Abdel Nasser, Elbaradei and an idiot
A friend on facebook recently posted a link to this article (Note: Article is in Arabic and thus my response will be longer than if it had been in English since I will have to translate/para-translate certain passages that I wish to criticize) which I thought was one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
The article itself is posted on a Nasserist/Pan-Arabist forum (as the forum itself claims).
Upon reading the article, I found myself extremely annoyed, for a number of reasons:
- The distasteful tone the man used
- The lack of article cohesion
- The manner in which he assumes certain opinions are facts
- The way in which he (as with most, but not all, Nasserists) can’t see the world beyond his beliefs.
The author, Amr Sabih Sayyid, starts off by saying that Dr. Mohammed Elbaradei claims that his father, who headed the lawyer’s syndicate during some of the years of Gamal Abdel Nasser, was ill-treated and discriminated against [by the regime] at the time.
The man says that Elbaradei over-stepped his bounds by calling Abdel Nasser a tyrant as well as criticizing the free-education system of the time.
Mr. Sayyid then goes on to say that an Egyptian intellectual had contacted a journalist in Al Dostour (The Constitution) newspaper and angrily criticized Elbaradei since, the intellectual claimed, Elbaradei’s father was actually pampered by the Egyptian state and that Mohammed Elbaradei must have ulterior motives for criticizing Abdel Nasser in this fashion…
… and then he moves on to another point as if by stating the intellectual’s name and his criticism of Elbaradei, we should all agree that Elbaradei was mistaken. I don’t know this intellectual (through no one else’s fault but my own) but I believe that even if I did, I would still expect to hear the actual proof of why Elbaradei’s claim is false and not just someone saying that it was!
Furthermore, the word tyrant, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary means:
- An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
- A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
- An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
Abdel Nasser was definitely an absolute ruler who governed without restrictions. He was also oppressive: what else would you call a man who abolished all political parties in Egypt (save his own) for what was claimed to be the good of the country. I’ve heard it said that the Arabic expression which translates to “behind the sun” (commonly used to mean disappear) was coined during Abdel Nasser’s era. Either way, it is well known that there were many, many political prisoners during Nasser’s rule… some of whom were never seen nor heard of after they were jailed. I would say that this is clear and obvious cruelty and harshness (not to mention oppressive).
The author also calls Elbaradei politically stupid for insisting to group all presidential regimes from 1952 to this day under one label and because “most Egyptians and Arabs (I want to know why we should give a **** about the Arabs when it comes to the next Egyptian presidential elections) are angered by an attack on Abdel Nasser and his regime”. So I guess just because you seem to adore Nasser, everyone else has to as well? We can’t think: well, you know what? I think Nasser, Sadat AND Mubarak are all inept rulers that have caused more harm than good to this country.
For good measure, and to complete the rhetoric (though admittedly, I have used similar phrases before) Mr. Sayyid tells us that Nasser’s image (the image of the “greatest Arab leader in History”) will not be tarnished and his worth not diminished through the use of hollow and used-up adjectives like “Tyrant”.
Mr. Sayyid is obviously not the smartest apple in the barrel (in addition to being ridiculously dogmatic).
I think that people would hail Elbaradei as the world’s (not just Egypt or the Arab world’s) greatest hero if their average income increased and they lived a more decent, oppression free life and he was the one to give them that. This would be particularly true considering the state of affairs of most Egyptians these days.
Next up in the article is Mr. Sayyid’s masterpiece. His opus. His crowning achievement. His master thesis (to end all arguments, it seems). In short, this is where Mr. Sayyid offers us his astute and revelation-ary… analysis. Mr Sayyid says that it is “known” that criticizing Nasser pleases: The United States, Israel, the current ruling regime in Egypt, all the arab compradore/agent regimes, the Muslim Brotherhood, business men and beneficiaries of the ruling regime in Egypt since 1974.
He then goes on a wild tangent (I wouldn’t even call it a tangent since, by definition, tangent lines intersect at only one point) explaining how Elbaradei would be mistaken if he is trying to “please” or “flirt with” these people since they are doomed to fail. The author goes on to lambast these groups and basically explains to the reader how courting these groups will get Elbaradei no where as they don’t need him to plunder, steal and ruin the country.
Mr. Sayyid, after finding no rational explanation for Elbaradei’s criticism goes on to explain that it might be his wafdist leanings but, alas dear reader, Mr. Sayyid fires a full criticism salvo at them as well (and does not forget to mention how Abdel Nasser rescued Egypt from their mistakes).
