The Chronikler

Queer times in Belgian politics

By Khaled Diab

The product of an odd political marriage between left wing Belgian unionists and radical Flemish nationalists could be the world’s first openly gay male premier.

23 June 2010

Sometimes living in Belgium can be a surreal and somewhat comic-book experience. With the economy haemorrhaging jobs, inequalities widening and an empty treasury looted by the banks, how has the government been occupying itself for the past three years?

In contrast to their mostly moderate voters, Belgium's Flemish and Walloon parties have been engaged in a bitter and Byzantine war of words over language and an obscure electoral turf war – over whether or not to split the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district – which matters to few outside the political class.

Since the 2007 elections, one fragile coalition after another has risen and fallen over these petty issues, with the final nail in the coffin coming in April this year.

Of course, I am well aware that these are partly proxy disputes for deeper historical grievances between the country's two main communities, bolstered by the regional economic divide, which largely parallels the language fault lines and has prompted many in now-wealthy Flanders to seek to stem the flow of resources to now-poorer Wallonia.

Nevertheless, there is a touch of fiddling while Rome burns about this fixation on secondary issues, and I can't help but suspect these seemingly manufactured crises are being used to distract from government inaction on issues that really matter, such as creating jobs and steering a course out of the current economic crisis.

So, it was with a sense of foreboding that we headed to the polls last weekend. And, with Flanders's growing shift to the right and the disarray among Flemish progressives and the air of corruption and nepotism surrounding Walloon socialists, voting almost felt like a futile exercise.

The elections triggered what has been described as a tsunami in Belgian politics, with the young radical Flemish nationalist Bart De Wever (N-VA) and the dandy, bow tie-wearing veteran Walloon socialist Elio di Rupo (PS) emerging as their two regions' undisputed winners. It was satisfying to see the far-right Vlaams Belang suffer the greatest electoral loss in its history.

If nothing else, the aftermath of this shift in the political landscape should provide us with some interesting political theatre: De Wever, the anti-monarchist republican and separatist, has met with his arch-nemesis, the king, and has been chosen to explore coalition options.

More interestingly, De Wever and Di Rupo are set to forge a marriage of opposites between their two parties and, ironically, though they may be like chalk and cheese, the convincing mandate they each possess and their unquestioned capability as political movers, could actually break the impasse that has plagued Belgian politics since the previous election.

Both have been making conciliatory noises to the other side, with De Wever even breaking some of the taboos of Flemish politics by indicating his readiness to accept Di Rupo as Belgium's next prime minister – and the idea has caught on widely. This would make the veteran socialist the first Walloon premier since 1973.

And in a twist of the plot, it would also make him, as far as I'm aware, the world's first openly gay man (Iceland has a lesbian prime minister) to become head of government.

And the great thing is, his sexuality is largely a non-issue in the mainstream, and few Belgians appear fussed by the notion that a gay man is the most likely contender to become the leader of their country. Despite the country's rather staid and conservative image abroad, Belgium is sexually more tolerant than most of the rest of the world and became the second country to legalise gay marriages.

Sadly, there are disgruntled mumblings in far-right circles. After all, Di Rupo embodies everything they despise: not only is he gay, he is also Francophone and, to top it all off, from immigrant stock.

The Vlaams Belang party, whose core supporters are often homophobic, has not openly criticised his sexuality, despite its clearly stated belief that homosexuality has no place in the public sphere – perhaps out of fear of a public backlash or falling foul of discrimination laws.

Nevertheless, the VB's strong man, Filip Dewinter, tweeted in the runup to the elections that, if Di Rupo became prime minister he would go into self-imposed exile in Namibia. Given that he's a politician who claims to keep his promises, a Facebook group with around 40,000 members is calling on him to stay true to his word.

Although I wouldn't want to wish the anti-immigrant politician on the people of Namibia, Belgium would be a better place without him. I'm also looking forward to seeing how he handles himself as a migrant in Namibia – or perhaps even a political asylum seeker – and whether he follows his own advice to immigrants and assimilates fully into the local culture, learns Oshiwambo and leaves his Flemish identity behind him in Flanders.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 19 June 2010. Read the related discussion.

Tweet This

Related posts

• Crime and privacy (0)
• The God veto (0)
• Murder at rush hour (0)
• Faith and desire in Albert Square (1)
• Death of a president (2)

Death of a president

By Khaled Diab

If exaggerated rumours of President Mubarak's death become fact, where will the end of his one-man show leave Egypt?

