Paperback review

Published in The Telegraph, 12/01/13

The Children’s Hospital by Chris Adrian

This post-apocalyptic tale begins with the end of the world and ends with a new beginning for humanity. After a great deluge floods the world seven miles out of existence, a single hospital remains, designed to keep afloat by prophetic architect John Grampus. In the self-sustaining, self-contained new world that is The Children’s Hospital, it is up to medical student Jemma Claflin, gifted with magical powers, to lead humanity – Moses to Grampus’s Noah. Adrian, a Harvard-educated oncologist and theologian, peppers his uplifting prose with harrowing descriptions of suffering, richly establishing himself as an American fabulist in the tradition of Tony Kushner (the story is narrated by angels, to boot).

Paperback review

Published in The Telegraph, 12/01/13

Jack Holmes and his Friend by Edmund White

Edmund White’s subtle portrait of gay libertine Jack Holmes and his straight best friend, Will, is a sophisticated examination of two selves that has as much to say about essential human desires as about 60s sexual mores. The novel follows the eponymous duo from their first meeting as writers in early 60s New York until the onset of Aids, charting their relationship as it’s shaped by unrequited love, aesthetic failure and the flowering, then foreclosing, of sexual revolution. Jack Holmes and His Friend achieves a greater clarity and a deeper empathy than White’s previous novel A Boy’s Own Story, and for these grown-up virtues it is worthy reading.

Paperback review

Published in The Telegraph, 12/01/13

Religion for Atheists by Alain de Botton

Starting from the premise that God is dead, Alain de Botton nevertheless insists secular society could do with the disciplines and practices enshrined by religion. He argues religion offers boundaries and insights that today’s corporations, universities and buildings lack. A Catholic Mass, for example, is a web of techniques to “strengthen congregants’ bonds of affection” and the Jewish Day of Atonement is a “psychologically effective mechanism” for the resolution of social conflict. Universities with relationships departments and e-Wailing Walls might help replace religion, but in penetrating, stately prose, de Botton ultimately presents religion as the greatest source of practical advice on how to live our lives.

Royal Society of Literature announces Jerwood Awards

Published in The Telegraph

Last night the Royal Society of Literature announced the winners of its annual Jerwood Awards for Non-Fiction at a ceremony in the Savile Club.

The awards – exclusively for works in progress by first-time authors – went to British-Iranian journalist Ramita Navai, forensic psychotherapist Dr Gwen Adshead and the critic Edmund Gordon.

Navai, who has won plaudits as a foreign correspondent in Syria, including an Emmy Award for her work on the television documentary Syria Undercover, was awarded £10,000 for her book City of Lies: the Undercover Truth about Tehran, an exploration of the elusive character of the Iranian capital, weaving together the lives of its inhabitants, its colourful history and the rich tapestry of its cultural heritage.

Adshead, a consultant at the Broadmoor Psychiatric Hospital in Berkshire, was awarded £5000 for A Short Book About Evil, an anatomy of evil that combines clinical vignettes with studies in psychology and theology.

Edmund Gordon was also awarded £5000 for his much-anticipated biography Angela Carter: the Biography, which will not only tell the story of the life of the English feminist novelist but also the cultural history of Britain in the 1960s.

They join a long list of literary luminaries who first found acclaim at the Jerwood Awards, running since 2004 with sponsorship by the Jerwood Charitable Foundation, including Alexander Monro, Selina Mills and Rachel Campbell-Johnston.

The judges, authors Richard Davenport-Hines and Caroline Moorehead, and The Telegraph’s own literary editor Gaby Wood, stressed the importance of the awards as a financial lifeline for writers when most in need of resources.

City of Lies and A Short Book About Evil are both slated for publication in 2014, while Angela Carter: The Biography is due out in 2016.

Hamlet’s Arab Journey: Shakespeare in the Arab world

This is a podcast from Pod Academy with Prof Margaret Litvin, looking at the curious phenomenon of Shakespeare in the Arab world. In it you’ll learn whether or not Shakespeare was an Arab called Shaykh Zubair, that Shakespeare had already been performed in Yemen within Shakespeare’s own lifetime, and that the most famous Shakespeare ‘text’ in the Arab world is not an early modern English stageplay, but a 20th-century Russian film.

http://podacademy.org/podcasts/hamlets-arab-journey-shakespeare-in-the-arab-world/

 

Theatre’s Arab Turn

Published in The White Review

Apart from the odd Shakespearean exception, from Othello the Moor of Venice to the Merchant of Venice’s marginal Moroccan suitor, The Prince of Morocco, Arabs have never pulled off a prominent presence on the British stage. Strictly speaking, the examples cited aren’t even Arabs. However, in recent years a burgeoning fashion for theatre from or about the Arab world has madeBritain host to the Western world’s greatest cacophony of Arabic voices on stage.

