The Egyptian Revolution and its Military

This, for now, is not a full post, but more a collection of thoughts that I will return to more fully ...

Egypt's revolution was always prone to the dissolution of the rights and representation of man in place of the historically central and powerful military. Though much hope filled the streets of Egypt for a new democratic political system, the shadow of the military remained over this nation. 

The military's ousting of Hosni Mubarak and Mohammad Morsi (yes, led by the calls of the people - but ultimately at the hands of the military, especially in the case of Morsi) has ensured the continued centrality of the military.

With the military's historical role in the foundations and character of Egypt it would be unrealistic to think that Egypt could be a strong state without the support of the military - especially after such civil unrest. The violent nature of protests will require a strong arm of control to implement social order. It will require strong political structures and leadership to ensure social cohesion post-revolution, but this can only take place if order is first established. By forcefully imposing curfews; by condemning Days of Rage; by positioning themselves as the tools for change, the military have guaranteed their place in Egyptian society. As they manoeuvre key members of the military or military supporters within political positions they cement their role in post-revolution Egypt.

The military's entrenched position within society is the constant within this time of flux. The possibility of Egypt without a strong military will only come with strong political leadership, a change in mentality and more so, it will only come if the military allow it.

The revolution has always been doomed to military control. I continue to watch in the hope that Egypt's populace will be able to achieve what it wants - even if this ends up being a military dominated state. The important matter is that Egypt will be run how its people want it to be run - if consensus can be found.

The Standard to Which Women are Held

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world"
Nelson Mandela

A week and a half ago (I hadn’t realised how long I had left publishing this post!) Malala Yousafzai took a signed petition to the UN hoping to ensure every child has an education. The simplicity and enormity of this act should not be underestimated. Its repercussions will be felt by the individual, the family, the community, the state and the international system as a whole.

The right to education provides the individual with the potential to achieve great things. Education is a right for BOTH genders. However, the belief in many societies that females should not be educated presents a worrying cycle of oppression.

The fear often lies with a female having opinions of her own. The idea that she will be able to make decisions and take action that the husband / father / brother does not agree with, or that will undermine his own position lies central to this fear. Pegged as the crux of a family unit, the role of the female is central to the peace and unity of a home. Her lack of education or her inability to work is often seen as ways to cement her position within the household and maintain control.

“When you know better, you do better”

Maya Angelou

Unfortunately, I have seen this sentiment prominently within the Asian community. Numerous highly educated women have heard murmurs from some male members of the community who questioned the wisdom of allowing them to pursue their education to such a high standard. Not only because they believed they would “get ideas of their own”, but also because they would have trouble finding a husband. I deeply abhor these kinds of responses – why do women not have the right to have their own opinions and ideas? Why is a woman’s worth and purpose linked to her ability to find a spouse?

Evolution of thought is key to our growth as individuals and as a society. Conservatism ensures against social and economic mobility. On the larger scale, and excuse the grandiose of what about to say:  it hinders the evolution of humanity. Grandiose aside, the fact remains that without an educated populace we will not have the ideas that will spur on the evolution technology and of ideas that govern society such as economic systems or forms of governance. Education is paramount.

"You educate a man; you educate a man. You educate a woman; you educate a generation."

Bringham Young

Although there are genuine sentiments that the family benefits from a solid female figure within the home, her oppression as a means to keep her in the home is abhorrent. The quote above is an interesting one, as it places the woman at the centre of imparting knowledge to the next generation. I have to say that I don’t agree on the gender specificity of this quote as it undermines the role many males play in the formative years of children. However, as generalisation, women do tend to be the carers of the youth. It is in their hands that they are shaped and so I can see the message Young is trying to portray. It also forms the basis of empowerment for women where they are the primary carers of the future generation. It is vital to educate these women and overcome the strictures that bind them to second-class status.

