By DYLAN DEMARTINO
STAFF WRITER
On April 8, Fordham hosted a discussion on the status and future of Coptic Christians in Egypt. Coptic Christians are adherents to an indigenous Egyptian form of Christianity and constitute not only 10 percent of Egypt’s population, but also the largest Christian minority in the Middle East. Coptic liturgical practices contain linguistic elements of a pre-Arab Egypt, and Coptic Christianity is one of the oldest forms of Christianity in existence.
Ever since the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood rose to political prominence after the ousting of Mubarak’s regime in 2010, concerns have risen that Coptic Christians, against whom there has been a historic precedent of discernible acts of violence in Egypt, may become victims of religiously-motivated attacks on a larger scale.
The discussion featured four speakers. Dr. John Entelis, chair of the political Ssience department and assistant director of the Middle East studies program, spoke. Michael Wahid Hanna was also there. He is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank that addresses a range of public policy issues. Mark Salah Morgan, president of the Coptic Lawyers Association, also spoke. Finally, Yuri Pacheco, FCRH ’13, prepared a thesis under the supervision of Entelis concerning the Coptic Diaspora in the U.S. Pacheco is a double major in Middle Eastern studies and Theology, with minors in International Affairs and Orthodox Christian studies.
Western countries are generally willing to behave assertively in the Middle East when they feel their interests are threatened. Therefore, it was interesting to note that there has not been much pressure put on the Egyptian government to ensure that its Coptic population will not be persecuted. Entelis claimed that this apparent lack of concern for Christian minorities in the Middle East on the part of the predominantly Christian West has a lot to do with the “diminishing constituency of practicing and activist believers in Europe, where Christian identity is becoming less and less of an important and unifying force as secularism has ascended.” Consequently, he was possibly explaining why countries in North America and Europe have not been breaking down doors to protect the deteriorating Christian communities in Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Morgan proposed that given the relative dependence of countries like Egypt on Western controlled sources of aid such as the approximately $2 billion of “no strings attached” aid that the United States gives to Egypt each year. Also mentioned was the IMF funding Egypt often receives. It was argued that such aid should be restructured to be contingent on the development of “pluralism” in places like Egypt. The IMF generally does not concern itself with social issues that are not directly related to fiscal policy in a manner integral to a nation’s economy.
Despite this, the United States could theoretically leverage its aid power to influence Egypt’s behavior. Egypt’s economy is currently suffering severely, an issue that played into the initial revolt against Mubarak.
Entelis advised that it can be a slippery slope in these situations of heightened political tension for any sort of non-Muslim group to be complacent with any sort of abuse of an “other.” In the minds of the majority, complacency, such as allowing the mistreatment of increasingly scant Jewish communities in the Middle East can “give carte-blanche for the mistreatment to all non-Muslims.”
Ultimately, the questions of addressing the problematic position of many Christians in the Middle East, and particularly Egypt, in the wake of the Arab Spring has to do with the development of democracy and “pluralism” or at least inclusiveness according to the panelists. Whatever notion of pluralism ends up presenting itself, it will likely not be as diverse as one may hope. As the panel was quick to concur, secular, socialist and nationalist political ideologies have all had their day in the sun in countries like Egypt and they have been met with generally poor economic and political results. This has left little doubt to experts that those ideas, which may be marginally more accommodating to Christian minorities, are likely to remain on the shelf for a while.
Some are quick to point to the general clandestine nature and perceived subversiveness of the Muslim Brotherhood. This as well as other recently inaugurated political parties in the wake of the Arab Spring have had to operate previously, in some instances for decades, as illegitimate political factions without open societal recognition. The logistical legacy of being an outlawed political party still weighs heavily on the normative mentality of nascent governments across the region.
The panelists were hopeful that this could change as the ruling organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, itself fraught with internal divisions, take true steps towards democracy and allow for the legalization and legitimization of a consistent opposition that can contest and win power electorally, a true hallmark of democracy.
