Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Last Prisoner of Conscience: Is it Lunacy?
Legal Research and Resouce Center - Cairo, Egypt ^ | FR Post 09-06-01 | Wassim Mazik . Syrian physician and writer.

Posted on 09/06/2001 11:58:36 AM PDT by vannrox


 

The Last Prisoner of Conscience: Is it Lunacy?

Wassim Mazik . Syrian physician and writer.

________________________________________________

When George Orwell, in his book 1984 described the "thought police", he was probably unaware how accurate his predictions were: they went beyond the year 1984, crossed the Eastern bloc, and included many other countries worldwide, long after the disappearance of the Eastern bloc itself. Because of those predictions, Orwell became a notable authority in contemporary thought. But Arab countries came by, and proved that all this was nonsense, and that poor Orwell, with his way of thinking is not even fit to take on an administrative position of the fourth degree in those amazing governments. They have all proven, as Arabs, the inevitable necessity of such a thought police, even without having read 1984 or having ever heard Orwell's name.

The thought police and the prisoners of opinion and conscience are still prevalent in most Arab countries today, regardless of their systems and governments. Oppression of public freedoms and the absence of individual freedoms are what unite us as Arabs more than anything else.This is happening to us, despite the fact that the whole world, East, West, North and South is witnessing international transformation towards freedom, security and dignity of individuals in society. In the last decade, many countries and regimes have entered into this mainstream, even though they were previously known for their oppressive systems, discrimination and segregation, beginning with South Africa, all the way to the Soviet Union, and from countries of the Eastern Block to Latin America.

It is therefore a source of pride to us, Arabs, that in the middle of all this international progress towards freedom, we have preserved our individuality and did not follow others. Rather, we went right ahead in the precise opposite direction, towards more and more backwardness, and more and more oppression, proving to the entire world, for the hundredth time, that we have absolute sovereignty over our own, and that we have an independent will. We are, of course, trying to show that, having entered the third, fourth and fifth millennium, means nothing to us, as long as we ourselves have not yet decided to move along in that direction.

Incidentally, for our readers' information only, confusing terminology might lead to mistakes in comprehension. That is why, using foreign experts in solving our economic crisis, or in setting the proper foundation of technological and scientific development is obviously considered an infringement on our independence, and an intervention in our internal affairs, because of course we all know that no one does anything for nothing. On the other hand, using experts to protect our leaders, and to train our secret police is not of course considered intervention because it aims at protecting our beloved rulers and systems, who are themselves icons of our independence, and the source of our untouchable sovereignty.

Look at that madman Francis Fukuyama. In one of his crazy intellectual bouts, he discovered that the liberal democratic system is the final end to the development of human societies, and as such, the liberal democratic period is considered the end of history. This theory brought great satisfaction and support to a large number of people. But not all, mind you, since our great Arab regimes popped up, and showed, by example, that their perseverance and stability prove quite the contrary, and that there is no end to history as long as us Arabs exist, and that we shall remain a thorn in the throat of liberal democracy.

During the post-World War II era, our political life focused on group concepts: syndicates, parties, fronts, organizations etc., and all such similar organizations of a collective and political nature. They all emanated from the socialist experiences of the time. We remained immensely engrossed in this collective philosophy that may have been justifiable in countries where individuals lack any type of guarantees. In such communities individual work is perceived as disastrous and treacherous.

Parties, organizations and syndicates, whose very presence assumes the existence of some form of political activity and participation in decision making, are in fact nothing but organizations serving the interest of their individual members. Opposition parties do not oppose, and syndicates do not care about the interest of those they represent. Such political groupings aim first and foremost, at "eating a part of the cake" from the administration.

No doubt, in the absence of democracy there is an inability to influence political life without being part of the ruling system, or member of the family or participant in a denomination etc.. But members of those organizations, with their famous Arab intuition, soon discover that although they could not influence political life, there is a grand opportunity to achieve personal gains. The ruling party likewise discovers, with the same amount of brilliance, that they can easily buy off those organizations or parties etc., and therefore persist in preventing them from participation in decision making. Nevertheless, they will throw them some crumbs every now and then, depending on the size of their bellies. Not only that, but they will also use them as bait to attract any public uproar that might arise, and therefore place it firmly under control and supervision, instead of leaving the doors open to mutinous individuals. Additionally, in most cases, a form of silent, mutual agreement is made between the ruling system and opposition parties, whereby the former allows some freedom to the latter, in return for the latter's renunciation of power.

