Most enlightened commentators in the United States, most prominently in The New York Times, have been pressing for the immediate removal of the Mubarak regime. This was also the tone of the correspondents of BBC World and CNN, and the desire of most spokesmen of Western European governments. The same tone dominates the discourse in the West following Mubarak's resignation. Democracy has been enthroned.
Western journalists and spokespersons seem to have been, and will continue to be, driven by a euphoria of democratization and an assumption that the Egyptian protesters are simply seeking governmental change and popular self-determination to replace the military autococracy that has ruled Egypt since the military coup d’etat of July 1952 (which replaced the monarchy that ruled during the previous decades). It is assumed that the values underlying the upsurge in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria are those of Western democracy—a desire for liberation, freedom, equality. And it is also assumed that this represents the will of the mass of Egyptians, urban and rural.
But this may well be an optical illusion. Many of history’s major successful revolutions were driven by the desire for material betterment, for very concrete bread, not by a desire for such abstracts as political freedom and human rights. Egypt’s is probably no different.
But more specifically, the largely unthinking euphoria in the West—in the publics and among government spokesmen—about the motives and aims of the protesters is driven mainly by statements by the people the Western media are selecting for interview on the Egyptian street, hour by hour, day in, day out.
And the Western interviewers, especially from the BBC and CNN, are in effect hearing and then broadcasting representatives of a thin layer of Egyptians, who know decent English (who have lived in the West or are children of mixed Egyptian-Anglo-Saxon parentage or were educated at the American University of Cairo). They are relatively sophisticated and generally secular (or seemingly secular). Wael Ghanem, of Google, is a good example.
Western journalists interview them because they, the journalists, don’t know Arabic or because the journalists prefer interviews in English that can be readily transmitted and are understood by their networks’ viewers. But these interviewees are unrepresentative of the vast mass of Egyptians, urban and rural (mostly poor, mostly without English).
The result of this unrepresentative interviewing is that the consumers of the Western media, in London, Washington and the capitals of Europe, are getting a skewed (indeed, perhaps thoroughly misleading) view of what Egyptians think and want. Occasionally, the viewer will hear, from somewhere off center stage, “Death to Israel” or “Allahu Akbar.” But these voices are drowned out by the mellifluous English speakers, chanting “freedom,” “human rights,” “democracy,” into receptive Western ears. The sophisticated, not to say manipulative, interviewees know that this is what BBC and CNN viewers in the West want to hear.
Alas, I fear, Westerners will see what most Egyptians actually think and want if and when the country holds free and fair general elections (perhaps in September-October). And I fear that they will be surprised—perhaps even shocked—by the results, and by what the Egyptian masses then say about what they actually think and want. I fear that at that point, “Death to Israel,” “Death to America,” and “Allahu Akbar” will drown out every democratizing and liberalizing chant.
But by then the genie will be well out of the bottle; by then, it will be too late.
Comments
Benny Morris made a valid point: selection of evidence to prove a point; the English-speaking media interview English-speaking Egyptions--people who are likely to be Western-educated and oriented. However, he committed the sin he is charging others of committing: he selected evidence as well. Has Mr. Morris been listening to the tons of interviews in Arabic on al-Jazeera and other channels; has he been reading news analysis and reporting in the Arab media that interview Arabic-speaking Egyptians; has he been listening to the chants and their contents for the past 18 days in Arabic on various channels? I guess not. This is why the essay reached the wrong inferences and false conclusions.
This article is frankly abhorrent.In Morocco where I live, it is not at all uncommon to find young people who speak French well enough to communicate their ideals, since it is taught in public schools from the age of 12 and is a key to dealing with tourists (an important part of the economy), and to any skilled employment as an adult. It's certainly not true that a Moroccan would need to have lived overseas, have a francophone parent, or study in a francophone academy to speak basic French. I suspect that it is much the same case with English in Egypt, and I suspect that Dr. Morris knows this (or should), so he is being purposefully misleading here.I have read widely about this crisis and its demands from the beginning, including many arabophone authors who have been there on the scene, hearing the chants and speaking with a wide range of participants. All accounts are in full agreement that Islamism is simply not an issue here, that the demands are civic, democratic and pluralistic, and that Christian and Muslim Egyptians have been working together without any concern for religious ideology. As for anti-Zionism, that is certainly present (as shown by posters of Mubarak with a Star of David on his forehead), but can we blame average Egyptians for feeling they've been "played" by Israel in the past, since their dictator was Israel's friend? At any rate, neither Islam or Israel is a central concern of the protests, which are focused exclusively on urgent, fundamental civic reforms.I consider this article shameful because Dr. Morris is a historian who has done good work in the past, yet there is no evidence in this article whatsoever; only insinuation that Egyptians are presenting this whole popular uprising to the cameras as a kind of theater, while off camera they are dreaming up plots for a radical Islamic dictatorship. Dr. Morris seems to be counting on the embedded racism of his readers to assume that Egyptians are shady characters, telling Westerners one thing while plotting deviously among themselves — until the genie is out of the bottle, to use the Orientalist metaphor he indluged in.I feel sad for the state of Dr. Morris' soul, that he can't simply rejoice in a successful throwing off of chains, and the amazing civic spirit of Egyptian youth, as the entire planet is doing today. Instead, he seems to feel that Egypt should be kept in chains forever, because we have no other choice — they just can't be trusted with democracy. So instead of a triumph of universal values across cultures, he sees Egyptian democracy as a grievous mistake. And he is counting on the reader's ignorance of Egypt to give credence to his racist condescension, and merit to his specious claims. Shame on you, Dr. Morris!