So it seems that the Al-Azhar blast in Cairo has turned out to be a suicide blast, or at least, ended up being one.
Very, very dangerous.
Suicide attacks are the works of men (and women) who have been completely brainwashed and are utterly desperate.
It is worrying to see a person who sees no reason to continue living. In the Arab world this is the work of fatalistic culture of death. A culture that values the group (country, nation or religion) over the individual.
The guy was 17 years old. A 17 year old built a crude bomb, went to a very busy street in old Cairo and blew himself up. What kind of sick culture produces such an individual?
I would have drawn parallels to the many school shootings that happen in the US, but in this teenager's case he was a religious fundementalist who saw the world only in religious colors, forbidding the watching of TV, or the listening of music.
How nice, a little Egyptian Taliban.
He was definately brainwashed, not only by the extremists writings that twist religious ideas and justify (even acclaim) the killing of others, but also by a merciless society that worships conformity, fears change and lives in a constant state of paranoia.
I have always viewed Egyptians as being a people that are alot more peaceful and tolerant than many others in the region around them and i still think they are. What scares me is that the current religious frenzy, indirect governmental encouragement of an intolerant religious message (as a means to co-opt the influence of religious groups) and an unstable region will eventually eat at this tolerant Egyptian spirit.
I hope i am wrong.

Blowing yourself up

There was a small terrorist attack in Cairo on Thursday (April 9, 2005). Before this and the other attack on a hotel in Taba, Egypt had been free of this menace for quit some time.
What does this mean? Well, i don't really care much for all those analysts talking about the blast and who did and so forth. Egypt is in a very tense and volatile region and while it is a very safe and stable country (security wise) some of the insanity going on in neighboring countries can, and will, spill over in Egypt from time to time. This is natural, no one can blame the government for that, they have done their best on the security front.
As i expected, Egyptian papers now are full of those calling on the Egyptian security apparatus to go after those responsible for the attack and "crush them." Interesting, i guess this means the security system will go after most of the country, including the government itself.
The underlying failure to combat extremist ideology lies squarely with the state. I can even go one step further and say that the state has, indirectly, encouraged extremist ideology.
When islamist groups began to strongly and violently to preach their hate in the 1970's (perhaps earlier) the state of course resorted to necessary degrees of violence to combat them, but it did not establish any kind of strategy to ideologically combat islamist thought. In order to take the spotlight from these groups (who flourished and still do among the poor and uneducated Egyptian masses), the state began preaching the religious message. Television and radio were filled with shows that instilled a medieval-like understanding of religion. The regime thought that the only way to combat these groups was to take away their religious mantle and carry it itself. Such stupidity was bound to come back and bite them in the ass and it did as terrorism and violence escalated during the 1980's, reacing its zenith during the first half of the 1990's.
At a time when groups like the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group (al-Gama'a al-Islamiya) where attacking foreigners, video clubs, bars, cinemas and anything else deemed "blasphemous and corrupting," one could see "state approved" sheikhs talking about the evils of western society, warning muslims not to mingle with such "corruption", working their congregation to a frenzy during Friday sermons as they denounced jews, Americans and basically any thing that was not moslem. Shows on Egyptian television attempted to deconstruct science and transform science into an affirmation of religius beliefs, no matter how rediculous such a notion is. The whole world became painted in religious colors.
Until this day, the Egyptian media continous in this manner. There is absolutely no strategy whatsoever to help in liberalizing Egyptian thought. The US and the West are the roots of all evil if one listens to Egyptian religious shows, whether on television or on the radio. Democracy, elections, human rights are all western inventions that cannot be implemented here in the Islamic world, or atleast must be "altered" to suit the "traditions and norms" or the Islamic world. This "us versus them" mentality that has plagued the islamic world for most of its history is ongoing and the media sees no use in changing that. The government seeks to boost its legitimacy by co-opting islamist thought, no matter how vile and backwards, instead of seeking ways to combat these ideologies.
The ruthless measures by the Egyptian government worked in crushing Islamist groups in 1990's, but it was only a temporary solution. There was no attempt at moderating, reforming or liberalizing the relegious message that the people hear. The media and the educational system system remained embedded in stories of religious fantasy, fanatics fighting the world on horesback, waving their blood-drenched swords in the air and the continous condemnation of the corruption of the "others"
A similar suicide blast in Iraq is seen my most (not all, most) as a heroic act of resistance, but when this happens here it is a horrific terrorist act. I do not see many intellectuals writing about the horrors that the are inflicted on innocent Iraqi civillians by the terrorist acts over there, i can even sense a hint of approval by some. Yet when the same happens here it is regarded as terrorism. What the hell is the difference? A civillian dying is a civillian dying, the presence of one of those "evil, crusading" foreigners next to him makes no difference.
Well, it has come to bite them in the ass again.

