|
Take
Them Out of the Ball Game: Egypt's Cultural Players in Crisis
Samia Mehrez
(Samia Mehrez
teaches Arabic literature at the American University in Cairo.)
|

Student
wounded during a demonstration demanding the resignation of
Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni at al-Azhar University,
May 5, 2000. (AP Photo)
|
On
January 2, 2001, newly elected parliamentary deputy and Muslim Brother
Gamal Heshmat submitted an inquiry to Minister of Culture Farouk
Hosni concerning the publication by the General Organization for
Cultural Palaces (GOCP) of three novels containing what the MP described
as "explicitly indecent material amounting to pornography."(1)
Within two days of the submission of the inquiry, the minister of
culture ordered an investigation, whereupon his legal advisor conducted
an "interrogation" of those responsible in the absent
minister's office. The outcome was the formal dismissal of Muhammad
al-Bisati -- editor of Literary Voices, the GOCP series responsible
for the publication of the three novels, and one of Egypt's leading
writers -- along with his managing editor, poet Girgis Shukri. (Both
men had already tendered their resignations before the parliamentary
crisis, due to bureaucratic disputes within the GOCP.) The next
day, Prime Minister Atef Ebeid officially sacked Ali Abu Shadi,
head of the GOCP, a man deemed by his peers, and Farouk Hosni himself,
to be one of the most respected members of the institution. The
first half of the latest match between Egypt's political and cultural
players was over before the opposing team had a chance to suit up.
Defending his
actions, Hosni -- whose title in the media for 14 years has been
"al-fannan Farouk Hosni, wazir al-thaqafa" (the
artist Farouk Hosni, minister of culture) -- joined the Muslim Brother
Heshmat in labeling the three novels "pornographic." After
withdrawing the three novels from circulation, Hosni dismissed media
concerns about freedom of expression and the implications of his
actions for proponents of fundamentalism in Egypt, saying: "Is
everything the Islamists say wrong? I must defend society from cheap
writing. My fundamental responsibility is to protect society's values
from pornographic works."(2) In less than five days, Hosni
conducted over 20 interviews on local and regional satellite television,
on the radio and in newspapers. He reiterated his position as guardian
of societal morality, challenged anyone who could allow his sister,
his wife or his daughter to read such indecencies, reminded intellectuals
that Egypt is not Europe, invited those writers who persisted in
flouting societal values to go elsewhere and vowed not to publish
any book or novel that contests religion or violates the values
of society. This valiant stance in defense of morality won the artist/minister
the complete support of the cabinet, as well as the blessings of
the Islamists, who concluded that "the minister has repented."(3)
The Second
Half
|

Egyptian
students demonstrating at al-Azhar University, May 10, 2000.
(Amr Nabil/AP Photo)
|
These
radical punitive measures do not seem to have taken Egyptian intellectuals
completely by surprise. Yasser Shaaban, one of the three authors
charged with corrupting millions of young readers, saw the penalty
coming. In a prophetic passage from the offending novel, Shaaban's
narrator/writer satirizes the current logic and politics of censorship
by incriminating himself:
I
am so terrified of this game that I reread my novel, Children
of Romantic Error, which I have yet to finish, and found in
it what they can use as proof of Satanic worship. They will reduce
everything to having sex in graveyards in the presence of the dead.
Hence I will become a Satan worshipper. I will become the talk of
the town. I will cause a lot of clamor. Even those who do not read
will read me. It will be great, smashing, wild. The most important
thing is to be part of the frenzy before it's over.(4)
All
three authors became part of the frenzy, despite one literary critic's
conclusion that "anyone excited by the prospect of reading
these three novels in order to get a pornographic kick will be very
disappointed."(5)
With
the ball on their side of the field, the literati mounted a vigorous
attack on Farouk Hosni, whose ministerial tenure is punctuated with
foul plays from which he has always risen unruffled. Immediately
following the outbreak of the crisis, a group of Egyptian intellectuals
issued a statement entitled "Against Oppression and Censorship,"
criticizing the minister's position and declaring their intended
boycott of the cultural activities at the Cairo International Book
Fair scheduled to open on January 24. This threat was understood
by the minister as blackmail since the Book Fair has become the
icon of the alliance between the political and intellectual fields.
