On the State of Egypt (27 page)

Evidence for this is what recently happened in Libya when officials realized that the Gaddafi regime had a terrible reputation, as tens of thousands of innocent Libyans have been detained, tortured, expelled, or murdered simply because they have ideas contrary to the policies of Colonel Gaddafi (who recently decided to grant himself the title King of Kings of Africa). Libyan officials wanted to do something to polish the regime’s image in the eyes of the world, and because Libya is a rich oil-producing country and because the money of the Libyan people is under the control of Colonel Gaddafi to spend as he likes without any oversight, they created a big literary prize called the Gaddafi Prize for International Literature with a value of 150,000 euros, to be awarded each year to a major international writer in order to improve the regime’s image. In the first year they chose the great Spanish novelist, Juan Goytisolo, aged seventy-nine, whom critics consider to be the most important living Spanish writer. Goytisolo himself has suffered oppression, as the dictatorial Franco regime killed his mother when he was a child and forced him to live most of his life in exile. Goytisolo is also one of the greatest defenders of democracy and freedom, a big supporter of Arab rights, and such an admirer of Arab culture that he has lived permanently in Marrakesh for years. The Libyan officials contacted Goytisolo, congratulated him, and told him he had won the Gaddafi Prize for International Literature. In response Goytisolo wrote a letter to the adjudication committee, published in the Spanish newspaper
El País
, in which he turned down the prize and said:

I have spent my life defending the right of Arab peoples to justice and freedom and I have stood firmly against the despotic regimes which through their corruption and injustice have kept millions of Arabs in the clutches of ignorance and poverty.… I can never accept a prize awarded by Colonel Gaddafi, who took power by force and established a dictatorial regime which detained, tortured and murdered innocent Libyans. I turn down this prize simply because it goes against all the principles I believe in.

This response was a slap in the face of the Gaddafi regime that echoed around the world. The London newspaper,
The Independent
, published a long article by Boyd Tonkin welcoming Goytisolo’s position and describing him as playing the true role of writers as “voices of conscience who can exercise the freedom—and even responsibility—to stand up to unjust power.” In fact, dozens of Libyan intellectuals in exile sent a message of thanks to Goytisolo in which they said:

By publicly turning down the Gaddafi Prize for International Literature in its first year, in spite of the attractive prize money, you have struck a principled blow against the dictator Gaddafi, who thought that with the money plundered from Libyans he could buy the consciences of writers.

Those in charge of the Gaddafi prize were faced with a big problem. If they cancelled the prize it would be a big scandal, and if they offered it to another major international writer it was very possible that he would turn it down like Goytisolo, and that would be a double scandal. Although the prize was basically intended for a major international writer, the organizers overlooked this stipulation and sought out an Arab who would agree to accept the prize.

They found what they were looking for in Egyptian critic Gaber Asfour and announced that he had won the prize. Mr. Asfour, unfortunately, ignored all this context and went to Libya to receive the prize at a big ceremony in which, of course, he praised the leader of the Libyan revolution (and the King of Kings of Africa) and lauded the great freedom Libyans enjoy. Gaber Asfour did not feel the slightest embarrassment in taking a prize that a major international writer had rejected in solidarity with the Libyan people against the despotic Gaddafi regime. It seems that the amount of 150,000 euros was too much for Asfour to resist. The strange thing is that, after taking the check from Gaddafi, Asfour quickly came back to Egypt to hold spirited seminars to defend
A Thousand and One Nights
. After that, can one believe Gaber Asfour when he defends freedom of creativity?

Freedoms are inseparable and we cannot defend freedom of creativity in isolation from other general freedoms. Creative freedom, although of great importance, acquires its value only in the context of defending the rights, the freedom, and the dignity of people in general. The difference between Gaber Asfour’s position and that of Goytisolo is exactly the difference between interests and principles, between wrong and right. When all our intellectuals act like Goytisolo, only then will despotism end and the future begin.

Democracy is the solution.

May 18, 2010

The Fate of Ibrahim Eissa

I
n the 1980s I applied for a grant to study in the United States and one of the conditions was to pass an examination in English as a foreign language, the TOEFL. I took the exam in Ewart Hall at the American University in Cairo and the room was full of young doctors and engineers who, like me, were applying to go abroad to study. That day I asked everyone I met if they would like to stay in the United States if they had a chance, and the answer was a firm yes. In fact many wanted to leave Egypt and go to any country whatsoever. At the time I thought what a devastating loss this was for Egypt. The country desperately needed these doctors and engineers but as soon as they finished their education, they were emigrating to other countries.

That led me to another question: Why did these young people want to escape Egypt? Poverty was not the reason because with a little patience and hard work they could work in Egypt for reasonable salaries, whereas in the West they would often have to do menial work well beneath their qualifications. The fundamental reason they were emigrating was frustration and a sense that the situation in Egypt is unfair and topsy-turvy. Causes mostly do not lead to the right results, hard work is never a prerequisite for promotion, and competence is not the criterion for obtaining a good job. In fact making a fortune usually has nothing to do with talent or effort. Everything one earns in democratic countries through hard work and merit can be obtained in Egypt through personal contacts and cunning. All the things that entitle you to promotion there are not enough to get ahead in Egypt. On the contrary, if you are talented in Egypt, you face a major problem and would be better off if you were average or even a dim-witted failure, first because the system is designed for average people and suffocates those with talent, and second because your future depends first and foremost on your relationships rather than your just deserts. To have talent in Egypt is a burden because it gives rise to malice and envy, and many people will come forward to crush it. If you are talented in Egypt, you face three options: you can emigrate to a democratic country that respects talents and appreciates competence, where you can work hard day after day until you become like Ahmed Zewail, Mohamed ElBaradei, Magdi Yacoub, and their like; you can offer your talents to a despotic system, agreeing to be its servant and a tool for oppressing, abusing, and cheating Egyptians; or you can decide to preserve your honor, in which case you will meet the same fate as Ibrahim Eissa.