Clause 76

The Egyptian president surprised everyone last February and said that he would like to see the 76th clause of the Egyptian constitution changed to allow for free multi-candidate presidential electionds in Egypt, starting this September. Ofcourse, when the president wants something done, it will be done. The system so far was for the parliamet to choose a candidate and then the people vote on that candidate in a referendum. Well, needless to say, since the parliament is controled by the ruling party, the people effectivley had no choice, it was simply a yes or not vote.
Are we kidding ourselves? Does anyone actually believe that this will lead to any real change? It will only hide the regime behind a false veil of superficial democratic activity.
What does it mean that Egyptians can vote on the president but not on anyone else? I can vote for the country's absolute ruler, but i cannot vote for my mayor, or governor, or even minor city officials.
Yet, i will give credit when credit is due. The president's move has resulted in alot of healthy debate in the Egyptian press. Previous taboos, such as presidential powers, limitation on presidential terms, even the president's personal wealth, are being openly discussed in the press. The broadcast media is fully under the government's control, so nothing of the such is discussed there.
Anyway, many have said that this move was a result of intense international, mainly US, pressure on Egypt to open up its stale political system. This might be true and if it is then let us have more pressure, since this is sadly the only way that any change can come along. If this is not true and this was a domestically concieved move, then i have to ask, what took so long? Egyptians are not the immature beings that their rulers think they are, yes many are uneducated, many have strong islamist sympathies, but this should not cut off the path to reform. I belive that the frustrations that led to a move towards the shadowy, islamist underground will ease once a legitimate outlet is found for the people's greivances.
Too much reform, too fast can lead to instability, simply because there is, like i said, too much pent up frustration, but this does not mean that reform moves along at a snail's pace either.
Let us wait and see what happens, this is going to be an interesting summer.

Egyptian style reform

I like the Egyptian president, i really do. Hosni Mobarak has brought Egypt a long way from where it was in the early 1980,'s when he came to power. Even as kid back then, i remember how things where in the eighties when there was virtually nothing available, no sugar, no flour, no regular phone services, nothing. Now, i can get basically anything i want. Well, maybe i can't a Wendy's burger, but who knows, even that might change. I have the BicMac to tide me over until then.
Anyway, let talks politics. Last month Mobarak announced that he will change the way the country's president is choosen. Until now, the People's Assembly choose a candidate and put that name in a referendum before the public. Well, since the assembly is controled by the runling National Democratic Party, Mobarak getting chosen was not a problem. The results of the "referendums" were also not in question. Mobarak was "elected" and "relected" in 1981, 1987, 1993 and 1999, all my margins of over 90%. Must be love.
He hasn't said whether he will run again this year, but i expect him to do so and if he does he will win, it has never happened that an Egyptian ruler has been removed from power and i don't see this happening anytime soon.
But that's not the issue. What bugs me is that the clause dealing with the presidential elections is altered but the rest of the constitution remains the same. Most of all the state of emergency, in place since 1981 (that's nearly a quarter of a century), remains. There can be no meaningful reform without the removal of the state of emergency, no way. That's not mentioning that this change was annouced suddenly, with no introductions, nothing. What? Do they think we can't handle this? Or does the government not think that this issue is of any concern to us? The people don't really matter i guess.
While in itself this change is substantial, it raises alot of questions. Why this? and why now, only six months before the referendum? Egyptians can now vote on their president (the absolute power in the country) but they cannot vote on their mayors, governors, local officials, etc... Does this make any sense? The government will have to address these issues sooner or later.
Egypt, and its style of governance, has always, ever since pharoanic trimes, been an extremely centralized. Maybe the central government is loathe to give up any of its powers. It is rediculous that those in Cairo can choose who the governor of what province is or who the mayor of so and so little town, hundreds of miles away, will be. This is a major tenant of the government's power and its hold over the country, it doesn't surprise me that this hasn't even been mentioned.
So i guess only time will tell what flavor this reform process will have in Egypt.
As to reform itself, democracy, the relationship between religion and state and, most importantly, human rights, i'll save talk about those for later because that will take up alot of space. i have alot to say about that.