A number of prominent Egyptian writers announced their resignation
from positions in the Ministry of Culture, in solidarity with Abu
Shadi and al-Bisati. Sawt al-Umma, the recently established
independent weekly newspaper, published the minister's abstract
paintings, some of which are laden with phallic symbolism. Gamal
al-Ghitani, editor-in-chief of Akhbar al-Adab, and one of
the fiercest critics of Hosni's ministerial policies, revealed that
the ministry was withholding from publication two parts of the diwan
of Abu Nuwas, the controversial Abbasid poet, and that it has burnt
large quantities that were already published.(6) Responding to Hosni's
demand that writers who do not abide by society's values should
go elsewhere, veteran striker Gamal al-Ghitani leveled: "No,
minister. We shall remain and you will leave!"(7)
The
Referee
On
January 24, date of the annual presidential meeting with Egypt's
prominent intellectuals at the Book Fair, President Hosni Mubarak
blew his whistle, ending the game in Farouk Hosni's favor, and confirming
the minister's media image as a professional player (wazir la'ib).
Mubarak, who on previous occasions had sought to appease the literati
by declaring that there is no censorship in Egypt, showed the rowdy
cultural players a yellow card, reminding them of the rules of the
game. While he encouraged intellectual freedom, Mubarak said, writers
should also keep in mind "traditions, morality and religious
considerations." There was no need for such a fuss over the
sexual content of the novels, because the ministry would be more
cautious in the future. Private publishing houses were free to publish
whatever they liked as long as they remained within the boundaries
of the law.(8) Game over. The losers went home, while the cheerleaders
for public morality proceeded to pillage the Book Fair, confiscating
books they deemed inappropriate, despite local and regional protests.
Name
of the Game
This
most recent confrontation between political and cultural figures
in Egypt encapsulates the nature of their mutually dependent relationship
since Muhammad Ali's modernization project (1805-1849) and the ensuing
years of the nahda -- the cultural "awakening"
in Egypt and the Arab world. To transform Egypt from an Ottoman
province into a modern regional power, Muhammad Ali initiated a
series of modern Western institutions within a traditional, Islamic
cultural context that had been dominated by its religious 'ulama.
From the start, the modernist paradigm in Egypt was dictated by
the interests of political power: a military man's expansionist
dreams whose armies required a modern infrastructure to support
them. Over the past two centuries, those modern cultural institutions
have produced the secular players within the cultural field. Their
effectiveness, welfare and status have largely depended on the government's
degree of commitment to the modernization project. Religious conservatives
have continued to be a force for the political field to contend
with given their historic access to and influence on "the masses,"
whose participation in the modernist paradigm was, and remains,
not only absent but totally undesirable. In its attempt to weaken
the traditionalists, the "modernist" political power could
not afford to abandon the 'ulama's pre-modern paternalistic
attitude toward the people. With the logic of "if you can't
beat them, join them," the political field confirmed the dichotomy
between the elite and the masses. Under Nasser, the state formally
institutionalized and monopolized the cultural and the religious,
adding an economic/ethical dimension to the symbolic relationship
between the parties because both secular and religious players were
transformed into civil servants.
For
Egyptian cultural figures, this history has meant that the cultural
is the handmaiden of the political and must always abide by its
rules. The cultural has always been placed in a reactive position
depending largely on the space it is granted by the political field
in the latter's own calculations of power. The end result, of course,
is the weakness of a modernist paradigm that is developed, produced
and sustained from within the cultural field itself. Rather than
seek independence from political players, cultural figures have
sought protection; rather than spearhead criticism, they have demonstrated
compliance. The cultural players become the protégés
of the state so long as they are intelligent enough to respect the
unpredictable boundaries of the political game. Those who do not,
and they are less than a handful, are considered hors jeu.
Inversely,
the accelerated control of civil society and civil liberties on
the one hand, and the largely cosmetic political institutions on
the other, have rendered the political field dependent on the cultural
to articulate its semblance of modernity to the world. With its
refusal to develop beyond modernization to modernism -- beyond modern
signs in concrete to concrete signs of modernity -- the political
field needs the cultural as the most important icon of its claim
to be modern. Hence, the relationship between the political and
cultural fields may veer from a semblance of partnership to one
of total control, but within this framework the prospects of autonomy
for the cultural field remain minimal. So long as the political
field remains obsessed with its own power to the detriment of its
own development, the cultural players will continue to be reminded
-- should they forget -- that the cultural is political. This is
the name of the game.
Preparing
the Playing Field
Farouk
Hosni is the perfect heir to this long history. His carefully chosen
title, the artist/minister, itself embodies the relationship between
the cultural and the political fields. The position Hosni has taken
during the latest crisis surrounding the three Egyptian novels demonstrates
his perfect understanding and acceptance of this double casquette:
not the artist vs. the commissar, but rather the artist and
the commissar, for within this framework they are one.