In an unexpected epiphany and moment of clear vision, Mr. Sayyid says that this could be because of Elbaradei’s own personal views (ya think?!) and that he, Elbaradei, is free to express his views (Im not sure Mr. Sayyid has left anything for Elbaradei to express after covering all possible avenues of thought the way he did) but without making false allegations about the “era of the tyrant” (I think he was trying to be sarcastic).
Mr. Sayyid goes on to say that perhaps Dr. Elbaradei should learn from Nasser’s experience. He then goes on to give a heart-wrenching (now I’m being sarcastic) albeit short piece about Nasser history (managing to make him sound every bit the hero, the man of courage, knowledge and learning, the British-fighting freedom fighter as well as the humble achiever who never boasted of his accomplishments but brought his revolution (doesn’t he mean military coup?) to rid Egypt of all its ailments.
The man says that Nasser did not inherit Egypt’s rule from anyone and did not beg its people for their support (of course not, he forced himself on them!) before his achievements. Nasser, according to our (at this point) impassioned author did not look for a revolution to lead but “exploded” his own revolution… he was a man whose achievements made him popular and nothing else.
Finally, the man goes on to talk about a Nasserist politician, Hamdeen Sabahy, but not before managing to slip in this bit: Imported solutions will not improve Egypt’s situation… etc etc bullshit bullshit.
I have this much to say to all Nasserists who think along Mr. Sayyid’s lines of thought (actually, one line… he can’t, as again with most Nasserists, seem to be able to let go of that one line): If you want to feel proud like you say Nasser made Arabs and Egyptians feel, if you want to banish the oppressing invader and throw off the yoke of servitude you believe you’re being forced to wear by the western infidels… then do something for your country instead of writing cute little articles in ridiculous forums where the only useful thing you’re doing is practicing your creative writing.
Instead of waiting for a savior (preferably a pan-arab, socialist, oppressive, bureaucracy-supporting one) to come and free you from the quagmire you feel you’re stuck in, do something useful for your country.
Idiot.
Well, well..
So to say the guy is an idiot is definitely an understatement. Actually to call anybody who calls themselves “Nasserist” anything but an idiot is almost a crime – not because I hate Nasser, but more because of the intellectual laziness implied in identifying with a man – not a consistent system of principles – who lived 60 years ago. But, I digress.
I think the article exhibits two main problems that I might argue are actively stifling Egyptian political discourse:
1) Textuality: Since times immemorial, Arabs had been engrossed by text. If you read early Arab poetry, you’ll notice that content definitely stood secondary (if not tertiary) to substance. To the Arabic mind the ability to eloquently make an argument was equivalent to making a convincing argument. Because people instinctively understood -what we now call “classic”- Arabic language they didn’t have to spend the mental effort needed to navigate through the layers of flowery language and so eloquence did actually stand for strong command of the subject matter.
Today, on the contrary, classical Arabic is, for all intents and purposes, a dead language. What is still standing though is the very strong linking between form and content. Flowery language still stands for sound argument. Of course, because an average Arab doesn’t instinctively understand this ornate “language” anymore, word-smithing, devoid of any actual convincing argument, became a form of political messaging. As this abuse of language continued, the gulf between form and substance became wider and wider until this connection had been entirely lost. So you get somebody like this “author” writing a full-length article that has no logical coherence whatsoever. But it doesn’t matter, some people will read it and go “He is using very big words, it must be true!” I am not even trying to be funny. This is how most people in our culture form their positions.
Two observations on this point: the problem with Islamist mentality is its absolute devotion to text ahead of any context, intent, or common sense. Also, when ElBaradei went on Mona El-Shazly (to use a relevant example), some of the people who criticized him did that because of his “un-eloquence”, or “lack of charisma”, which, for me, was only a reflection of the fact that he tried to put forward a purely logical argument, regardless of how eloquent it sounded.
2) Cynicism (and this one is shorter, I promise): Nowhere in the article does the author entertain the thought that ElBaradei is basing his characterization of Nasser on a principled (be it positive, negative, naive, or sinister) view of how a president should govern. Rather he just assumes, almost instinctively, that ElBaradei is attacking Nasser to please one of the groups he named. This even precludes the possibility that ElBaradei is a crazy guy who is just saying “ay kalam”. This level of paranoia and cynicism is, of course, a fixture of Nasserists, but its prevalent in the wider society and is effectively hindering any political movement because it has to be, according to that world view, in somebody’s best interest, but ours. Its almost self-hating and nihilistic.
Bas khalas!
I’m very excited that you’re writing again! keep it up!
[...] Abdel Nasser, Elbaradei and an idiot | Faisal's Tobril Faisal critiques an article attacking El BAradie (tags: egypt politics ElBaradie Nasserism) [...]