A banquet for conservative
Since the 1960s the Arab secular experience has been dying a slow and painful death. From the early experiments with liberalism in the 1930s, to the later dabblings in nationalism, pan-Arabism, socialism and, to some extent, various variants of communism. Although most Arab regimes are nominally secular, their policies have been dictated increasingly by Islamic factions and interest groups. For a multitude of reasons, the secular experience across the Arab World was doomed to failure, even in its main bastions, Syria and Egypt.
In its heyday in the early to mid-60s pan-Arabism and socialism were an almost irresistible force that enjoyed a broad base of mass appeal and support. The same period marked the birth or strengthening of many of the highly politicised Islamic movements we see today. Certain Arab regimes that saw their very existence threatened by the sweeping force of pan-Arabism, especially Saudi Arabia, funded and trained Islamic movements and then promoted itself as the natural protector and bastion of Islam, to counter-weigh the alluring voice of pan-Arab unity radiating out of Cairo and Damascus.
They were aided in this scheme by the US and, to a lesser degree, Britain and France, who also perceived the spreading tide of Pan-Arabism with growing concern for the very same reason: that it enjoyed popular and mass support. They needed to keep friendly elites at the helm of power as they could be more easily relied upon to deliver the goods. The irony is that, three or so decades down the line, the scheme has backfired and the Islamic movements have gained a life of their own and have developed their own agendas and, now, the very same powers who played a big part in their rise to prominence are desperately trying to contain them.
The final nail in the coffin of the pan-Arab/socialist experiment came with the humiliating defeat, in 1967, of Egypt and Syria at the hands of Israel. It engendered a harsh self-criticism uncommon in the Arab World. People were asking many pertinent questions about what was wrong: ones immediately related to the defeat, others more fundamental.
The romance of the fifties and sixties had died and a new age of cynicism and pragmatism dawned. Egypt embraced an open door economic policy that turned the country into a consumer society with no clear ideology that produced little of what it consumed.
In the early seventies, the Islamists were tolerated and left to their own devices because they aided in the dismantling of the last remnants of the pan-Arab and socialist dreams. They were eventually found to be getting too big for their boots and had to be contained.
Read an extract from Heidar Heidar’s controversial
novel A banquet for seaweed.
Read an extract from Heidar Heidar’s controversial novel A banquet for seaweed.
Heidar Heidar’s novel, Walima lih Aa’shab El-Bahr (A Banquet for Seaweed), comes in the shadow of the turbulence that came in the wake of the 1967 defeat. It is a fictional account of the demise of the exiled Iraqi communists living in Algeria, who had fled there to escape the bloodbaths instigated against them by the Iraqi regime. On another, more fundamental, level it is a rather harsh criticism of the inherent corruption, elitism and oppressiveness of post-independence Arab regimes. The novel was first published in the early 1980s to great literary acclaim. However, when a low-priced edition was printed by the Ministry of Culture, it sparked off Islamist outrage due to certain passages that were interpreted as offensive to Islam, spoken by characters who had become disillusioned with the political and social situation in the Arab World.
The star of the story is Mahdi Jawad, an Iraqi communist who fled to Algeria following the massacre of his comrades in southern Iraq. In Algeria, he meets his former colleague in the Iraqi Communist Party, Mehyar El-Baheli. Both Mahdi and Mehyar are Shiites, as were many of Iraq’s communists, who joined the party as a rebellion against their harsh oppression by the regime. Mehyar dreamt that, through the communist party, he would achieve social justice.
In the early-sixties the communists were perceived as a serious threat and Abdel-Salam Aref ordered their neutralization. The remnants of the party fled to southern Iraq, where they rebanded. In 1969, they began a failed armed struggle against the regime. They were massacred at the orders of Ahmed Hassan Bakr, who was probably controlled by his second in command, the young and ruthless Saddam Hussein. A fortunate few, including the fictional stars of the novel, survived and took flight from the country.
Mahdi, defeated, disillusioned and cynical, took up work as an Arabic teacher. Mehyar found work as a philosophy teacher. Trying to pick up the pieces of his broken life, he attempted to reconcile Marxism with Islam. They met two Algerian women, Asia and Fula. Mahdi fell in love with Asia and Mehyar got to know Fula, who ran the pension where he lives.
Forceful, individualistic Fula, an ex-freedom fighter who fought alongside the men refused to be cast aside and become just a regular housewife (her views are some of those found most offensive by the novels detractors). Mehyar shares her disappointment in the return, following Algeria’s war of independence from France, to a status quo similar to that which existed before, and the million poor Algerians who sacrificed their lives for a vanished dream.
They lamented the rise of the military and an affluent bourgeoisie, and how religion was being used by the country’s dictators to oppress the Algerian people. However, Mehyar admired Algeria’s war of independence and perceived it as the model of an Islamic revolution. Using that as his starting point, he analysed what went wrong and tried to forge a new Islamic ideology. Mahdi, on the other hand, became increasingly despairing and, when he and Mehyar were banished by an Algerian government that could not cope with their politics, he committed suicide and offered his body as a banquet for seaweed.
About the Author
Syrian born Heidar Heidar started his writing career in the mid-1960s. In the mid-1970s he moved to Algeria where he worked for four years. After that, he went on to Beirut to work with the PLO and fought alongside them during the siege of Beirut in 1982. He now lives in his home village, Hesn El-Bahr. In his works, Heydar has concentrated his criticism on Arab dictatorships. Heydar is seen to have succeeded by critics where other Arab authors have failed, in that he can embed political criticism in the thread of an engaging story, thereby avoiding the trap of making his novels sound like political manifestos.Body
This article appeared in the June 2000 issue of Egypt’s Insight magazine.
ã2004 K. Diab. Unless otherwise stated, all the content on this website is the copyright of Khaled Diab.