The Arab Mind & the Denial Phenomenon.

Until recently, I believed the first step in the Arab Mind journey to progress and modernity was the “acceptance of criticism” and the diffusion of a general cultural/intellectual climate which does not adopt a defensive posture towards criticism but welcomes it as a tool of positive feedback, a climate in which self-criticism is practiced without any reservations, constraints or taboos. I believed, and still believe, in Immanuel Kant’s brilliant characterization of criticism as “the most important building tool devised by the human mind.”

But regional developments over the past three years have caused me to revise my priorities, and I now believe that another step should precede the acceptance and practice of criticism, namely, the dismantling of the wall of denial behind which we have sequestered ourselves for the last few decades. For it is clear that we cannot embark on a process of constructive criticism of our mistakes and shortcomings before we overcome our insistence on denying their existence in the first place.

Our denial is sometimes expressed in positive terms, as when we openly deny the existence of this or that problem or the commission of this or that mistake, and sometimes in negative terms, as when we tacitly deny the existence of a specific shortcoming by simply not talking about it.

Thus our course on the road to progress should proceed in three stages. The first is to break out of the denial mindset in which we are locked.

The second is to embark on a process of constructive criticism, while avoiding personalizing the process by using it as an opportunity to vilify certain individuals. The fact is that no one in Egypt is entirely blameless for the predicament in which we now find ourselves, and finger pointing will get us nowhere.

The third stage is to come up with concrete proposals on how best to solve the problems plaguing us. There can be no short cuts here, no way we can jump directly to the third stage before first breaking out of our denial mindset and, second, embarking on a process of constructive criticism of all our defects and shortcomings after we stop deluding ourselves that they do not exist.

It might be useful here to borrow a methodological approach that is central to modern management techniques. One of the cornerstones of management science is quality management, a results-oriented operation that extends over three stages. First the status of a product or service is evaluated at the planning stage from the perspective of quality, a process known as quality audit, which corresponds to what I call eliminating denial. Then its status is evaluated from the same perspective at the stage of execution, a process known as quality assurance. Finally, there is the stage of quality planning, which is the formulation of a future vision on the basis of the conclusions drawn from the audit and assurance stages. This corresponds to the process of laying down new systems and policies in the light of the results obtained from the two processes of eliminating denial and accepting criticism.

Twenty years of working closely with leading establishments in the advanced societies of Western Europe, East Asia and North America have taught me that the presence of too many ideology-driven individuals in any society will invariably impede it from going through the necessary three stages on the road to progress. Indeed, advanced societies tend to look upon ideologists as suffering from a condition that warrants serious study and treatment, and there is not a single advanced society on the face of the earth today whose leading and ruling elite is driven by ideology. Finding solutions to the complex problems of contemporary life entails using a scientific approach based on empirical verification and adopting practical solutions that were tested and successfully applied by others, not doctrinal formulas dreamt up by ideologists to fit their rigid worldview.

In fact, there is a “prescription” for progress, a mix of values, systems and policies drawn from successful experiments, not from theoretical ideas. The ingredients making up the prescription are the end product of the collective human experience, the cumulative legacy of all the different civilizations that propelled humanity forward over the ages. They belong to the whole of humanity, to the march of human civilization in general, rather than to any specific model of civilization, whether European or Western, Jewish or Christian. This is borne out by the Human Development Report for 2003 issued by the United Nations Development Programme, which shows that the leading twenty-five countries in the world belong to different cultural and civilizational backgrounds. Some are American, some West European, some Chinese Asian, some Japanese Asian, some Muslim Asian, like Malaysia, and some Jewish, like Israel.

In other words, as I have always maintained, the engine of progress is driven by a set of positive values and systems that were developed and refined throughout history by various civilizations (while not denying that they received a qualitative boost thanks to the European Renaissance).

An ingredient the prescription for progress does not include is ideology. Indeed, once an ideological mindset takes hold among the opinion-makers of any society, that society’s prospects of making any headway on the road to progress are severely diminished. By definition, ideologists are driven by moral certainty in a system of belief, a certainty they can only sustain by suspending their critical faculties and building up a defense mechanism against any challenge to their core beliefs. They tend to take refuge in a bunker mentality which leaves little room for self-criticism and even less for breaking the wall of denial isolating them from reality. Such criticism as they do engage in is reserved for others; when it comes to evaluating their own performance, there is nothing but self-praise.

