Round Table Discussions

I know that I said I wanted to blog about my internship only on the blog set up for my class, but yesterday's experience, I think, is something I'd like to describe in better and different detail on this blog. Yesterday began the first of several "round table discussions" that I am participating in with Cairo University students. The aim of the discussions is to foster a place where the students can be comfortable with practicing English. Because we have been learning in my development classes that development works best when it is participatory, I decided I would let the students dictate the subjects we discussed. I figured that if they were talking about what they wanted to talk about, they'd talk more, and this would obviously be beneficial to the development of their language skills.

The discussion began with the students wanting to talk about cultural stereotypes. They asked me what I thought about Egypt before I came here. I wanted to play things safe considering the group consisted of me and four male Egyptian students, so I said that most American people I talked to about coming to Egypt had a picture in their mind of Egypt as a desert filled with camels and tents and snake tamers. They thought this was very funny. They asked me what I thought of Egypt after coming here. I told them AUC certainly didn't give me a great picture of Egyptian life. I said I realized it was a stereotype that all AUC students were rich kids buying their degrees, but that it many cases I had seen behavior indicative of this. They agreed with me that some AUC students did not truly care much about their education. I said that it why it is nice for me to be working at Cairo University, where I am exposed to students actually taking an interest in their studies and their future. (The students I was talking with not only attend classes, but are volunteers at the office and participants in its classes and programs.)

I then asked them what they thought of America. One student said he used to hate America because of our foreign policy (referencing Palestine), but after he met some American students in Alexandria this summer, he came to realize that a people should not be categorized by the policies of their government. Everyone agreed that this was important. I decided to bring up the fact that one of my friend's roommate's, an Egyptian, recently wrote an article in the school paper claiming that from her study abroad experience last year in Portland, Oregon, she learned that America was 50% anti-religious. I asked the students if they thought this was true, and I was shocked that they said yes. I do not know the exact numbers, but I find it hard to believe that half of all Americans classify themselves as athiests. I explained to them that religion in the US often looked different than religion in the Middle East because it is not such a dominant force in society. I said this was for two reasons. First, Christianity is more individually based where Islam is more community based. Also, the complete separation of Church and state in the US makes it look different than at least some nations where Islam is the dominant religion. They agreed that it was important that the government, especially a democratic government, not be influenced by religion. But their understanding of this concept was superficial at best, I think, because they said this meant that religion should not be a determining factor in appointment to government positions. I think this says something about the Egyptian government (and the corruption there, as government is associated with appointment) and also something about the understanding of a true distinction between politics and religion.

The students agreed with me that Chrisitanity was not as community based as Islam, but they say this as a downfall, claiming the community based character of Islam gives nations where Islam is the dominiant religion a system of values. I told them there were other ways in which values could be present in society that did not relate to religion. They disagreed, saying that the US was seen as a nations lacking in values and morals because it is seen as an irreligious nation. On this point, we needed to agree to disagree.

We talked about politics aside from the religion and politics debate as well. They told me they loved Barack Obama. This is common here in Egypt. One student went so far as to ask me if people who did not vote for Obama had realized their mistake and were now supportive of him after he has done so much good? I was taken aback by this question. I explained that in a two party system, there will always be those extremists who are upset with a leadership that is not from their party regardless of what the leader accomplishes or achieves. I also tried to explain in the nicest possible way that Obama has not really done anything yet. I said he had made an economic plan, and it was being implemented but only time will tell of its success. I told them that the President's popularity in the US has a cycle. It's usually high during election times (be they presidential or congressional) and lower at other times. I said Obama had actually peaked and his popularity was probably now on the down swing. I don't think they were satisfied with this answer. However, it made more sense to them when I referenced the Nobel Peace Prize. One student actually agreed that Obama did not deserve the prize, yet. This also got him to admit that Obama and more particularly the Obama administration has not been as conciliatory to the Arab side of the Arab/Israeli conflict as it previously presented itself. This student referenced Hilary Clinton's weak stance with the Israeli government on the questions of settlement. I explained that it's difficult to implement completely changed foreign policy in the American democratic system, and I said I though this was something Obama was naive about. I said I thought he was now realizing that he could not actually make all the foreign policy changes he originally intended. This sparked the question of why the US was supportive of Israel. This was a huge question for me to tackle. I said something vague about it relating to history, the population of American Jews, which is a small but influential one, and, connected to these two and most importantly, financial matters. They seemed to accept this answer.