It
is not haphazard that Farouk Hosni was handed the Ministry of Culture
at the moment when the political and cultural fields began to warm
up to one another. The Sadat period (1971-1981) had been marked
by mutual froideur. The valorization of "village ethics"
(akhlaq al-qariya) over the modernist paradigm led to the
revival of conservative Islamist ideology. Sadat himself paid the
highest price for his cultural politics, but there were grave repercussions
in both the political and cultural fields: the assassinations of
parliamentary speaker Rif'at al-Mahgoub (1990) and liberal intellectual
Farag Fuda (1992), the attack on the Egyptian Nobel laureate Naguib
Mahfouz (1994), the Nasr Abu Zeid affair (1993-1996) and the assassination
attempt on Mubarak in Ethiopia (1996), not to mention the various
terrorist attacks all over the country. In its efforts to constrain
the Islamist onslaught, above and beyond massive detentions, the
political field attempted to reconstruct its gravely damaged global
image and its seriously shaken internal one through the old ally:
the secular players in the cultural field. The latter, targeted
by the Islamists and infiltrated from within, accepted the alliance.
Hosni, the cool and unconventional artist/minister, was the ideal
architect of the political designs to reaffirm that the cultural
is political.
The
1990s witnessed a face-lift for Nasserist cultural institutions.
The very fact that the Mubarak regime decided to revive, rather
than rethink, Nasser's defunct cultural machinery -- which had practically
collapsed under Sadat -- indicates the political field's real designs
for the cultural one. Farouk Hosni enlisted the country's major
cultural players under the banner of enlightenment against obscurantism:
a hasty and empty copy of the nineteenth-century nahda project
that is, first and foremost, the political agenda of the day. State
enlightenment, to use Nasr Abu Zeid's term, was set in motion. The
General Egyptian Book Organization launched "The Family Library,"
an affordable series of reprints of major nahda figures under
the patronage of the First Lady. The Supreme Council for Culture
was resurrected, taking a lead role in the reintegration of cultural
players within the institution. The GOCP and the ministry's cultural
publications were revived. Prominent literary and cultural figures
were appointed to editorial and managerial positions within the
ministry. All this activity was crowned in 1986 with the annual
presidential meeting with the literati at the Book Fair. No wonder
that the artist/minister has, on more than one occasion, congratulated
himself for having gathered all the intellectuals, except a few,
back into the "coop."
The
explosion in size of the dysfunctional Nasser-era cultural institutions
generated a host of contradictions. In its dependence on its cultural
players for a modernist image, the political field distanced itself
from the role of the official censor while encouraging cultural
figures to be their own censors. The boundaries of freedom of expression
seemed to expand, but covert levels of censorship, motivated by
political intimidation and rivalries among the secular civil servants
within the cultural field itself, mushroomed and multiplied. The
new laissez-faire nature of these institutions -- with expanded
budgets and privileges -- led to an internal, informal privatization
that parallels the regime's disastrous economic program. Secular
cultural players were neutralized vis-à-vis the political
field, they were mobilized in the latter's battles over power, and,
last but not least, they were polarized against each other.
Last
Season's Box Scores
It
is against all this background that the Haydar Haydar affair that
exploded in Egypt during April-May 2000 must be read.(9) Two factors
came together to ignite the unprecedented controversy. Al-Shaab,
the now defunct weekly newspaper of Egypt's Socialist Labor Party
that, for purposes of survival, had struck an alliance with the
outlawed Islamists, had an axe to grind with the political field:
three of its reporters had been arrested on charges of slander against
Egypt's powerful minister of agriculture, Youssef Wali. In the meantime,
disgruntled writer Hassan Nour, whose works were being held up in
GOCP's bureaucratic machinery, wrote a review of Haydar's Banquet
for Seaweed -- then just reprinted in its eleventh (and first
Cairo) edition by one of the GOCP literary series -- accusing the
text and its author of blasphemy against Islam. The timing was perfect:
al-Shaab used the crisis within the cultural field as a riposte
to the government's oppressive measures against it and as a way
to contest the regime's respect for public morality and societal
values. Al-Shaab's campaign began with Muhammad Abbas's inflammatory,
sermon-like article, "Who Pledges to Die with Me?"
urging Muslims to rise up in defense of their faith and demanding
no less than the Minister of Culture's head, along with the heads
of those responsible for the publication of the "blasphemous"
novel. The campaign led to a brutal confrontation between riot police
and hundreds of student demonstrators from al-Azhar, Egypt's historic
Islamic university, who had not so much as seen the "blasphemous"
novel, let alone read it. The cultural players inevitably got caught
in the middle of the showdown between the Islamists and the political
field.
