It is truly mind boggling when, after a drive-by attack on a church which left 4 dead and 17 injured, the first questions to come to the minds of many are "Why wasn't the church secured enough?" or "Where was the police?". Let me first clarify that it stands beyond a doubt that there is blatant lack of law enforcement in the country, whether in sectarian incidents or otherwise. However, it stands to reason that the question "Why do churches require special security in the first place?" should always remain on the foreground.
With the spread and popularity of conspiracy theories claiming sectarian attacks such as this one and, most famously, the 2010 Qedesseen church bombing on new year's eve in Alexandria, are committed by government forces, there is little room left for reasoned debate. Even though claims of state involvement in committing these acts have never been proven, they are often used to mask the very bleak reality of sectarianism in Egypt. This is not a defense of a state which has historically engaged in discriminatory practices and failed to fulfill its basic duty of protecting the life, freedom and property of its citizens. Even before the security situation deteriorated and chaos reigned, the government always cared more about denying the existence of sectarianism in Egypt than prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of sectarian crimes.
However, criticism of government incompetence and failure should never overshadow condemnation of those who threaten, incite and perpetrate such acts of violence. The people in government are but a part of a society ill with sectarianism and they tend to reflect trends shared by large proportions of the population. The latter basks in sectarian thought despite its continued insistence on the illusive "national unity". The Coptic problem is one where both state and society share in the responsibility and sectarianism has become much more widespread than many assume.
Copts needing extra protection has become the norm because the idea of citizenship in Egypt has become the exception. Instead of requiring the government to rectify a system through which Copts and other minorities are de jure and de facto second class citizens, many simply demand the amelioration of that inferior status. Copts are viewed by many citizens as the weaker, younger sibling who needs protection. In turn, many Copts view themselves not as individuals, equal to other Egyptians, but as a distinctly different nation which, as a collective, should have certain rights. Lost in between nationalism (Islamist or other), collectivism and tyrannical majorities are the concepts of individual rights and individual responsibility.
With the new constitution currently being prepared, Egyptians need to reconsider how they view each other and how they translate the concept of citizenship. Do Copts remain a marginalized minority, a collective which needs special protection? Or are they citizens whose lives and property are worth protecting simply because they are citizens of this country? When someone explicitly incites the usage of violence against Copts, will he be viewed as a criminal and treated as such or will it require a balancing act between religious feelings, tribal sentiments and justice? Will rights and freedoms remain things to be compromised on by different interest groups or will they be regarded as undeniable and inalienable to each individual citizen?
We know what the answer will be in the near future, but without a fundamental change in the relationship between Copts as part of society at large and the state, the problems will sadly persist. Egypt needs an understanding of individual rights which makes people attending their religious rites in peace and security the norm, instead of the exception.
With the spread and popularity of conspiracy theories claiming sectarian attacks such as this one and, most famously, the 2010 Qedesseen church bombing on new year's eve in Alexandria, are committed by government forces, there is little room left for reasoned debate. Even though claims of state involvement in committing these acts have never been proven, they are often used to mask the very bleak reality of sectarianism in Egypt. This is not a defense of a state which has historically engaged in discriminatory practices and failed to fulfill its basic duty of protecting the life, freedom and property of its citizens. Even before the security situation deteriorated and chaos reigned, the government always cared more about denying the existence of sectarianism in Egypt than prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of sectarian crimes.
 |
| The church of St. Mary in Giza where the shooting took place. Via elyaom.com |
However, criticism of government incompetence and failure should never overshadow condemnation of those who threaten, incite and perpetrate such acts of violence. The people in government are but a part of a society ill with sectarianism and they tend to reflect trends shared by large proportions of the population. The latter basks in sectarian thought despite its continued insistence on the illusive "national unity". The Coptic problem is one where both state and society share in the responsibility and sectarianism has become much more widespread than many assume.
Copts needing extra protection has become the norm because the idea of citizenship in Egypt has become the exception. Instead of requiring the government to rectify a system through which Copts and other minorities are de jure and de facto second class citizens, many simply demand the amelioration of that inferior status. Copts are viewed by many citizens as the weaker, younger sibling who needs protection. In turn, many Copts view themselves not as individuals, equal to other Egyptians, but as a distinctly different nation which, as a collective, should have certain rights. Lost in between nationalism (Islamist or other), collectivism and tyrannical majorities are the concepts of individual rights and individual responsibility.
With the new constitution currently being prepared, Egyptians need to reconsider how they view each other and how they translate the concept of citizenship. Do Copts remain a marginalized minority, a collective which needs special protection? Or are they citizens whose lives and property are worth protecting simply because they are citizens of this country? When someone explicitly incites the usage of violence against Copts, will he be viewed as a criminal and treated as such or will it require a balancing act between religious feelings, tribal sentiments and justice? Will rights and freedoms remain things to be compromised on by different interest groups or will they be regarded as undeniable and inalienable to each individual citizen?
We know what the answer will be in the near future, but without a fundamental change in the relationship between Copts as part of society at large and the state, the problems will sadly persist. Egypt needs an understanding of individual rights which makes people attending their religious rites in peace and security the norm, instead of the exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment