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.

Ink by Laura Lexx – review

Published in Edfringereview

The publicity material for Laura Lexx’s debut play, Ink, proclaims a “dedication to exploring personal protest through words and worlds”. Exploring the personal disintegration of a grieving estate agent, Luca, who mourns the loss of his job, his father, and his lover, Ink lives up to this bold claim. Luca’s obsessive impatience with words stands for the futile attempt to search for meaning in a world whose tragedies – in this play, 7/7 and the “credit crunch” – belie a nihilism they cannot bring themselves to accept, while Luca’s hallucinations reveal an ultimately failed attempt to create a meaningful world, albeit a solipsistic one existing only in the mind of one desperate, depressed man. But it is Luca’s airheaded bimbo of a flatmate, adeptly acted by director-playwright Laura Lexx herself, who best expresses this nihilism; “people date, people fuck, people die”, she exclaims, impatient with Luca’s solemnity, which actor Peter Byrom carries over rather well.

Yet Ms Lexx fails to convey her message about the media with any authenticity. “Ink sets out to deal with the hypocrisy of a national media”, says the publicity material. Yet random references to the London Lite, The Times and The Independent, and a set consisting almost solely of old newspapers, do not entail a meaningful meditation on the media. Sure, Luca has his vaguely amusing hallucinations of jobbing journalists out to twist facts to create compelling copy, but Ms Lexx ends up doing the same thing – wrapping big issues in Hallmark Card sentimentality about beauty and truth. (Admittedly, that charge might equally be levelled against Keats…)

When she’s doing that at all. Most of the play actually consists of banal chitchat, the point of which was much beyond this reviewer. Perhaps it was too subtle. What has clearly happened is that Ms Lexx set out to say something about the media but ended up getting distracted by the psychology of grief and its manifestations in the banal. And the better for it.

The management of rising tensions demonstrated dramatic craft worthy of a two-a-penny creative writing course. This is no insult; a grasp of structure, however unoriginal, is better than no structure at all. There was one good metaphor in the whole play, but a fairly good one at that – the black-and-white colours of the world of print standing for the black-and-white worldview the media propagate: simplistic, but effective. The former, as it happens, could summarise the play as a whole. One wishes the same could be said for the latter.