25 March 2010

Tweet This

Related posts

• Splitting Egypt’s political atom (2)
• Egypt’s online struggle for democracy (6)
• My plan for a democratic Egypt (1)
• The Arab Republic of Investment (7)
• Should America fear a democratic Egypt? (6)

Splitting Egypt’s political atom

By Khaled Diab

Can Mohamed ElBaradei's campaign for the Egyptian presidency save a country close to political meltdown?

Monday 15 March 2010

Tweet This

Related posts

• My plan for a democratic Egypt (1)
• Egypt’s uneasy political truce (0)
• Death of a president (2)
• Should America fear a democratic Egypt? (6)
• Egypt’s online struggle for democracy (6)

Should America fear a democratic Egypt?

Osama Diab

The depiction of Egypt as a country of religious fanatics who await a breeze of freedom to turn Egypt into a radical regime is far from accurate.

14 January 2010

A senior Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdel Moniem Aboul Fotouh, who is known for his moderation, recently said that the party is not as popular as people think.

“If there was a real partisan life in Egypt and the wheel of democracy started turning and election were held without fraud, the brotherhood won’t come to power and won’t get more than 25% of the seats and not 90% like some people think. Egypt is not just the Muslim Brotherhood,” Aboul Fotouh told al-Shorouk newspaper.

This comes in stark contrast to how the Islamist group is typically viewed in the media, especially the Western media, as the most powerful political alternative to the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP). It is a little ironic how the media thinks the brotherhood is more powerful than some of its members, such as Aboul Fotouh, do.

The conviction that the Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt’s most serious and organised opposition movement is relatively new and is closely linked to their 2005 parliamentary success. The brotherhood managed to win 20% of the seats.

This took place just a few months after former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice openly embarrassed the regime’s undemocratic practices. "Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty," Rice said. "It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy."

But it wasn’t long before the US feared democracy in Egypt and backed away. A foreign policy article published this year commenting on Bush’s push for democracy in Egypt stated, “For a brief moment, the policy seemed to be showing results […] Unfortunately, as the deteriorating situation in Iraq drew away its attention, and when elections produced results that were not to its liking, the Bush administration essentially gave up on democracy in Egypt in 2006.”

Many political analysts believe that the brotherhood was ‘allowed’ to win that many seats. The regime perhaps wanted to send an indirect message to the Bush administration implying that it’s either us or them (in this case, the brotherhood). A fifth of the seats in parliament was the price Egypt was willing to pay in order to pass on the message.

For the same reason, Egypt’s government never ‘allowed’ a similar scenario to happen to liberal secular political parties that showed signs of popularity and could be to America’s liking. Ayman Nour, a popular liberal opposition figure that seemed like a favorable option to the Bush Administration, was thrown into jail for challenging Mubarak and achieving a considerable success as Mubarak’s runner up in the 2005 elections.

The brotherhood might not be really as popular as the media make us believe and is just used by the current regime to delay calls for democracy in Egypt. Studies and research on the popularity of political groups are usually conducted to serve political goals. Therefore, there are no reliable figures on how well-liked political groups really are. But there are signs, other than Aboul Fotouh’s statement, that it is not a foregone conclusion that the brotherhood will sweep up the votes if offered the opportunity to run in a fair election.

Now that the talk about who will succeed President Hosni Mubarak is more heated than ever, opposition groups have been trying to suggest qualified names to run for presidency. The point is to counter the belief of some that Egypt has no competent alternatives for the top seat outside the Mubarak family.

All the names suggested to rival the NDP’s candidate in the 2011 presidential elections did not include a single Islamist, which implies that even if some people are sympathetic toIslamist politicians, they don’t necessarily trust their ability to take control of the top job. Some might argue that the brotherhood decided not to offer a candidate, but most of the suggested name never expressed willingness to compete either.

Also, in a poll carried out by Zogbi International, 58% of Egyptians considered their primary identity to be citizens of their country, while 20% said Arab was their primary identity. Only 17% defined their primary identity as Muslim and 5% fell under the “not sure” category. Out of the six countries surveyed, only Egypt and Lebanon did not tick “Muslim” as their primary identity.

Above all, Egyptians are also more often than not very proud of their pre-Islamic and ancient Egyptian history. In Egypt, the number of shops, products and companies named after ancient Egyptian figures, such as Cleopatra, Sphinx, Nefertiti and Ramsis is striking, including the Egyptian football team – the Pharaohs.