It was then my turn to ask them about the Egyptian government. They had trouble answering, so they asked me my perception of it. I said I was in no way an expert, but thought it was anti-democratic. They seemed upset by this. I referenced the fact that earlier they had told me that the government prohibited the organization of and recruitment by political parties on college campuses. They were quick to point out that the government's party is subject to these same restrictions. I tried to explaint to them that the government's presence at public schools is undeniable and that the no organization rule seems like a guise the government uses to prevent other political parties from becoming strong and influential. They claimed that political parties were allowed to organize elsewhere. I said this was still one party, the government's party, controlling any and all political activity in the system and this was anti-democratic. They told me the government's reasons were related to the dangers of violent protest by political parties. I said I understood this security risk, but I also said it was important that they understood why a ban on the organization of opposing political parties on college campuses was anti-democratic, especially from an American point of view, taking into consideration that college campuses in the US are major centers of political activity.

Along these lines, they were also critical of opposing political parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, of which the Egyptian government is probably most challenged by and therefore most suspicious of and controlling toward. They called the Muslim Brotherhood violent, and despite their claim before that Islam was important to society, said that the Brotherhood was using Islam as a guise to promote their political message. One student told a story about a Brotherhood member lying about who he was and his purpose on campus to try to recruit students, which, they reminded me, is illegal. The student said he found it troubling that this Brotherhood member was willing to go against the principles of Islam (by lying) and was undermining the slogan of his party, which is "Islam is the solution." This seemed like a logical argument, but it was not until later that I realized the Brotherhood member had lied so as to get around the government's political oppression. It was almost as if the government had forced his hand. He faced the choice of complying with laws and having his party cease to exist, or breaking laws and appearing to those he was trying to recruit as anti-Islamic, promoting a contradictory message. In my opinion, it is safe to say that the Egyptian government completely controls the political process in Egypt. The Egyptian system is not representative of an open political system. It is not a democracy.

It was interesting to me that the students at Cairo University were so supportive of the government (though they did reference the existance of corruption) and critical of other parties, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood. In much of the political science material I have been reading, there is the emerging idea that maybe Islamists, moderate Islamists, need to be given a chance to participate in politics (representing a democratization of political systems in the Middle East) and consequently possibly rise to power. Although the West is suspicious of this still, liberal intellectual literature is supportive of the idea, referencing the success of Hizballah as a participant in the increasingly democratic Lebanese political system. They present this as something the people want, but it seems that it again is Western intellectuals deciding what is good for the Middle East. There are obviously Egyptians who do not support the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power, so I wonder what the benefits or the consequences will be if these parties are helped to power by groups outside the Middle East. In my opinion, such an occurance will, if designed and implemented correctly, as in Lebanon, foster democratization consistant with Islam, and I think this will be ultimately beneficial.

I think the students at Cairo University are less critical of the government than the students at AUC because of their position in Egyptian society. The wealthy are not hurt by the actions of the government, so the AUC students realize the corruption and lack of democracy and they talk about this but because they are largely unaffected by it (especially economically) there are no steps taken by them to change the situation. The government has obviosuly been successful in brainwashing the sector of society that it is hurting, the less wealthy and the poor. Students as Cairo University may be aided by government subsidies or may be attending school with scholarships from the government so they are less likely to be critical of it. Aside from those who do involve themselves in oppositional parties, most Egyptians are unwilling to challenge the government, for the variety of reasons mentioned above. This makes it increasingly difficult for movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, which is already subjected to political oppression by the government, to find support among the population. This is why a change in the Egyptian system has been difficult and, even with a succession crisis looming, may not be something seen in the near future.

Though our discussion was incredibly illuminating and very interesting to me, it was very, very serious and heavy. Thankfully, not all the topics we discussed or all the topics we will discuss will be so serious. I think I was successful in breaking some other stereotypes they held about America, such as the one that racism was still prevalent in America, and, related to this, that only black people joined gangs and for the most part were "bad." I think they get this idea from the media, so that is something that should be increasingly among the American media. We also talked about the differences in cultural standards. They complained that at Cairo University boys could not wear shorts but girls could wear short skirts. I was confused as most of the girls I had seen had been dressed very conservatively. I told them I had not seen any short skirts, and they told me I was wearing one. My skirt was well past my knees! I said the definition of "short" in America was a little different. They said they knew this and we all thought it was funny. For next time, we planned to discuss more things like this. They are important because they are cultural differences but they are definitely not as heavy as religion or politics. Though, if the discussion drifts there again, I don't think I would be upset. It was incredibly interesting for me, and because it was something the students were passionate about, they spoke a lot and were not embarrassed about attempting to communicate in English. This was the goal of the activity, so I think it was beneficial towards this goal. However, the other benefits of the activity, both to me and to them, I think, far exceeded this one.