It should be noted that there is a desperate need for the continuation of such organizations and institutions as a sort of aesthetic operation, beautifying the State's ugly face. this is also met with the need of politicized individuals to submerge themselves under any collective activity that would guarantee them support and protection, in countries where no one knows where the future lies. This double sided coin is now powerfully working in the contemporary Arab market. However one tiny issue is lacking in this formula: the fact that it is a fake coin that neither buys anything nor brings any ultimate happiness.

From what I said, one should not deduce that one of the conditions of achieving democracy is individuality and individual work, nor that any party or gathering is necessarily corrupt. I believe that the gathering of individuals who have one vision, is certainly stronger and more beneficial than individual work. What I meant however, was to question the very principles which those groupings need follow. Is that group a means to facilitate the exaggeration of individual egos, helping them work, create and influence, through coordinating their efforts and providing them with security and appropriate working conditions, giving place to their voices and ideas through certain organizational frameworks? Or is it perhaps using its individuals in the context which it alone identifies for them, in order to achieve its own targets (i.e.. the targets of its leaders), and that might not necessarily coincide with the aims of the group it represents? The difference between the two might seem superficial, but it is truly fundamental.

Under the conditions under which we live, we could still see "outsider" individuals who still have some proper intuition and wisdom. This recalls to mind the hero of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest who was put in an asylum and was apparently unable to accept his condition nor that of his suffering colleagues, oppressed by a wicked nurse. One day, he decided to set them free through criticizing the system, only to discover surprisingly that none of them truly wanted freedom, an that they were living in this asylum by their own free will, out of a terrible and deep fear of the outside world. In the end he falls victim to his rebellious attempts against the system, and of course victim to the same nurse's oppression.

In our societies, outsider individuals are totally unarmed. They soon disappear or are swallowed up by prisons and concentration camps, only to be transformed into political prisoners, amidst the surprise of family and acquaintances who, in turn, have never even imagined that that introvert and stubborn character could possibly draw anyone's attention, much less the government's.

Before continuing further, I would like to define the concept of "prisoner of conscience." In my opinion s/he is an individual who does not approve of existing conditions, and who therefore tries to change or improve them, through intellectual work, peacefully and without resorting to violence, nor calling for violence. It is precisely for those reasons that this individual's freedom is usurped.

This definition is based on my personal conviction and belief, based on long past experiences. I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that anyone who resorts to power to change conditions will ultimately use his/her own new powers to oppress those who oppose them. There are no longer "holy revolutions" nor brave "revolutionaries", and the ages of romantic dreaming of utopian republics and of eating with the angels are all gone. With them, to our utmost relief, ideologies that promise absolute happiness, are also gone.

Concerning our own peoples, we have dexterously choke all free and creative individuals, and their subdued voices have likewise disappeared amidst the voices hailing presidents and leaders. They themselves have become confused, amidst clapping for some leader's great accomplishments, and their bodies have disappeared amidst those bending and standing to greet some president or receive his blessings.

Isn't it strange that when there is any slight change in those communities, such as the absence of fear or personal interest, such hailing of presidents easily disappears, only to be replaced by a demand for his head... and by the very same people, and with the very same enthusiasm?

Every time this happens, we see an amazing transformation. Those who did not find themselves in the middle of those gatherings and fragmented parties, nor among the "hailing" groups, will be marginalized and will become very wary, changing their position immediately, when cornered or even slightly attacked, still suffering from that "majority complex" they have been brought up to believe in.

Sadly, we see Arab intellectuals as emblems of these types of changes and transformations. they disapprove of each other if they so much as differ in opinion; they never agree about one single opinion no matter how obvious, and they always tend to cling to details of form rather than content.

Another affliction affecting Arab intellectuals is one other form of madness: the superiority complex. Why ever not, since they are adults among teenagers, and one-eyed kings among the blind? Let us just review the writings of some of our most prominent intellectuals, and see how they discuss Arab culture as the "highlight¢ and ¢symbol" of all enlightenment and civilization. They immediately attack anyone who dares oppose such givens. Try for instance to publish an article in an Egyptian newspaper, claiming that the first person to write in a specific new literary trend is "so and so", from another Arab country. Since this so and so is not an Egyptian, wait and see what Egyptian intellectuals will do to you! (This is an example to be repeated in other countries.)