Eissa is one of the most gifted, honest, and courageous journalists in Egypt. With his dazzling talent and with almost no resources, he managed to make
al-Dustur
newspaper into a distinctive landmark on the Egyptian and Arab media scene, and like a great master, he has not been content with his own professional achievement but also sees it as his duty to sponsor young talent. At
al-Dustur
he introduced dozens of new names, all of whom came to him as young reporters. He gave them love, encouraged them, and taught them to fly until they soared high in the sky of the Egyptian press. If Ibrahim Eissa had appeared in a democratic country, he would now be living crowned with honors for his talent and his work. Unfortunately he is in Egypt, where the despotic regime cannot allow you to be talented and honorable at the same time. Ibrahim Eissa did not oppose the government, he opposed the system. He did not launch attacks on those responsible for the sewage system or the telephone network, he directed his critiques at the head of the regime personally. He called for real democratic change through free and fair elections and regular change at the top. He took a firm stand against any attempt to transfer power from father to son as though Egypt were a poultry farm. Ibrahim Eissa managed to turn
al-Dustur
into an important training ground for journalists and an open house for all patriots. Any Egyptian with a just grievance would find
al-Dustur
on his side and any writer who had an article banned in any other newspaper could automatically have it published in
al-Dustur
. It was a newspaper for all Egyptians, defending the truth without fear or favor.

The regime tried to silence Ibrahim Eissa in every possible way. It tried to wear him down with absurd trials and frivolous lawsuits. It intimidated him and threatened to detain him because he dared to ask questions about President Mubarak’s health, then decided at the last minute to pardon him. It tried to buy him by commissioning him to present television programs that would bring him an income, in the belief that he would take his livelihood into account and shut up, but with the passage of time it was clear that his conscience was not for sale. Ibrahim Eissa held fast to the torch of truth, always saying what he believed and always doing what he said. As popular and international pressure for democratic change mounted in Egypt, the regime faced a predicament and grew nervous. Ibrahim Eissa had become more than the regime could tolerate. At this point a masterly plan was drawn up to destroy Ibrahim Eissa, and the plan was rapidly put into effect stage by stage. There appeared on the scene a man by the name of Sayed Badawi, of whom nothing was known except that he was wealthy and owned the al-Hayat television channels, which suggests that he had the approval of senior regime officials. Badawi spent vast amounts of money to win leadership of the Wafd Party and then spent more money to persuade the party to play the role of token opposition in the farce of the next rigged elections. This was the first task Badawi accomplished for the regime. Then came his second task. Suddenly we saw Badawi buying
al-Dustur
and saying from the first that the newspaper’s political line would not change and that his principle is always to keep management and editorial separate. Then another owner appeared alongside Badawi, a man by the name of Reda Edward, someone who has never had anything to do with the press. The two partners performed their task with high professionalism. Mr. Edward talked tough and flaunted his loyalty to the regime, while Badawi smiled sweetly as he gave everyone hugs and kisses and kind words. But the plan was carried out with precision.

On the very day ownership of
al-Dustur
was officially transferred, Badawi’s first decision was to dismiss Ibrahim Eissa arbitrarily and contemptuously. After that everything was carefully calculated. The young journalists, shocked to see Badawi mistreat their mentor, protested and staged a sit-in. They were an easy challenge. Badawi gave them new contracts with good salaries to make them forget what happened. The union of journalists, meanwhile, found itself in a situation unprecedented in the Egyptian press. The union board took the matter seriously and demanded that Ibrahim Eissa be reinstated because he was dismissed arbitrarily and illegally. At this point union leader Makram Mohamed Ahmed, a leading admirer of President Mubarak, his wisdom, and his achievements, came into the picture. Ahmed rushed hither and thither and held lengthy meetings that concluded with him advising Ibrahim Eissa to seek redress through the legal system (some effective union leadership!). In this way the goal was accomplished and Ibrahim Eissa was dismissed as editor of
al-Dustur
, the newspaper he had created with his intellect and his effort. It is plainly obvious that Badawi and Reda Edward are merely the latest model of regime men.

The question is why were all these plots and maneuvers carried out and millions of pounds wasted in order to get rid of a talented and honorable writer whose only assets are his ideas and his pen? Why didn’t the regime devote all that effort to saving millions of Egyptians from the misery they live in?
Al-Dustur
is finished, but it has gone down in Egyptian history as a great national and journalistic experiment. The regime may have succeeded in dismissing Ibrahim Eissa as editor of
al-Dustur
but it will never be able to remove him from the roll of honor where Egypt records the names of honorable and righteous Egyptians. And there is one thing that Sayed Badawi and those who drew up the plan with him did not reckon on: the Ibrahim Eissa who created
al-Dustur
can create dozens of other newspapers and the tide of change in Egypt will surely triumph because it is in defense of truth and justice, while supporters of the regime are defending injustice, oppression, and evil. Egypt has risen and no one, whoever he may be, can stand between Egypt and the future.

Democracy is the solution.

October 12, 2010