Moreover, many of Egypt’s critical industries that contribute massively to the country’s GDP and employ tens of millions have a liberal bent, and people dependent on them might not feel secure about the future of their livelihoods under Islamic rule.
Such industries include the media and tourism sectors. For example, the Egyptian tourism sector represents 11.3% of Egypt’s GDP and 19.3%  of the total investment made in foreign currencies, according to the Egyptian tourism ministry.
Egypt also has a thriving banking sector that dates back to 1856. Egypt, along with South Africa, has the biggest and most advanced financial markets on the continent. The concept of riba (lending with interest) is traditionally prohibited in Islam, which makes the whole concept of banking and investment undesirable if not forbidden in some Islamic schools.

In addition to its modern economy with a thriving business sector and a large tourism industry, the country has also long been the regional centre of the arts, culture and the media, as well as a melting pot for people from many different cultures and backgrounds throughout its history. With all these factors and a significant religious minority, no one can claim with any certainty that Egyptians will embrace Islamic rule with arms wide open.

Published with the author's permission. ©Osama Diab. All rights reserved.

Tweet This

Related posts

• Splitting Egypt’s political atom (2)
• Egypt’s uneasy political truce (0)
• My plan for a democratic Egypt (1)
• Is Mubarak really a force of stability? (6)
• Death of a president (2)

Palestinian reconciliation through the ballot box

By Khaled Diab

To break the destructive deadlock between Fatah and Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas should step down as Palestinian president, call immediate elections and organise referenda on the future course of the Palestinian struggle.

23 October 2009

Cursed as they are with bad leadership, the sad saga of the Palestinian people fluctuates between tragedy and farce. As if contending with a crushing occupation, embargoes, closures and the complete physical separation of the West Bank and Gaza were not enough, over the past couple of years, they have also seen the two parties supposedly representing them descend into petty and bloody factionalism.

To top it all off, one party is pragmatic and moderate but has failed to deliver peace or improve life for Palestinians. Instead, it has become aloof to the population, is rotten to the core with corruption and is widely perceived, with all the international funds flowing into its coffers and the American general Keith Dayton wielding significant control over the Palestinian Authority’s  security forces in the West Bank, to have become a kind of mercenary force for the Israeli occupation.

But the frying pan of the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority may prove to be nothing compared with the fire and brimstone of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). Hamas may be less corrupt - for now - but it is ideologically fanatical, has been working hard to purge dissent in Gaza, is already restricting the freedom of Palestinians on the Strip, especially women, and, given its ideological rejection of Israel as a Jewish state, is far less willing to compromise with the Israelis. Of course, Israel and the international community did nothing to engage with Hamas’s early overtures towards moderation and, instead, punished Gaza, causing the party to harden its position and rhetoric.

With this poison and bitterness filling the air, it was perhaps optimistic to expect Egypt’s efforts - despite the country’s long experience as a mediator - to broker a truce between the two parties to reach fruition, especially since US president Barack Obama’s shift in rhetoric has not yet been matched by any shifts in reality.

The talks ostensibly broke down because of Hamas’s anger over the PA’s delay in endorsing the Goldstone report into Israeli war crimes in Gaza, which also criticises Hamas - albeit to a lesser extent - for targeting Israeli civilians. The party went so far as to accuse Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of betraying the victims of the Israeli offensive.

However, given how fundamentally the two factions differ and how Hamas appears to want to take over the helm of the Palestinian cause, it could just as well have been anything else. So, even if Egyptian diplomats manage to pull a rabbit out of the hat, any deal could quickly run against the rocks, particularly as trust of both Fateh and the Egyptians - who are perceived as agents of America and collaborators with Israel by certain segments of the Palestinian and wider Arab population - is low.

It is abundantly clear that Abbas, whose position keeps changing with the winds, has lost the plot and the only parties who continue to support his presidency are the Americans and Israelis. But this support is misguided. The presence of a weak and unpopular Palestinian president may serve the interests of extremists, for whom the prospect of continued Palestinian infighting is convenient, but it does little to forward the long-term prospects for peace.

To my mind, it is time for Abbas - who was once respected as a key architect of the Oslo accords and hammered out a workable blueprint for comprehensive peace with Yossi Beilin, which was derailed by the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin - to go, in dignity, and make room for the people to decide.

Abbas has already said repeatedly that the only way out of the impasse with Hamas is through the ballot box. But instead of delaying elections till the middle of next year, as Egypt has proposed, they should go ahead as scheduled in January - or earlier, if possible. In the meantime, Abbas should resign and hold his position only in a caretaker capacity until a new president is elected.