The unfortunate conclusion is that we have an abundance of intellectuals who have no real influence on events, nor people's lives. This makes them, to the utmost relief and satisfaction of Arab authorities, the easiest and most tempting targets for elimination, realizing as they are, that none of their "intellectual colleagues" will even lift a finger to help or defend them. And they will not do so not out of ear, but in most cases out of vengefulness. I will even venture to say that there will always be intellectuals ho will justify the state's elimination of their colleagues, and even claim that this colleague rightly deserved it, and brought it all on him/her self. I could always envision all sorts of justifications, mostly ranging between treachery against the nation, nor doctrine, or belief, or even according to the latest fashion, normalization with Israel.

I will always ask myself how could an intellectual deceive his/her own nation even if they wish to do so? What does an Arab intellectual know which his/her supposed enemy does not? What are the grand secrets that an intellectual could give away which the supposed enemy could not easily get from any common, ordinary person in authority in our old governments, and without resorting to the miserable intellectual?

Along the years, it seems, we have managed to tread on what Hegel called "the primary charger of history", or a person's strong desire to be different, and to be of value. He called it Themos or the instinct that differentiates us from animals, and that makes human beings risk their lives for some deserving dignity, acknowledgment, and respect. It is also the main force behind bloody conflicts throughout history, and the desire to gain power and authority. whenever fear of death supersedes the Themos, a relationship of master/slave is immediately formed between the two parties.

I say this because I believe that it is the feelings of frustration and anger, resulting from the absence of recognition and acknowledgement that is afflicting intellectuals today. As a result, they pour their frustration on each other instead of the true deserving reason, which is the absence of democracy. But this frustrating status is, or should be, equally frustrating for our leaders. Their leadership, power and value is acknowledged only by their own citizens, i.e. by mere reduced slaves, whose thorn and dignity have been broken. There are no masters among them, free citizens, who will take them seriously and acknowledge their position and status. In order to theoretically solve this impasse, our leadership should give us back our dignity, which will make them leaders among equals. Please note how important this themos is, or else what will make a person like myself write what I write, or even put my name on it? It is obviously one of two things: Themos or lunacy!

Now let me return to where I first started: what is the relationship of all this to prisoners of conscience? I do not wish to let my writing be a simple tool of expressing exasperation, and therefore, in a very school-like manner (which I normally hate), I will call on every intellectual and Arab thinker to protect his/her own individuality, and stop following the mob. But I also ask them to work together for the protection of freedom of opinion, which is foremost among all other freedoms, and from which all other freedoms emanate. I also ask them to unite in the general human objectives, that deal with the very existence of Arab thinking and intellectuality. Let us not waste any more time in discussing details, when he life of a prisoner of conscience is at risk today, no matter what our differences are. We could go on indefinitely, discussing the forms of liberal democracy most suitable to us, or the influence of structuralism on Arab contemporary thought. But turning our backs this way to a matter such as serious as this, is what I certainly call deception, and, in fact, is the only deception which is not severely punished, and at times, is even rewarded. It is treachery against the great human values that have accumulated over thousands of year of progress. We do not ask for change through parties or opposition groups, nor are we naive enough to believe that they are different in nature from many other parties and any other ruling systems. Let us launch an Arab program which we might perhaps call Towards the year 2000. We shall certainly be more effective in our societies.

Everything beautiful in life begins with one individual... one who has a dream or vision, whose very soul longs for a better life.

Back to the Human Rights Issues main page


©1998-2001 LRRC, All Rights Reserved


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
A nice read...
1 posted on 09/06/2001 11:58:38 AM PDT by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Interesting.

Things don't appear to be much different in Arab societies and North American academies.

Intellectual cowardice paired with state-provided meal tickets has a common odor.

2 posted on 09/06/2001 12:10:30 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
South Africa is not free. It is a totaltarian marxist state with an oppressed and plundered minority.
3 posted on 09/06/2001 12:38:58 PM PDT by CyberSpartacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson