Civil and Secular State in MENA

I believe that, one of the reasons why there are divergences on the views regarding the Middle East politics is the definition of terminologies. Secularism is a term that has bad reputation in the MENA region as it may means Anti-religion for wide sectors of their societies. However, the same very regimes that are secular avoid using the word. After the Arab revolts in Egypt and Tunisia, the secular parties in their populist propaganda, especially against the Isalmist parties describe themselves as civic parties (Madani in Arabic) . Those parties expressed their aspiration to establish a “civil” state. The word “civil” and “civic” are used to refer to state that not governed by the religious law or religious groups. 

On the other hand, Muslim Brotherhood used the same word ‘civil’ as to defend them from the stigma of theocracy. Their definition to the ‘civil state” is a state that not run by the military where all citizens are equal regardless of their faiths. Nevertheless they assert that the state should be based on the Islamic civilization principles and the sharia as the ultimate reference to all.

The above shows a little bit of the MENA mood in regard to secularism. While Egypt was an elusively secular state over the past century, Tunisia was clearer about the nature of the state. Proximity to Europe and the small number of Population with no religious minority like Egypt makes the battle for the religious identity of the society less controversial.

The interesting thing about the Arab Spring is that, it has uncovered almost all the contradictions in the Arab world and exposes them to the severest of test.  The results of the elections in both countries  can tell us two contradictory things; the societies as described by Edward Said that, “predominant mood of the Arab world is very secular,” only if we think secularism is the separation of the clergy from the State. And ironically it could also say that the Arab world is very anti-secularist if we understand secularism as anti-religion.

In an article wrote by Peter Hill says, “But “madani” can also mean “civil” as opposed to “religious” or “Islamic.” In this sense madani is often employed as a kind of euphemism for “secular,” used in lieu of ‘almani, a word that most literally translates as “secular” but which often carries a more negative connotation. This distinction is best illustrated in an example given by Anwar Mughith, a secularist, columnist, and philosophy professor at Helwan University: “On a television program, a guest was talking about the characteristics we want for the Egyptian state in the coming period: he mentioned the equality of all before the law and the absence of discrimination between men and women or Muslims and Copts. Then he ended by saying, ‘We want a secular (‘almani) state.’ At this point those around him… shouted, ‘No, not ‘secular’ (‘almani), let’s call it a civil (madani) state.’”

Madani indicates a more neutral and acceptable area of the non-religious, whereas ‘almani tends to take on a more militantly anti-religious meaning. The audience in the Egyptian television program instantly understood that “secular” was a far more contentious term than “civil,” and that the latter embodied a vision of an inclusive form of government where all are equal before the law.

This dynamic reflects the continuing authority of the religious in Egyptian public life – in Egypt, it is far more acceptable to talk of a “civil” sphere, which exists alongside religion, than of a “secular” one that excludes or opposes it.

you can also look at the article here:

http://muftah.org/the-civil-and-the-secular-in-contemporary-arab-politics/#.VSAXsVy4l-U