The weather has been absolutely spectacular this week in Paris. Clear, sunny skies, low humidity, moderate temperatures. Yesterday, Naomi and I enjoyed having lunch at the Palais-Royal and walking through the city with our friend Daniel Dayan. Each day, we have been spending time in a park with our grandson, Ludovic. Especially nice was a family excursion to the Arab Institute, where we had wonderful pastries and panoramic views of of the city from its rooftop café. Being in Paris, thinking with a European perspective about the Arab world has been my theme of the week, as I, with the help of the editorial team at Deliberately Considered, have been keeping the magazine going.

I observed in my first letter from Paris that the common action of Coptic Christians and Muslims at Tahrir Square created a new pluralistic reality in Egypt. These days, this new reality is challenged, to say the least. There are great fears that sectarian conflict will rule the day in Egypt and in the region, as was reported in Tuesday’s New York Times. According to this report, a clause in the constitution formally identifying Egypt as a Muslim country deriving its laws from Islam, passed during the era of Anwar Sadat, and laws dating back to the late colonial era that stipulate specific restrictions on and privileges for the Coptic church have inflamed tensions. There is a marked increase in sectarian violence, with wild stories about abduction of Muslims, even reported in a historically liberal newspaper. These are very serious matters.

Formal political measures to address these issues are urgently needed. An idea floating that a Bill of Rights ought to be established as a precondition of electoral politics, as advocated by Mohamed El Barade, makes considerable sense. But just as important are indications that the power of definition, what I call the politics of small things, is being marshaled to combat dangerous anti-democratic developments.

A Copt (left) and a Salafi Muslim (right) debate politics and the revolution in Tahrir Square during a break from cleanup efforts, Feb 12, 2011 © Sherif9282 | Wikimedia Commons

There was also a minor subplot in the Times story. As the new political configuration is emerging, competing political parties are acting in interesting “opportunistic” ways. The Muslim Brotherhood is proving to be the powerful political force and is working to consolidate its power. Yet, it continues to be self-limiting. (Poland’s great democratic transformation was often referred to as a self-limiting revolution). Not only is it indicating that it will not present a Presidential candidate, it is contesting only a half of the Parliamentary seats. It purposively couches its Islamic project in terms that are supportive of liberal democracy. A prominent leader of the Party, Essam el-Erian maintains: “We are calling for a civil state,” promoting elements of Islamic law that are common to other world religions, including, “freedom of worship and faith, equality between people, and human rights and human dignity.” Further, the Brotherhood named a Christian a deputy leader of its political party.

Meanwhile, Christian and secular liberal parties are not directly seeking changes to the article in the constitution that recognizes Egypt as a Muslim nation with laws based on Islam. While individuals may privately dislike the article, they recognize its popularity among Muslims and the parties minimally propose only minor changes.

“Our position is that it should stay, but a clause should be added so that in personal issues non-Muslims are subject to the rules of their own religion,’ Naguib Sawiris, a secularly oriented, wealthy, Christian businessman who has established a liberal party. He would prefer the separation between religion and state in accord with Western customs, but realizes that this is now impossible given Egyptian realities.

The Brotherhood’s gestures to liberal democratic values, and the liberal and Christian gestures recognizing Egypt as a Muslim nation, may be simply a matter of cynical political calculation, meant to convince the naïve that the Brotherhood does not pose the threat about which skeptics are most concerned, concealing the Brotherhood’s potential long term complicity in the disturbing anti-Christian actions and attitudes that are on the rise in Egypt, very much a part of the sectarian strife of the region. And the Christian and liberal acceptance of the idea of Egypt as a Muslim nation may simply be a rather desperate necessary, political calculation to maintain viability against an Islamist tide. I am sure such concerns are warranted.

But, I believe something more important is going on, as well, that is supporting the prospects for democracy in Egypt, with clear parallels to the development of democracy in Poland. Real pro-democratic Christians, liberals and Muslims together are muddling through a common definition of their society as one with pluralism and with majority and minority rights. There is a struggle against powerful currents of hatred, fears and suspicions, and major political actors are presenting themselves as moving in this direction. They may not succeed, but it is important to notice that this movement is happening. Given the nature of belief in Egypt, there could be no democracy without the inclusion of Islam in its politics (think of the Turkish experience). Given the richness of the Islamic tradition, there is reason to think that this move is possible, even if not likely.

Democrats of all sorts have skin in this game, as Michael Corey would put it. He suggests, in his latest post, that when I put it this way we should ask: What is being asked by whom, and for what purposes? I think the purposes are pretty clear. A liberal democratic peaceful North Africa and the Middle East would be safer, more prosperous and more just place, and this would contribute to greater safety, prosperity and justice beyond the region. The people asking are those who are most clearly dedicated to human rights, liberal democracy and an open society. And what is being asked is generally minimal, perhaps some economic aid, but mostly a commitment to discontinue the support of repressive force. Minimal support, getting out of the way, engaging in serious dialogue on the basis of shared principles.

One final note about his week on Chris Eberhardt’s post on China: It also reminded me of Poland past. His notion of China as a kind of “Truman Show” resembles the “Poland Show” in which I used to live and visit, although I think the “China Show” is a much more subtle game. Key to the unreality aspect of these real reality shows, i.e. Communist Party directed and controlled societies, is the distance between the official language, which was necessary to get on with public responsibilities, and the language of everyday experience.  More about this when I get back home.