As the groundbreaking World Shakespeare Festival comes to a close, it is worth noting a salutary fact amid worsening regional relations: there were more Arabic-language productions in Britain than in any other language besides English: Cymbeline at The Globe in Juba Arabic; Romeo and Juliet in Baghdad at the Swan Theatre in Iraqi Arabic; and a Palestinian Arabic production of Richard II, also at The Globe. There even came a point a few weeks ago where it would have been possible to see Shakespeare in Arabic three days in a row.

One might legitimately ask whether these Shakespeare performances are Arabic voices. Shakespeare was no Arab, although some Arabs have been wont to pass him off as one; an Iraqi literary critic once joked that Shakespeare is an Anglicism of an Arab bard named Shaykh Zubair; who else but an Arab could hate Jews, Turks and the French with Shakespeare’s stubbornness?

Even amid The Globe’s Elizabethan awnings and Tudor beams, no one could doubt while watching the Ramallah-based Ashtar Theatre Company’s Richard II that this was an original Arabic voice, especially when a dethroned Richard rots in a morbidly Middle Eastern gaol (not necessarily Israeli, and the better for it). Meanwhile, a symbolically subverted (South) Sudanese Cymbeline sides with the ancient Britons against imperialRome, but – in a postcolonial twist – the Romans arrive dressed in the khakis of British imperialism.

This was Shakespeare directed and performed by Arabs in Arabic. Once, Shakespeare’s Arabs were ciphers for his voice – like countless Middle Eastern politicians, those Arabs were puppets at an Englishman’s mercy. But at the World Shakespeare Festival, Shakespeare himself became a cipher for Arab voices. In the Arab world, this is actually nothing new. Shakespeare remains perennially popular fare in the theatres of revolutionaryCairo, strife-riddenDamascus, even on a few, gender-segregated salafist Saudi stages (where, with women forbidden from performing the female roles, performances are arguably truer to Shakespeare than anything at The Globe).

The Arab Shakespeare isn’t English, and indeed never was. Even the most famous Shakespeare text in the Arab world is a Russian film, Grigori Kozintsev’s Gamlet from 1964. Dutifully dispersed in the Middle East by the Soviet Union’s army of cultural attachés, Gamlet’s prison guards, spies, effigies of the dictator Claudius, resonated with Egyptians under Nasser. Only the Prophet Muhammad himself is more commonly quoted than Shakespeare, and lends only a little less legitimacy.

But the Arab appropriation of Shakespeare usually takes an original, and unexpected, turn. The hesitant Hamlet’s existential dithering, translated into Arabic as “Shall we be or not be?”, becomes invested with the radical urgency, once of Arab Nationalism and now the Arab Spring, emblazoned in felt-tip all over cardboard placards at Tahrir Square. Even Islamists were quoting Hamlet at the time of the Danish cartoon controversy a few years ago: “Something is rotten in the state ofDenmark”. Shakespeare donned a turban and went native. Or as they would have said in Shakespeare’s day, he “turned Turk”. This summer, for the first time, Shaykh Zubair visited Shakespeare’s shores.

But Shaykh Zubair is not alone. His visit is part of a much more exciting phenomenon, which involves less ambiguously Arabic voices than the appropriation of a classic, “Western” author. The National Theatre of Scotland’s coincidentally coterminous season, ‘One Day In Spring’, has brought to Glasgowand Edinburghseven new plays from the Arab world – despite the NTS’s parochial remit. The London International Festival of Theatre also includes the premiere this month of Lebanese dramatist Lucien Bourjeily’s 66 Minutes in Damascus, as well as Leila and Ben, a Macbeth-inspired Tunisian tragicomedy, to premiere in July. At Notting Hill’s Gate Theatre curtains have also just opened on Iraqi playwright Hassan Abdulrazzak’s The Prophet. Why does British theatre now have its sights set on the Arab world?

