracy and anti-Westernization theories. There is no escape from the centrality of the issue of individual freedom, she argues, for the individual is the essence of the construction and awakening of society. Democracy is not merely a confirmation of legal and constitutional rights or the establishment of political institutions, but exists within a culture and through the values in which the individual believes.[31]

She argues against the claim, which she says was cultivated by the Egyptian regime, that the only alternative to the current regime is an Islamic polity. Egypt’s liberal-secular legacy means it has the potential to become a secular, moderate, liberal, and modern country. In addition, it enjoys the advantage of being relatively homogenous at most levels of society, unlike some other Arab countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Syria), which have to deal with ethnic rifts that inhibit the development of democracy.[32]

Mustafa views the Muslim Brotherhood’s relationship with the regime as one of mutual dependence and points to a tacit and bizarre alliance between the government and the Brotherhood. The regime uses the Brotherhood to frighten the United States and other Western countries about what might happen in Egypt. In practice, Mustafa stresses—unlike many other observers—that the Brotherhood is unable to overthrow the regime or take over the political system, and that its influence is much less significant than it may seem. When trying to explain why the regime allows the Brotherhood significantly more political and media coverage than the liberals, Mustafa notes that the conflicts between the government and the Brotherhood have to do with power-sharing in the regime, whereas the discord between the regime and the liberals is more of a threat to the status quo since it is based on ideology and political principles. Thus, the government persistently denies legitimacy to liberal reformers who are devoted to an alternative, secular, and popular political challenge.[33]

Historically, political stagnation and the weakening or elimination of political parties during the eras of Arab socialism and nationalism (which were led by liberals), resulted in the mosques becoming alternative centers through which political debate, calls for the right of free expression, disagreement, criticism, and opposition were voiced. This opposition developed into an armed and violent force.[34]

Mustafa does not limit the political crisis in Egypt during the last three decades to the Islamists and how far they have become integrated into the political system. Rather, the question should be: How can Egyptians allow representation for all political trends, not just Arab nationalism and political Islam?[35]

It is Mustafa’s impression that should true reform take place, the Muslim Brotherhood will be unable to obtain any substantial political advance. Political reform would constitute a barrier to the Brotherhood since it would no longer represent the only alternative to the government. Reform would change the status quo and the balance of power. As a result, new trends would arise and compete with each other.[36] On the other hand, granting the Muslim Brotherhood legal status would most likely contribute to the further Islamization of politics.[37]

 

David Govrin

Copyright – Original materials copyright © by the authors.

../…