In
this fast-moving game, the political field launched a series of
impressively calculated strikes that evidently bore the imprint
of lessons learned from Sadat's fatal strategies. Rather than crushing
all other players at once, the political field opted for alternating
strikes, thus ensuring its control over both the left and right
wings of the field. The artist/minister, in the center field, first
withdrew the "blasphemous" novel from the market and appointed
a committee of experts to investigate the charges against it. Then,
despite the experts' acquittal of the novel and its author, the
artist/minister, under pressure from parliament, forwarded the novel
to no less an authority than the head of al-Azhar, Sheikh Muhammad
Tantawi. Capitalizing on the chance to extend his purview beyond
religious matters, Sheikh Tantawi condemned the novel and its author,
holding the minister responsible and demanding that al-Azhar oversee
the ministry's publications in the future. It was a long shot. Stealing
the ball from the Islamists, the State Security Department called
in the editor and managing editor of GOCP's Literary Horizons
-- the series that had published A Banquet for Seaweed --
and formally charged them with blasphemy. The final strike came
from the government's Committee for Parties Affairs, which orchestrated
a rather transparent contest over the Labor Party leadership, leading
to the suspension of the party, the closure of its newspaper al-Shaab,
and perhaps even the untimely death, in late March 2001, of
Adel Hussein, the ex-Marxist secretary-general of the Labor Party,
editor-in-chief of al-Shaab and foremost attack player on
the Islamist team.
Last but not least, the controversy has instilled fear within the
hearts of all the minister's men. The atmosphere of intimidation is
movingly captured in Hamdi Abu Gulayyil's testimony after his visit
to the State Security Department:
Since
that day I have considered myself a criminal, a runaway criminal
who expects to be arrested at any moment in an ambush. Fortunately,
or unfortunately, ambushes in my case are well-known: they amount
to what one writes or what one publishes. So, since that day I have
tried to evade ambushes. I reread any story I write several times.
Given the number of prohibitions and my inability to determine them
I have resorted to a legal adviser, a young lawyer who is my neighbor.
He reads every story I write and every book I publish especially
when written by a naïve writer. My agony begins as soon as
the book enters the print shop: the book contains a scene of a woman
sitting with a man, the book contains someone who thinks, the book
contains someone eating with appetite, the book contains people,
and wherever there are people, there is sin. I dream, I hallucinate,
and I am drowned in nightmares. Once my wife caught me completely
dressed, at four o'clock in the morning, at the door of our apartment.
I had imagined that one of the books in the print shop contained
an indecent scene and was on my way out to stop the printing before
morning.(10)
Lessons
from Seasons Past
Besieged
by an economic collapse, a stalemate in the so-called "peace
process" and the prospects of unsettling parliamentary elections,
the political field spent the hot summer of 2000 expanding its alternate
strikes and isolating other potentially dangerous players, one after
the other. First came the arrest and renewed detention of Saad Eddin
Ibrahim, professor of sociology and pro-democracy activist, with
a mind-boggling list of charges that included embezzlement and espionage
(the perfect inhibition for defenders of civil society and human
rights). Then came the daily detentions of "Islamists"
before the "free" parliamentary elections (not a bad lesson
for the suspended Labor Party and its paper). In all of this heat,
the cultural players kept their cool, watching in almost total complacent
silence, as civil liberties, basic human rights and freedom of expression
were smashed.
In
the meantime, the artist/minister, aligning himself with the cultural
politics of the day, redefined the rules of the game: schedules
of publication within the ministry were stalled and new forms of
surveillance on the literary series were instated. In fact, the
latest crisis surrounding the three Egyptian novels erupted precisely
because al-Bisati, editor of Literary Voices, sidestepped
the minister's new, unwritten emergency laws and published the three
novels on the basis of merit, not on the basis of the ministry's
"waiting list" policy.(11)
The
arrival last fall of 17 of the outlawed Muslim Brothers in Parliament
commenced a new game in cultural politics that was to leave the
cultural players completely divided and disarmed after the crisis
over the three Egyptian novels. The successful policies of polarization
of the minister's men duly served the minister and discredited his
men. Indeed, the same players that had stood in defense of the minister
during the Haydar crisis, arguing that a work of art must be read
and judged in its totality, were now describing the sexual passages
in the three novels, taken out of context, as "blatant."