The topical currency of the Arab Spring is an inevitable influence – the NTS season’s title, ‘One Day In Spring’, as well as The Prophet’s staging as part of the Gate Theatre’s ‘Resist!’ season, somewhat gives the game away. But only somewhat. The Globe’s Arabic productions had already been pencilled in before Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself, literally sparking off the Arab Spring. None of the Shakespeare performances had any obvious allusions to these events, not even Richard II, a tale of an over-powerful overlord, overthrown by popular uprising. As the Ashtar team repeatedly professed: “It’s notSyria!” OrEgypt,Libya,Yemen, or any of the countries that have played roles in the drama of the Arab Spring.

The cultural currency of the Arab Spring doesn’t do justice to the full story behind even those plays staged as part of obviously political programmes. Although it is set in Cairoamid Mubarak’s fall, The Prophet is a domestic drama that takes place inside the claustrophobic confines of an apartment. Its protagonist riffs on the benefits of a Brazilian and while her contrived connection between the concepts of “the pubic” and “the public” hint at goings-on outside her private sphere; this is a play whose meaning and reputation will stand above contemporaryCairo.

‘One Day In Spring’ adopts a similar attitude. The season’s eponymous keynote performance, a play curiously “curated” by David Greig from texts by Arab authors, revolves around “24 hours in the Middle East” . It doesn’t shy away from the banalities of, say, a supermarket shopping spree or an off-the-cuff one-night-stand: agitprop, it ain’t. The Guardian’s Mark Fisher even called it a “comic cabaret”, although that’s not quite right. Cabaret is the epitome of theatrical escapism, but One Day In Spring was still a politicised portrait of Arab revolution, just warts and all. It might be better christened a political pantomime, what with its gamely audience shouts of “Down with the regime”.

At any rate, David MacLennan, the producer, was already in talks with Greig about bringing Arab voices to the Scottish stage when events kicked off in December 2010. Pegging the programme to the Arab Spring was more an after-thought, or a marketing move. But if not the Arab Spring, what then accounts for theatre’s Arab turn? One might mischievously note that Monadhil Daood, the Iraqi director of the Royal Shakespeare Company’s Romeo and Juliet in Baghdad, is married to the World Shakespeare Festival’s director, Deborah Shaw.

In truth, all of this has been anteceded by a little-noted insurgence of interest in the Arab world that has played out in British theatres (alongside galleries, cinemas, publishing houses and university departments) for some years now. When did it all start? Notably, no Arabic-themed theatre production can be traced in the year 2001, but in every year since then a dramatic rise in such productions can be observed. It seems theTwinTowers weren’t the only things to explode on 9/11; an explosion of interest in Arab-themed theatre soon followed and has grown unabated to this very day.

Take the halfway point between then and now, the year 2007, and the upsurge is remarkable. The Arabic-themed theatrical highlights of that year included Hassan Abdulrazzak’s Baghdad Wedding at the Soho Theatre in 2007, recounting the returning experiences of London-based Iraqi expats; David Greig’s Syrian satire of cultural correctness, Damascus (successful enough at Edinburgh for a London transfer); and Richard III: An Arab Tragedy, at the Swan theatre, by Anglo-Kuwaiti dramatist Sulayman al-Bassam.

Unlike a play like Gregory Burke’s Iraq War-set Black Watch (2006), where the Middle East is a dusty, desert backdrop for British characters dealing with British themes, these plays directly address the difficulties of Arab-British relations. Damascus was about a British publisher off to flog textbooks to the University of Damascus, only to have his expectations confounded by a sexy Syrian academic who, for starters, insists that the female illustrations in his books remain unveiled. Baghdad Wedding’s bisexual, pro-invasion Salim also has his perception subverted, turning against Britain after a wedding is wrecked by a missile. Even al-Bassam’s Richard III was hijacked by references to the Koran, kohl and camels,(what to expect from a director whose Al-Hamlet Summit depicted Ophelia as a suicide bomber?). In creating authentic Arab theatre out of a history play set during that most iconically English period, the War of the Roses, it was for one critic “a meta-meditation on the mobility of literature between England and the Arab world”.

