With Egypt’s presidential elections in full swing, Copts have headed in droves to the ballot boxes. This does not necessarily mean that if they had decided on a single
With Egypt’s presidential elections in full swing, Copts have headed in droves to the ballot boxes. This does not necessarily mean that if they had decided on a single candidate—the Church, so far the only entity which includes Copts in their entirety, declared a non-biased stance vis-à-vis all the presidential contenders—this candidate should have emerged the winner. But it does mean that their votes have the power to give their candidate an advantage and to influence the final results of the elections. No wonder then that several presidential contenders went out of their way to give promises to reassure Copts that their rights would be preserved. It still remains to be seen, however, how these promises will materialise.
But it has not always been that way. A book which has recently hit the bookstores in Egypt reveals that Coptic participation in political life throughout Egyptian history has been the road less travelled.
The Copts’ political participation in Egypt, the theme title of a master’s thesis proposed by journalist and researcher Samia Ayyad Atta, is now published as a book by the Supreme Council of Culture and is available in the bookstores.
The book opens with a famous quote by Pope Shenouda III: “Egypt is not a homeland we live in, it is rather a homeland that lives in us.”
The introduction by Tharwat Ishaq reviews the salient features of the study and the historical phases it tackles. This is followed by the researcher’s introduction, in which she stresses that for several centuries Copts distanced themselves from the political arena. With the birth of modern Egypt in the 19th century, however—since Napoleon’s military campaign in 1798 and the Mohamed Ali era which began in 1805—their participation gradually increased. Members of the Coptic community became effective elements in the Egyptian government especially in the finance and administration services.
Concepts and assumptions
In the first chapter of the study, Ms Atta defines the concept of political participation and other relevant concepts such as democracy and political and cultural upbringing.
She then examines the term ‘Copts’, which denotes those who are descended from the ancient Egyptians. “It is a term reserved for Christians who preserved their religion after more than half [of their compatriots] had converted to Islam. Arab Christians, however—those affiliated to their original Churches, such as Palestinians, Syrians and Maronites—are not Copts.
The study is based on a number of assumptions, especially that belonging to a minority—recognising that the Copts are minority in the numerical sense—does not prevent broad participation or a positive impact on public life.
“How did the historical process of participation by Copts in decision-making come about? And have citizenship and equality ever been realised for them?” These are two important questions Ms Atta raises.
In the beginning
The study begins with examining the clear contribution to Egypt’s heritage made during the Coptic era, the first six AD centuries since Christianity was brought to Egypt at the hands of St Mark and until Islam entered Egypt through the Arab conquest in 640AD.
The entire Egyptian community, according to the study, suffered greatly in the centuries which followed the Arab conquest, a period during which all the inhabitants of the Arab-occupied lands were treated as dhimmis (non-Muslims living under the ‘care’ of Muslim rules). All Egyptians, then, were equally deprived of the possibility of making any contribution to political life. Beginning with the Ummayad rule in the 7th century, and throughout the rule of the Abassids, the Fatimids, the Ayyubids, and on to the Mamluk and Ottoman rules, foreign rulers were not kind to Egyptians in general, and to Copts in specific. This did not, however, prevent a number of brilliant Copts from being employed as trusted public servants by some rulers; but it must be owned that this was purely subject to individual factors.
Mohamed Ali and the Copts
“Because they were experienced and qualified in finance and taxation, Mohamed Ali depended on the Copts and asked their help in these matters,” the study reveals. Copts were allowed to visit Jerusalem, according to a recommendation by Mohamed Ali Pasha to Jerusalem’s Muslims asking them to protect the Copts and not to interfere in their affairs. He concerned himself with the status of the Copts, granting them the right to religious freedom in prayer, practising their rites and building and restoring churches.
From 1863 to 1879, under the rule of Khedive Ismail, Copts enjoyed the right to play a part in political life through membership of the Shura Council. Ismail recognised Muslims and Copts as members of one people. In its first year, the Council included three Copts among 75.
Under Khedive Tawfiq, Copts played a considerable political role. Copts were assigned governmental posts as judges and ministers.
With the onset of the 20th century, a strong nationalist movement was born to demand independence from British occupation which had started in 1882. That time witnessed the birth in Egypt of political parties and wide participation of Copts in the political arena. They joined the parties and nationalist movements, and were a strong component of the nationalist and activist movements.
The Copts’ participation in politics encompassed secular interests and a liberal model that was obviously manifested in the Wafd Party. The period from 1923 to 1930 witnessed a balanced representation by Copts in ministerial posts when the Wafd was in government, when a Coptic minister was charged with the ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Trade and Industry seven times, and the Agricultural Ministry eight times. The prominent Copt Boutros Ghali Pasha was Prime Minister of Egypt from 1908 to 1910.
Negative influence
The 1952 Revolution, which ostensibly aimed at realising national unification between Muslims and Copts, took no action to guarantee the participation of Copts in political life. This became clear when Copts were not represented in the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC). Even though Nasser himself was a reputed secular, the RCC included a majority of Islamist-leaning figures, prominent among whom was Kamal Eddin Hussein who became Education Minister and who it is claimed began the process of the Islamisation of Egyptian education. Yet Nasser clamped down on the Muslim Brotherhood when they made an attempt on his life in 1953, and imprisoned their leaders and large numbers of them. Nasser’s socialist rules in 1960 severely hurt Coptic landowners and business or industry persons. Selection of Copts for senior positions was restricted to the circle of technocrats, who had no political leadership and no influence on the Coptic community.
Following the 1973 October War, in the days of Sadat, society entered a new phase. The Open Door policy of economic openness led to laws and regulations that unlocked the freedom of capital both local and foreign.
Sadat, however, faced the daunting task of challenging the socialists; he did that by unleashing the Islamists. All decisions took on a religious slant, and the Constitution was modified to stipulate Islamic shari’a as the principle source of legislation. With the ensuing wave of violence between Muslims and Copts, there was no longer any possibility for Copts to be successful at the ballots.
Proportional representation
The Mubarak regime attempted to shape the relationship between Muslims and Copts through the use of laws and regulations to counteract the ‘religious stream’, especially extremist groups. Since the Islamist stream, however, had already become entrenched in the community, Copts stood a very poor chance of being represented in legislative councils through the polls. Mubarak used to counter that by appointing a number of Copts to Parliament, but their proportion remained a shabby 1 per cent.
Representation of Copts in ministerial posts in the Mubarak era was more than nine per cent, not far short of the national ratio. In 1981 it reached 10 per cent and included—out of 30 ministers—Fikry Makram Ebeid as Vice Prime Minister, Boutros Boutros Ghali as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Albert Barsoum Salama as Minister of Emigration and responsible for Egyptians abroad.
In real terms, however, political establishments were not compatible with the democratic process in Egypt. There were several attempts to demolish the existing legitimacy through successive acts of terrorism, a number of which were directed against Copts.
The study draws the conclusion that in Egypt, during periods of democratic liberalism founded on a secular basis, political decisions were separated from religious bias. The liberal Wafd Party represented this principle well in the 1930s when it had enabled one of its members, Makram Ebeid, a Coptic politician, to cross the minority barrier and emerge as a popular figure in public life.
WATANI International
27 May 2012