In addition, the issues facing the Palestinians are too controversial and complex to be left to any one party to decide. I believe that a series of referenda - financed by the international community - should be conducted on crucial questions of war and peace: negotiation v's confrontation; violence v's non-violence; two states or one; civil rights or national rights; Jerusalem, refugees, etc. A similar exercise should also be carried out among Israelis to crystallise what kind of future they desire.

Equipped with such clear expressions of popular will, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators can engage with a clear mandate, assuming that both sides’ vision for the future is compatible or, at the very least, reconcilable.

Personally, I hope neither Fatah nor Hamas win the elections. The Palestinians deserve a change of guard. Though I’m not Palestinian, my vote goes to Mustafa Barghouti and his Palestinian National Initiative.

This is an extended version of an article written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNS). It first appeared in the Chicago Tribune on 21 October 2009, and in the Kuwait Times and Newsobserver.com on 22 October 2009.

Tweet This

Related posts

• The God veto (0)
• Hallucinatory states (0)
• وسيط إعلامي حيوي (0)
• تغيير على مستوى الجذور نستطيع أن نؤمن به (0)
• The Middle East media frontline (0)

The Middle East on Biden

By Khaled Diab

Does Obama’s choice of running mate mean he’s shaping up to be just another establishment candidate for the White House?

August 2008

Obama hugs running mate Biden

Not one to rest on his laurels, Barack Obama is already delivering on his promise of change – albeit in the wrong direction. He has changed his image from that of the sophisticated, sensible and sensitive ‘outsider’ to become another establishment figure.

Since his nomination, the recently progressive senator has taken a sharp turn to the right, and morphed, in terms of foreign policy rhetoric at least, into a ‘Republican lite’ candidate. With his selection of Joe Biden, who can best be described as a dovish hawk, the transformation seems complete, as the man resembles John McCain on foreign policy.

 Although Biden is generally more enlightened and knowledgeable in foreign policy issues than the Bush administration, there are too many parallels that do not bode so well. He supported the invasion of Iraq and his imperial swagger and arrogance is unlikely to go down well among ordinary Arabs: “It makes a lot of sense to change the map of the Middle East,” he once said. 

Interestingly, he claimed that: “Building a democracy that is based upon the notion of the rule of the majority is a disaster for us.”  But I’m confused, what other kind of democracy is other?

Unperturbed by the US’s dismal record in the region, he talks a lot about “nation building” and has described Paul Wolfowitz, a major architect of the Iraq war, as an “idealist”. To his credit, Biden has criticised the current administration’s disdain for “soft power”, pointing out that: “There is a need… to establish the soil under which the seeds of liberal democratic institutions can take root.”

Being a political sceptic, I have not expected Obama to challenge significantly US foreign policy conventions – and I have warned against inflated expectations that he would somehow bring a “new dawn”.

In the Middle East, opinion is divided over the significance of Biden’s appointment. The general consensus among Arabs is that anyone would be better than the current Bush administration.

“The people of the region have endured nearly eight years of Bush’s rudderless policy and ill-advised decisions… Most Arabs are now ready for a changing of the guard at the White House, regardless of who the American people might choose,” an editorial in the Lebanese Daily Star remarked. “If the Obama-Biden camp edges ahead in the polls, the region’s [autocratic] leaders had better start preparing themselves for a diplomatic grilling.”

“Picking Biden, whose views on certain regional issues, such as dividing Iraq along sectarian lines and his staunch support for Israel, have disappointed Arabs,” a Gulf News editorial observed. “However, they trust that Obama is not a ‘war’ president. They also recognise that Biden is a sharp foreign policy man.”

Some were less flattering. “Obama’s choice of deputy confirms… that the real change he is after is a personal one: to leap from his seat in the Senate to the presidential chair.” Said Mahyo writes in the Third Power.

In a rare show of unity, Iraqis from across the political spectrum criticised Obama’s choice because of their opposition to Biden’s proposal to divide Iraq into a loose federation of autonomous states.

Despite Biden’s pro-Israel credentials and his self-described status as a “Zionist”, there remain doubts in Israel, although Israelis have now warmed more to the Obama ticket. “Biden is a firm supporter of Israel, but the way he sees the US’s role in the Middle East doesn’t necessarily reflect Jerusalem’s ideal of the ideal ‘American partner’,” Natasha Mozgovaya wrote in Haaretz.

But he seems to tick the right boxes for many American Jews. Speculating on whether McCain would choose Joe Lieberman, perhaps the best-known Jewish politician in America, the Jerusalem Post noted: “While Lieberman is a favourite on the single issue of Israel, [Biden] is more in synch with Jewish voters on the broad range of domestic and foreign policy issues.”  