Even when the pre-eminent theme of Arab-British relations is not directly addressed within the play’s internal world, the performance of Arab voices in Britain is itself a direct challenge to the status quo of Arab-British relations; once characterised by absence, but now by as impassioned a voice as, say, Raja Shehadeh’s When The Bulbul Stopped Singing (2004), which documents the occupation he endures in Palestine for a British audience whose government tacitly allows it to continue.

Most importantly, this isn’t a one-way process. At the Downtown Contemporary Arts Festival, Egypt’s first arts festival since its revolution, a panoply of English experimental theatre did the rounds in Cairo. Tim Etchells’s Sight is the sense that dying people lose first was publicised as a “free-associative monologue by a child, a psychotic or a Martian”. Quizoola!, by Forced Entertainment, was an encyclopaedic interrogation of three clowns in shabby make-up, the audience free to leave as and when they please. That wouldn’t have been possible at Ant Hampton’s Ok Ok, where the audience became the performers, communicating with an animated face on a television screen while receiving instructions from headphones. As an Egyptian audience member put it: “it was like being on a kind of mental amusement park ride. The surrender of agency was a relief.” Egyptians have been as surprised by their exposure to British theatre as Brits have to theatre from and about the Arab world.

These populations have long seen each other as crusty cultures. Now a new perception is taking root, one of openness, boldness and non-conformity. The curse of Arab-British relations was that they perennially pointed to the past. Now, in the theatre at least, their images of each other are locked in on the future. Amid the region’s present precarious politics, some hope can be garnered from the theatre as a flourishing forum for Arab-British encounters.

At times relations between Britainand the Arab world have actually galvanised the odd theatrical landmark, most famously John Osborne’s The Entertainer (1957) set during the Suez Crisis. But right now, we are witnessing the inverse: a few theatrical landmarks are galvanising relations betweenBritain and the Arab world.

The elections and their aftermath in the Western press

Published in The Daily News Egypt

While most Egyptians’ sights have been homed in on the future after the election of Muhammad Morsi to the presidency, it was through the prism of the past that the Western press viewed this week’s news.

“Named Egypt’s Winner, Islamist Makes History” declared the headline in The New York Times. CNN described Dr Morsi as “the first leader in Egypt’s history to win a democratic election”. The Guardian called it a “landmark for Egypt”. The USA’s leading Arab neoconservative Fouad Ajami even claimed in the Wall Street Journal that “Egyptian history can be said to have closed a circle”, striking a note of Fukuyama-esque optimism; not so for The Independent’s Robert Fisk who was left pining for the days of Saad Zaghloul.

In case you were unsure about all the different ways Egypt made history this week, Israel’s Ynet clarified all three of them. First: it noted that “the country’s government adheres to blatant religious-Islamist ideology.” Secondly, “the era of secular colonels who ruled Egypt since the 1950s has officially ended.” Then, it failed to give the third reason mooted at the start of its analysis.

Ynet’s analysis represented the most predictably puerile reaction to the historic news. This is an Egypt, where “the infidel” would be “a second-class citizen”. Naturally, “a heightened terror threat” is also cited. Yet there has been a thankful divergence of opinion among the West’s anti-Islamist, Mubarak-backing neoconservatives. The aforementioned Ajami cautioned his fellow “Western observers not to consign Egyptians again to a despotic fate”, at least not before “a decent interval”.

Interestingly, the latter category included the highest ranks of the Israeli government. “Israel plays down fears of an Islamist government”, Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported, quoting Prime Minister Netanyahu as “expecting co-operation with The Brotherhood”. Anticipation over the future of the peace treaty with Israel looms just as large in the Western press; throughout, the prominently-displayed headline, “Morsi vows to respect international treaties”, was the coded evidence of their shiftiness on the subject.

But in some quarters the Western viewfinder was in admirable alignment with actual Egyptians’ actual interests, moving beyond their preconceived, anti-Islamist standpoint to examine what the future may hold for Egyptian aspirations. As The Guardian’s Ian Black noted, “expectations of change are now greater than before the great drama of Tahrir Square began last year.”

But from this vantage point, there was much that did not bode well. Black goes on to describe “the soft coup anchored in a constitutional declaration that gives the supreme council of the armed forces (SCAF) unprecedented powers after a court ruling dissolved the Islamist-dominated parliament.” The superficial smokescreen the new Presidency creates is also laid bare. “It will be surprising if the generals do not retain their financial clout and privileges, and their powers to make war, conduct foreign policy and maintain internal security – the holy trinity of Egypt’s deep state”, says Black. “And it will suit them perfectly to blame the civilian president for the parlous state of the economy.”