Skeptics could argue that moving from a culture of denial to one in which people are conditioned to accept criticism and to engage in self-criticism requires a lengthy educational process extending over centuries. This argument is easily refuted by living proof to the contrary. In the last forty years only, eight developed Asian countries succeeded in overcoming the culture of denial and adopting a culture that accepts criticism. Indeed, in the case of South Korea and Malaysia, the process took only twenty years.

I have written extensively on the merits of adopting a culture that accepts objective and constructive criticism in numerous articles, as well as in my book “On The Egyptian Mind” (The Egyptian General Book Organization, 470 pages, Second Edition, November 2003). Accordingly, I will limit myself here to citing a number of examples to illustrate how far we have sunk into a culture of denial, whether by maintaining a resounding silence in the face of problems screaming for attention or by openly denying that they exist.

Countless books, studies and research papers published in the outside world, not only in countries we once described as enemies (like Britain and the United States) but also in many we call our friends (like Russia, India, China, Japan and France) have praised Anwar Sadat’s foresight, wisdom and political acumen in adopting the line he did towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially in the last four years of his life. By the same token, they find that the Arab countries, leaderships and intellectuals who fiercely opposed his line at the time committed a grave strategic mistake.

Not content with their virulent campaign of defamation against the Egyptian president, Arab leaders met in Baghdad in 1978 (the historical irony will not be lost on the reader!) to announce their boycott of Sadat and Egypt. One of the victims of their relentless war of words against Sadat was the Egyptian minister Youssef el Sebai, who was murdered for no other reason than that he had accompanied the Egyptian president on his visit to Jerusalem in 1977.

The situation is very different today. Many of those who participated in the anti-Sadat campaign at the time are now trying to follow in his footsteps, albeit far less effectively. Most of his former detractors today admit they were mistaken not to support him, with no less virulent a critic of his line at the time than the Saudi monarch’s brother, the Prince of Riyadh (who said in 1977 that he wished it was in his power to shoot down the plane carrying Sadat to Jerusalem), issuing a statement a few weeks ago admitting that Sadat was right and those who opposed him were wrong. Despite all this, most of us are still unable or unwilling to venture beyond the wall of denial behind which we have cloistered ourselves for so long, or, consequently, to recognize a simple truth that is staring us in the face: Sadat was right, his detractors were wrong.

This rigid denial of reality can only be ideologically motivated (whether by pan-Arabism, Nasserism, socialism or by the ideology of the Moslem Brothers). The denial mechanism is brought into play just as strongly with respect to two defining moments in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although everyone would be more than happy today to accept the partition plan offered by the United Nations in 1947, the solid wall of denial we have built to shield ourselves from painful truths prevents us from openly admitting that we committed a strategic mistake in rejecting the plan. Similarly, if we succeed today in restoring the Golan Heights in their entirety to Syria, in ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and in restoring East Jerusalem we would only be restituting losses we incurred in May and June of 1967. Of the territory lost in the 1967 war, only Egypt has managed to win back Sinai. Even those who claim that Egypt was tricked into entering a dark tunnel that began in May and ended on June 7, 1967, must admit that one of the primary responsibilities of any leadership is not to allow anyone to lead it into a trap. But our culture of denial prevents us from looking these facts in the face, and all the books and articles that have been written, all the lectures delivered and all the television and radio programmes broadcast since then avoid touching on these uncomfortable truths.

Thus while foreign analysts are united in their appraisal of our performance on all these occasions (1948, 1967 and 1977) as lamentable, we continue to turn a deaf ear, or, as the Egyptian saying goes, “an ear of mud and an ear of clay”, to the truth.

Although Egypt ranks a lowly number 120 in the UNDP Human Development Report for 2003, our media have highlighted the few points in our favour while totally ignoring the overall picture, which was described by Dr. Hazem el Beblawy as “nothing to be proud of”. But our media, true to form, have been tireless in their attempts to paint a rosy picture of what is actually an indictment of our economic performance, with all the major newspapers carrying banner headlines highlighting the one positive point made by the report and ignoring the many negative points. This is yet another manifestation of the pervasive culture of denial marking every aspect of our lives.

