3 Responses to “Mr. Bush’s Mirage”  

1. 1 The Usual Suspect Sep 22nd, 2006 at 7:07 am

   Hossam
   This is an interesting article indeed. I’m not sure how many people actually buy Bush’s rantings on bringing democracy to the ME- certainly it would seem to me that most people I speak to can see right through the hypocrisy of it all. But then I read some of the postings on Sandmonkey’s blog and become quite disheartened. I’m surprised that the same people who use Sandmonkey’s blog to express their one sided support of US actions aren’t here on your blog?
   But anyway…

2. 2 Hossam el-Hamalawy Sep 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 am

   Thanks for your interest in the blog… re: your questions…
   Unlike the case of Eastern Europe, the pro-political change movement here in the region is anti-US as you and I know. Why? It has to do with the long history of successive US govts who, on the one hand, supported Israel’s policies against the Palestinians, and on the other hand sponsored Arab autocrats.
   Bush flirted with “democratization” for some time after 9/11, but it’s clear it was a cynical and hypocrtical move on his behalf since the beginning. At the end of the day, he still opted for “stability” and friendly dictatorial regimes who can fight “terror.”
   Sandmonkey has a different view than mine in that regards. While recognizing the failings of US policies, he is still hopeful there could be an alliance between the US and Arab liberals to bring about a smooth secular democratic change in the region. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, still his pro-civil liberties campaigning is something I respect him for.

3. 3 The Usual Suspect Sep 24th, 2006 at 8:45 am

   Have you read anything by Paul Findley? I’d recommend ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ if you can get your hands on a copy.

   I’m not so sure that secular liberalism is all it’s cracked up to be Hossam. The history of secularism is that it came about as a revolt against Church involvement in State affairs. Now, that certainly works as long as there is a concerted and vigilant effort to keep the public and private domains separate. But it does not work if one religion is favoured over another. Look at the US and Australia (where I am now, born in Egypt) - a lot of right wing Christian groups are getting political power so really they are not true secular democracies. Secularism is actually supposed to be a pretext for religious diversity but where one religion is favoured by the State, those who practice minority religions may not enjoy the same civil liberties of those who practice the dominant religion.

   If parts of the Muslim ME were to embark on a secular experiment I fear that it would fail drastically. For one thing, for many Muslims religion cannot be confined to the private domain “Islam is a way of life” they say and the definition of sprirituality upon which secularism is based is seen to be too narrow. Secondly, Islam would certainly be the religion of favour.

   I’m all for secularism and democracy but the grass is not always greener! I guess because I’m Muslim in a predominantly Christian secular democratic country, I can see how minority religions such as Christians and Jews in the ME would not necessarily fare better under a secular democratic system. They will have to learn a new way of engaging in the public sphere- they will have to learn to use the common currency of political language that is not based on their religious identity. This is something I am trying to get Muslims in Australia to do at the moment- but it’s a challenge because so many of them refuse to accept that religion and state can be separate entities. They prefer to voice their opinions, views and needs in terms of their Islamic identity and so, because religion has no place in the public sphere of secular democracies, they do not get heard and they cannot validate their status as political citizens. Instead they stay at home,pray their five prayers, don’t work, don’t contribute to society and live very isolated lives!

   With regard to SM- I understand what you’re saying.