Roula Khalaf inThe Financial Times outlined a similar state of affairs, concentrating on the stasis of Egypt’s institutions. “By assuming legislative powers following the constitutional court’s dissolution of the Islamist-dominated parliament, and grabbing some of the powers of the president, the generals might have already set Mr Morsi up for failure.”

As for the man himself, profiles were amusingly samey, assembled together from an identikit toolkit of vocabulary: “bearded”, “bespectacled”, “US-educated” and “university professor” were present in nigh every article. There were minor variations: The Telegraph noted his commitments to Copts and women, but failed to note The Brotherhood’s history of reneging on these commitments in the past. There was a surprising tendency all-round to parrot Morsi’s PR spin without questioning the veracity of his vision for “an executive branch that represents the people’s true will and implements their public interests”, as he told CNN’s resident Middle East dunderhead, Christiane Amanpour. This, I suspect, had more to do with journalistic laziness than any bias.

There was, however, one interesting thought on the subject, from the blogosphere. An anonymous blogger noted the parallels between Qutb’s infamously influential educational stay in Colorado and Dr Morsi’s own in southern California, about which very little is known. Into this little-noted curiosity much future commentary – sound or unsound – is likely to be read, especially in the Western press. Sometimes the prism of the past can refract light onto the future more than reflect on it.

SCAF’s transition in the Western press

Published in The Daily News Egypt

The Western press was this week gripped by the electoral drama in a Mediterranean nation with a history of military meddling now in the midst of a national crisis. I am talking, of course, about Greece, whose elections pipped Egypt’s to the front pages.

Not that the great game of Egypt’s own electoral politics hasn’t attracted its fair share of commentary. They all knew something was up when the Supreme Court’s rulings in favour of Ahmed Shafik’s candidacy and the dissolution of parliament were announced.

“A counter-revolution in all but name”, declared David Hearst in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, while The Economist proffered a similar analysis: “this amounts to a soft military coup through the proxy of the country’s most important court.” About a move by SCAF to crush dissent, there was fittingly no dissenting pro-SCAF voice in the Western press – an anti-Contitutional Court consensus that was surprising in the context of the anti-Brotherhood hysteria that flourished, not without reason, in some quarters of the Western media.

(It made a small re-appearance this week in a silly report on Britain’s Telegraph newspaper that re-iterated theories in the Israeli media that the Brotherhood were responsible for two missiles fired into Israel by a band of Bedouins in the Sinai.)

The New York Times struck a more moderate note about SCAF’s politicking, asserting their constitution-related decisions merely amounted to a “blow to transition”. However, David Kirkpatrick, the piece’s author, also placed them in a rather dramatic context, citing other instances in Middle Eastern history “when secular elites have cracked down on Islamists poised for electoral gains, most famously… the dissolution of Algeria’s Islamist-led Parliament”. That started a civil war.

Although no-one offered quite so overblown a prediction, talk of a second revolution was revived. Charles Holmes in Foreign Policy magazine boldly predicted that “a much bloodier uprising is inevitable”, while Robert Fisk, in Britain’s The Independent, reproved “the belief among journalists and academics that Tahrir Square would fill once again with the young of last year’s rebellion, that a new protest movement in its millions would end this state of affairs, has… proved unrealistic.” If the last few days are anything to go by, Fisk appears to be correct.

In neglecting to cover the current elections with as much aplomb as previous ones, the Western press was perhaps afflicted by the same malaise and indifference that afflicted the Egyptian electorate, only 15% of whom – according to some reports – deigned to vote in the second-round.

The usual, tiresome narrative of army vs Islamists was served up for their readers’ delectation. Prizes for the most facile exposition goes to Holmes in Foreign Policy, who sees Egypt, appropriately enough, as a pyramid of “the three M’s: the military, the mosque and the masses”. While Shafik can reasonably be termed the military’s candidate, is it sound to reduce Mursy’s support to the clerisy?

France’s Le Monde parroted that same narrative: “60 years of struggle between Islamists and the military”, a feature was entitled. But it also went on to speculate on impending arrangements, if – as now seems very likely – Mursy accedes to the presidency and becomes chief of the army. Le Monde’s analyst Christophe Ayad believes co-operation to be perfectly plausible, even citing (un-named) “Islamist sympathisers in the military”.