We all complain about the absence of modern management systems and techniques, whether in private and public economic institutions or in government departments and service sectors and admit that we have a serious management problem on our hands. But, like a doctor who proclaims a patient ill without identifying the cause of his disease, we stop short of laying the blame where it belongs, which is on the role of the state in general and of the executive authority in particular. It is a role that has changed little from the days when Egypt was a socialist country following a command economy, and leaves little room for the development of effective management systems. But on this all-important issue too, like on so many others, we continue to be driven by the culture of denial.

It is common knowledge that our educational system produces graduates who are totally unfit to compete in the international job market. They are unfamiliar with the concept of teamwork, their English-language skills are practically non-existent and they are formed by an educational philosophy based on rote learning which actively discourages personal initiative and creativity. Moreover, they are raised to believe that there exists only one model of pure, absolute Truth, with the result that there is very little room in their intellectual baggage for pluralism, dialogue, acceptance of the Other or tolerance.

Another feature shared by the vast majority of graduates churned out by the system is an inability to express their ideas in writing or to conduct research in a scientific manner. But here too we follow the pattern of denial, patting ourselves on the back for our “achievements” in the field of education while turning a blind eye to serious structural defects in the educational system which lead most international organizations in advanced countries to systematically turn down job applicants who received their education in Egypt.

Then there is the question of women’s status in society, which is in dire need of serious review. Not only do women constitute half the population, but their societal role, in terms of the influence they wield as mothers, is far greater than their numerical weight. Unfortunately, the status they are accorded in no way reflects this reality.

To redress the situation, we must first stop hiding our heads in the sand and acknowledge the existence of a real problem. Once we break out of the denial mindset, we can set out to make a critical appraisal of the situation, using a methodological and systematic approach, preliminary to laying down concrete policies designed to enhance the status of Egyptian women in line with what they deserve and with the requirements of the age. Here the wall of denial is at its highest: we are constantly congratulating ourselves on how well women are treated in our culture, how they are given rights not enjoyed by their sisters in the West. The example most often cited to prove this point is their independent patrimony. We also hold up exceptional (and symbolic) cases in which women achieved prominence as proof of the equality enjoyed by women as a whole, a myth we are able to perpetuate thanks to our amazing ability to hide behind an impenetrable wall of denial.

It is a wall that serves us well when it comes to the issue of corruption. Of course, corruption has become so rampant in our society that we cannot actually deny its existence. Instead, we deny its significance, playing down the urgency of the problem by convincing ourselves that corruption is a universal phenomenon and that it exists in all societies.

While this is certainly true, it is also true that the extent, degree and spread of corruption differs from one society to the next. A society in which corruption has become a way of life cannot be compared to those in which isolated cases of corruption are dealt with as aberrations. The same is true of crime: while human nature is the same everywhere, some societies have low rates of crime, others have moderate rates and still others have low rates.

Our complacent attitude towards the issue of corruption is yet another example of how adept we have become at using the denial mechanism to shield ourselves from unpleasant truths. The list of examples is endless, but I believe the ones I have given are sufficient to prove the point of this article.

What is required at this point is to organize a conference or symposium that will bring together some of our top intellectuals, government leaders and prominent civil society personalities for the express purpose of finding a cure for the malignant social disease of denial. Our inability to come to grips with the many serious problems plaguing us is a direct result of the pervasive culture of denial which is keeping us in a closed loop and preventing us from moving forward on the road to progress. We must break out of this culture before we can move to the stage of objectively criticizing our role in allowing the problems, defects and shortcomings of our reality to achieve their present gigantic proportions, and from there to the stage of devising solutions and laying down policies to overcome them.

Finally, there is a fourth stage we need to cover, the stage of implementing these solutions and policies. Allowances must be made for human error, that is, for the possibility that some of the proposed solutions and policies need to be modified before execution. It was precisely this that led to the introduction of the stage known as quality audit in modern management techniques.