Comments received from readers regarding the book, What's Really Wrong with the Middle East

  
From: Magdy, 2 February 2010

While I do agree with you almost on all the crunch points you list, I am puzzled by what I think is one glaring discrepancy. 

How do you explain the apparent contradiction between the authoritarian nature of all of these societies and the apparent (often shocking) lack of order and discipline, and an almost chronic inability to organise and plan? I thought authoritarianism should at least in theory teach people discipline and order.

Don't you think it's about time we stopped talking about "the Arab World", or "the Arabs", lumping together Algerians and Moroccans (half of whom are berbers) Egyptians with the Gulf and the rest of the Middle East? In my opinion the Pan-Arab discourse (uncritically adopted by Western media) is partly to blame for elevating an ideology to the status of fact. The totalitarian nature of that discourse is another aspect of its enduring appeal, because it is fundamentally authoritarian and patriarchal in nature -- it is simply another religion without the prophet or god. 

Note: I have posted a response to this here. – BW

  
From: parviziyi@fastmail.fm, 5 February, 2010

I regard Saudi Arabia as a different society from Egypt & Syria, and hence I don't really like the idea of trying to look into an "Arab Society". It's hard enough to try to get a good look into Egypt & Syria without trying to cover Saudi Arabia or Morocco in the same viewport.

Historical Percent Illiterate in Egypt 
(persons aged 15 and older)

Source: http://www.zohry.com/dwb/salah/ch2.pdf quoting CAPMAS

1907=93%
1927=88%
1937=88%
1947=79%
1960=74%
1976=62%
1986=58%
1995=49%

2006=29% --> Official gov't figure 

Illiteracy by age group in 2006 
(official gov't census):

15 - 45 years: 23%
45 - 60 years: 48%
60+ years: 56%

Even though their precision is imperfect to some degree or another, the above figures, together with the historical fertility rates, are exceedingly fundamental. Mass education is modernizing Egyptian society. But it takes generations.

Here are my criticisms of your four "crunch points".

(1) KNOWLEDGE. In a knowledge-based society, the key thing is personal appetite for the knowledge. You cannot expect most people who are only one generation away from illiteracy to have a big appetite for the kinds of knowledge that are remote from their own personal experiences of life. It's a precondition for independent or critical thinking on a specific subject matter that you have the motivation or purpose to get down into the details and specifics of the subject matter. And most people who are only one generation away from illiteracy don't have that motivation to begin with, with respect to the vast majority of book-learning subjects. I believe you're mistaken when you say "the school system actively discourages the sort of skills that will be needed in a knowledge-based society". The school system is teaching them bodies of knowledge that their parents didn't have. The particular bodies of knowledge have been selected as good platforms for acquiring further bodies later. The quandary that the knowledge has “little or no meaningful context” is essentially the same as the quandary of how do you get American secondary school pupils to have an interest and appetite for physics and chemistry.

(2) EQUAL RIGHTS. Your comments, and those you quote from the Egyptian Activist and the Sudanese woman, are way off base w.r.t. Egypt. They grossly misrepresent the reality. It's embarrassing to think that someone wrote a whole book about the Middle East while being so terribly blinkered.

3) SECULARISM. As I see it, you're wrong about the role of Islam. If you haven't already done so, I'd urge you give a close read to the lengthy party platform statement of Al-Wassat, which is in English here. 

Here's how it begins:

"One of the main goals of the New Wasat Party is to apply, through democratic procedures, Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution, which states that the shari’a (Islamic law) is the main source of legislation. In seeking to make the shari’a part of the very fabric of daily life, the founding members’ task is to select interpretations of Islamic law which contribute towards, rather than obstruct, the development of Egyptian society. They believe that the interpretations of shari’a they offer, although illuminated by the general goals of shari’a and its fundamental principles, are nonetheless human interpretations and as such may or may not be correct. Hence they are open to debate, criticism and revision and change depending on time and place. The founding members wish to apply shari’a mainly because they believe that to do so will create a better life for all Egyptians. The shari’a, according to the founding members, is not merely a body of texts to be recited or decrees to be applied by courts, but rather, it is an authoritative framework of values and standards which arbitrates between people in all aspects of life, even without the interference of the state and its courts, in order that each individual’s rights be protected. The goal of everyone is to make the shari’a operational in all aspects of life."

But when you read the rest of their lengthy document you find that above is platitudinous and devoid of substance. They invoke Islam as a moral anchor, but it doesn't actually have practical consequences -- at all! Read the whole thing and you'll see what I'm talking about. The same goes for the so-called Islam party in Turkey, the AKP. That party was nearly banned in Turkey last year because it declares Islam is some sort of a moral anchor, but the AKP is actually more liberal than the other two main Turkish parties -- especially, it is more respectful of diversity. According to you, "the underlying problem is still the same: an anti-libertarian assumption that linking the state with religion is both legitimate and necessary." I believe you're wrong that linking the State to Islam is inevitably anti-libertarian. Generally speaking, the Egyptian voter, who wants some Islamic emblematics for the State, does not have a totalitarian mindset. The linking would be anti-libertarian in a Catholic country such as Poland alright, and the Saudi Islamists are anti-libertarian for sure. So are the Iranians. But the AKPs and Al-Wassats are not.

4) CITIZENSHIP. You said you don’t find a sense of civic duty in Arab countries to the same extent as in western countries. I agree, but I object when you then proceed to confound that with "an authoritarian system" and "shepherding". Those are two different issues that shouldn't be mixed up, in my view. In addition I don't share your "authoritarian society" perspective. Your stuff about authoritarian fathers, for example, is merely the same as what old-fashioned fathers were like in the UK a generation or two ago. This too will pass with another generation or two of continuing education and modernization in Egypt.

I'll leave you with my favorite statement about the Middle East. I came across it in an article that was written in 1971.

"The historic outward expansion of European civilization into most parts of the world took the Middle East in its stride. This contact brought about a social change which has been increasing in momentum. The Arabs have passed from active opposition to limited borrowing, to toleration of innovation, and finally to avid and conscious adoption of Western ideas, practices and ways of life. The resulting social change has now attained revolutionary proportions in a number of Arabic countries."

I can see with my own eyes that this revolution is ongoing today at a pretty brisk pace. What you see on the contrary is a Middle East with "a stultifying atmosphere where change, innovation, creativity, critical thinking, questioning, problem-solving, and virtually any kind of nonconformity are all discouraged." I don't see what you see. In my view, the pressures toward conformity are not greater than in any other society. The people on the whole are not as independent-minded because of their ignorance and undereducation -- they don't have the knowledge resources that are necessary for intelligent independent-mindedness -- but the society is actively encouraging them to get more educated.