This is a contention that swims against the tide, as most commentators are revelling in “prospect of a dramatic showdown within the highest institutions of the state”, as Jack Shenker puts it in The Guardian, reporting on The Brotherhood’s angry reaction to SCAF’s Constitutional Declaration.

It would appear that a view of the Brotherhood pitted in opposition to the military has taken hold of the Western media, transforming these shrewd Islamists into unlikely poster-boys for democracy. Even that bastion of Western liberalism, The Economist, has endorsed Mursi: “Vote for the Brother”, read their editorial. The endorsement was not unqualified: “If they opt for Mr Morsi and the Brothers, they face a future full of risks.” But they echoed many Egyptians in warning against “a return to the oppressive past under Mr Shafiq.”

But even a Mursy victory, Robert Fisk explains astutely in The Independent, will be no guarantor of democracy. “Mubarak’s 300,000-strong army of thugs remains in business despite elections”, he declares, and despite the Brotherhood’s fighting talk, no-one believes they have the wherewithal to pose a serious challenge. “The Arab Spring may be dead”, Fisk wonders. The electoral aftermath will provide us with an answer.

The Mubarak verdict in the Western press

Published in The Daily News Egypt

In the Western imagination, Egypt has a long pedigree when it comes to tyrants. Stories of the pharaohs figure as prominently in the Bible as they do in the Qur’an, and it was a fallen statue of Rammesses II in Luxor that inspired the poet Shelley’s famous poem about a transient tyrant, Ozymandias.

Unsurprisingly, such motifs loomed large in the Western press’s coverage of Mubarak’s sentencing to life imprisonment this week; “From Pharaoh to Prisoner!” proclaimed Nick Meo in Britain’s Daily Telegraph while the New York Times’s David Kirkpatrick dubbed Mubarak “a modern Ozymandias”.

A jubilatory tone marked their reportage, marred only by the odd factual inaccuracy (Kirkpatrick claimed Mubarak as “the first Arab strongman to be brought before the law”, forgetting the small matter of Saddam Hussein’s trial and execution).

More cautious voices were to be heard at Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Jack Shenker painted a vivid picture of the post-verdict upheavals at Tahrir Square, including the anger at the acquittal of Mubarak’s associates as well as a few startling pro-Mubarak sentiments: “he should never have been on trial anyway”, Shenker quotes one demonstrator.

Many commentators also grasped the ambiguities of the trial. Most incisively, William Dobson, writing for the US online magazine Slate, pointed out “the shallowness of the changes to the Egyptian security state that Mubarak left behind”. This minority of commentators raise the possibility that the Mubarak sentence may well prove a smokescreen to distract attention from further repression, or as Shenker quotes the popular blogger who calls himself The Arabist: “cutting off the heads of the regime to preserve the rest”.

At the same time, all the Western papers heartily wheeled out Mubarak’s literal hit parade of crimes, including the killing of hundreds of demonstrators and his corrupt business dealings. But no Western paper, in its news reports, deigned to mention the tacit support of Western governments to both Mubarak’s megalomania and the security state that Dobson criticises. Certainly, no British newspaper had the wit to ask former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s opinion on the demise of his friend.

The Associated Press does deserve credit for shining a spotlight on this spurious agenda, reporting the resignation of employees of US-funded democracy programmes “to protest what they called undemocratic practices”. Documents obtained by the AP have revealed how State Department funding has picked and chosen when it comes to “building democracy”, favouring liberal groups.

Commentary of the run-up to the second-round of Presidential elections has, predictably, reflected the same bias. Magdi Abdelhadi, in the Guardian, called it “a game of the least bad option”. The most pithy summation of the situation came from Amr Bargisi in the American Jewish magazine Tablet: “Islamist repression vs. repression of Islamism” While practically no-one disagreed with this outlook, some sounded an optimistic chord. Nathan Brown, also in The Guardian, believes “the door to democracy is wide open”.

How long for remains to be seen, as two candidates from political traditions with a history of suspicion towards democracy vie in the country’s first democratic duel. If Shelley were to visit Egypt again, he will have surely noted the irony. Not that it takes a poet to realise this.