Those who had defended the ministry's role in guaranteeing "freedom
of expression" were now writing against it, calling for "responsible
freedom of expression" that is informed by the writer's responsibility
towards the law. The Writers' Union, which had issued a statement
in support of Haydar's Banquet, issued another one condemning
the three novels. Those who supported Egyptian writer Salah al-Din
Muhsin against charges of blasphemy in March 2000 remained silent
after he was sentenced to three years imprisonment in January 2001.
The
irony in all of this is that no one reads these books. The thousands
of works printed yearly in 3000 copies all would have remained in
the ministry's warehouses had it not been for the diligent hand
distribution by the writers themselves to immediate friends, editors
and critics. One journalist wrote a satirical piece telling writers
that they should be grateful for the repeated crises surrounding
books since it is the only way to expand the circle of readers beyond
two: the writer and the censor. This dismal situation means that
Mubarak wasn't playing fair in his comments to the literati at the
2000 annual meeting. Not only is private publishing completely crippled
with problems of cost and distribution, but it is certainly far
more vulnerable than the Ministry to the arsenal of laws that govern
publication in Egypt, not to mention the recently renewed emergency
laws that have been in effect since 1981. In this last crisis, Mubarak
displayed his competence as veteran referee: his initial warning
to the cultural players was followed by his recent announcement
that there will be no changes in the cabinet, an uncontested ruling
that Gamal al-Ghitani's violent shot on goal "No, minister.
We will remain, and you will leave!" had fallen out of bounds.
During
the crisis over the three Egyptian novels, Daoud al-Shuryan wrote
an editorial in al-Hayat highlighting Egypt's weight in regional
cultural politics and rightly arguing that:
The
Arab cultural model is linked to the Egyptian one that continues
to allow the public sector to dominate the written word, arguing
that the private sector is not an alternative and cannot protect
culture, when at the same time the private sector is entrusted with
protecting the economy and the loaf of bread.(12)
Al-Shuryan
asks whether the time has not come for the political field to renounce
its jurisprudence over the written word. Given the nature of the
game and the position of the cultural players within the field,
the answer is a simple and straightforward no. The cultural is political.
Endnotes
1 The
three novels are Qabla wa Ba'd (Before and After), by Tawfiq
'Abd al-Rahman, a 61 year-old retired civil servant, Ahlam Muharrama
(Forbidden Dreams), by Mahmoud Hamid, a 34 year-old civil servant
in the Ministry of Culture, and Abna' al-Khata' al-Rumansi
(Children of Romantic Error), by Yasser Shaaban, a 32 year-old psychiatrist/journalist.
For a reading of the three novels, see Ferial Ghazoul, "The
Artist vs. The Commissar," al-Ahram Weekly, January
25, 2001. For brief interviews with the writers, see al-Ahram
Weekly, January 18, 2001.
2 Al-Hayat,
January 11, 2001.
3 Al-Usbu',
January 25, 2001. The figure quoted above is 'Abd al-Sabbour Shahine,
perpetrator of the legal case against Nasr Abu Zeid. Shahine filed
to divorce Abu Zeid from his wife, on the grounds that Abu Zeid's
textual criticism of the Qur'an made him an apostate, and hence
unfit to marry a Muslim. Abu Zeid and his wife eventually relocated
to the Netherlands to escape the second, unfavorable verdict.
4 Yasser
Shaaban, Abna' al-Khata' al-Rumansi (Cairo: GOCP, 2000),
p. 233.
5 Ghazoul,
al-Ahram Weekly, January 25, 2001.
6 Al-Hayat,
January 13, 2001.
7 Gamal
al-Ghitani, "Why Don't You Leave?" Akhbar al-Adab,
January 21, 2001.
8 Al-Ahram
Weekly, January 25, 2001.
9 For
a detailed account of the Haydar affair, see Sabry Hafez, "The
Novel, Politics and Islam," New Left Review, September-October
2000, and Max Rodenbeck, "Witch Hunt in Egypt," New
York Review of Books, November 16, 2000.
10 Akhbar
al-Adab, January 21, 2001.
11 This
policy posits that 70 percent of the manuscripts published by GOCP
in a given year must be written by writers from the provinces. Manuscripts
from Cairene writers in excess of the allotted 30 percent -- regardless
of quality -- go on the "waiting list" until the quota
of writers from the provinces is filled.
12 Al-Hayat, January 11, 2001.
|