Debra Adler, an American Jew I know who has been involved closely with the Obama campaign, called Biden a “safe choice” and part of Obama’s “attempt to place himself in the light of practical policy, rather than as the brash idealist many of us came to love.”

“That’s okay by me,” she added, “because the brash idealists are never successful, so I’d like to think that his inner-idealist is driving [him].”

Naturally, I realise that Obama’s “outsider” image, his skin colour, his worldview, and even his name could prove to be a losing combination for him. But this poses the difficult question of how much a leader should follow popular opinion and various interest groups in order to get elected and how much he should challenge an unhealthy status quo. Many were hoping that Obama would have the courage to follow his convictions, and persuade the electorate to share in his vision.

In addition, there is a depressing track record of leaders who embrace the centre to get elected and then spend their entire term in office determined to prove that they’re not “soft” or anti-big business, such as New Labour in the UK. When Tony Blair was elected in 1997, a lot of hope was pinned on him to deliver significant change. But “Tory” Blair pretty much defected to the Conservative party on many issues and even went to war in Iraq against his own party’s will and with the support of the opposition.

Hopefully, Obama, if elected, would not be as disastrous as Blair, and will start steering the US along a more enlightened course. But his presidency is likely to leave unchanged many US policies – such as the propping up of friendly dictators, the legalised corporate pillaging of Iraq and the unbalanced approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict – that are detrimental to the region’s future.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 30 August 2008. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

Tweet This

Related posts

• UnPrezidented (0)
• سبيل للخروج من فوضى الشرق الأوسط (0)
• تغيير على مستوى الجذور نستطيع أن نؤمن به (0)
• What’s the difference between Obama and an Arab? (0)
• Is Mubarak really a force of stability? (6)

New model citizens

By Khaled Diab

Tougher naturalisation laws are counterproductive. What we need is to redefine our understanding of citizenship.

7 August 2009

The British government has unveiled tough new proposals to make it even harder for immigrants to gain citizenship. The measures range from the draconian – such as a ban on anti-war protests and testing people’s “integration” into the “British way of life” – to the more sensible, such as rewarding would-be citizens for their engagement in the democratic and civic life of the country.

But this new points-based system misses the point. If a government and society feel that the inflow of people is too high or unsustainable, they can reduce the number of immigrants entering their countries. Immigration can be made more difficult, but citizenship should be made easier.

Once people are resident in the country, they should have the right to become full members of the social compact between citizens and the government: people pay taxes and in return they have the right to choose the government and hold it to account. Expecting immigrants to pay but not play in this way is like the old-fashioned attitude to children: they should be seen but not heard.

It is also grossly unfair. Anyone living in a country for a number of years is affected by the decisions of the political apparatus. Depriving them of full citizenship also deprives them of their right to hold the government to account and to choose a government that defends their interests.

The inequity of the situation is made even worse when you consider that non-resident citizens are allowed, in many countries, to vote and shape the political landscape, but don’t live with the consequences – and often don’t even pay taxes in their home country. In fact, in countries with large communities abroad, the diaspora can be a major political force at home. There are even situations where people who have never lived in a country have more rights than those who have spent many years there.

With increasing levels of mobility around the world, we need to rethink and redefine our concepts of citizenship. Personally, I long for the day when supranational and international citizenship become the norm, and you pay taxes and vote where you happen to be living at the time. But that remains a distant and dim prospect.

It is sensible for countries to say that immigrants cannot apply for nationality until after a certain number of years living in the country (though this should not be set too high: four to five years perhaps) but they should reduce the number of bureaucratic hoops people have to jump through to become citizens. Belgium’s snel Belg wet is a good model in this regard: simple, straightforward procedures, no silly integration tests and no idiotic pledges of allegiance.

But residents who have not yet applied for nationality or, for whatever reason, do not wish to should have the right to vote in local and national elections. Likewise, citizens who have emigrated abroad or are living out of the country long term, especially if they are not paying taxes, should not have the right to vote.

Giving immigrants a voice in the affairs of state is not only good for them, it is also good for society. The elusive integration of immigrants everyone talks about is most likely to be achieved when they are made to feel they have a stake in society and can exercise their rights as active citizens.

We’ve come a long way from the exclusive origins of citizenship as being the free men of a city state. But we still have some way to go yet before our understanding of citizenship is truly inclusive.

Tweet This

Related posts

• Splitting Egypt’s political atom (2)
• Should America fear a democratic Egypt? (6)
• Death of a president (2)
• Zero tolerance=zero difference (1)
• The mythical European Umma (3)