This is not to undermine or devalue any woman or man staying at home to run the household and look after the children. The stay-at-home parent (both male and female) is a role that is neither superior nor inferior to the parent who goes to work and takes care of the home and family. The key is choice. Every individual must have an equal opportunity to be educated, to work, and to choose to either stay at home or go to work.

(I understand that there is a separate argument to be made on the ability of individuals to stay at home due to economic circumstance – however, I am focussing upon the right to education, the right to choice and a right to opinion.)

Yet, education is not the only aspect of this argument: the other is empowerment. The tenacity of woman bent on ensuring her child has an education when she has had none herself emphasises the influence of the individual character over her own educational status. What is driving forward change is not education itself but the belief and attitude of the individual. The spirit of the individual is something that must be cherished as it is the root and the drive of change and betterment. It is something that must be encouraged.

I truly believe that from empowerment all else will follow; none more paramount than true equality. It will be an equality that transcends equal opportunities. It will ensure that every woman is not prejudged or hindered by the standards of men. For even though I have been given every opportunity my male counterparts have, there is still the preconception that as a woman I must be or act or do certain things.

Empowerment and education is key to true equality and I look forward to the day that things aren’t different just because I’m a woman.

"I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will."

Charlotte Bronte - Jane Eyre

Evolving Ideas and Beliefs Through Inciting Hatred

This morning’s Nihal show on the BBC Asian Network raised some very interesting points of discussion on Islam, Jihad, and religious intolerance. With Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller being invited to speak at an EDL Rally in Woolwich, Nihal asked whether the anti-Islamic activists should be banned from entering the UK on the basis of inciting hatred.

From this discussion I want to address the value in challenging opinions, or those that supposedly “incite hatred”.

First and foremost I want to highlight the importance of freedom of speech. This sentiment very much lies at the heart of my corollary points. While opinions can hurt, people by their very nature have the ability of independent thought and free will. You cannot deny someone their opinion; neither should you force someone to think a certain way. These opinions may or may not be well informed; however, the individual has the right to hold them. I will make one exception to my belief in the freedom of speech and that is where opinion vilifies and victimises individuals and groups. These opinions need to be highlighted for their impact and subsequently questioned. Thus, a sentiment such as all convicted Terrorists must be punished for their crime differs from the victimisation in sentiments such as all Terrorists are Muslims and must be punished, or the infidels must be punished. While holding such opinions may be morally reprehensible you cannot punish someone for thinking a certain way. However, acting on these opinions takes the argument into a different area of discussion that will not be broached here.

Second, and born from the former; there is a great deal of insight and progression that may be garnered from challenging opinions, such as those held by Robert Spencer. While, these opinions have been identified as hurtful or even as inciting hatred, the points made are ones that have to be addressed by Muslims. Islam should not be beyond questioning. In fact, the exploration of Islam and questioning its main tenants were a daily occurrence during the Middle Ages. This is most notable in the distinct approaches to the faith, with differing sects following the practices of differing scholars. Islam’s strength will come from its ability to defend itself. If Muslims do not allow for investigation into those aspects of the faith that are identifiable as its weak points, or as its downfall then Muslims have done nothing but to ensure the degradation of their own faith.

Freedom of speech and the sentiments of Robert Spencer should therefore push Muslims to understand their faith better. I was greatly saddened at the inability of the Imam on Nihal's show to explain, counter or even concede to Spencer’s arguments. The fact of the matter is the Quran does contain passages that promote violence. What is not noted is that they are Meccan passages rooted in specific historical interactions. They advocate the use of violence during specific conflicts, unlike the general principles espoused in the Medina passages that teach equality, tolerance and peace. Defending Islam purely on the basis that it promotes peace or because we cannot question it is taking blind faith too far: it is not a good enough defence. Muslims need to claim ownership of those passages that contradict its main principles, explain them, denounce them and counter those that utilise them for base purposes.

Diversity of opinion and questioning of faith can only make religion stronger; it ensures that each believer fully engages with her/his faith.