International media watch

There are so many things happening all over the world that the media is completely clueless about what to follow and what not to. However, somehow or the other, the western media knows what suits their interest and the interest of the countries they are based in and they prioritise their coverage in sync with that. So, while the world was trying to come to terms with intricacies of climate change in Durban, where the world has gathered to seek consensus, the lion-share of the western coverage this month was focused on Syria, Russia and Egyptian elections.  It is not that the Egyptian Parliamentary elections were the first to take place in the region following the Arab spring. Morocco and Tunisia successfully conducted their respective elections and got widespread coverage in the western and regional press. However, those coverages were in no way comparable to what Egyptian elections got.  But why Egypt? It can be safely said that Egypt has remained a pioneer in the Arab world for long.

Also, by virtue of being the largest Arab country, it has remained a heavy weight for the other regional countries. But naturally, these factors only drove the Arab and the regional media to whatever coverage they gave. The motivation for the western media was something else. Its affection towards Israel, the loosening grip of the US in regional politics and isolation of Israel were their driving aspirations as always. And that was reflective in their coverage too.   According to the first round of results, 33 non-Islamist candidates appear likely to compete in the run-offs, versus a total of 67 from the Brotherhood’s party and the Nour Party, which is composed of very religious Salafist Muslims. Naturally, it sent alarm bells ringing for the western press.

Most of the coverage in the western press was of the ‘Doomsday’, ‘Armageddon’ and ‘See, didn’t I tell you’ variety. “Egyptian Islamist Tsunami’ read the headline Eurasia Review lead column. It further added: “Egypt’s Islamist landslide is likely to result in the attempt to coerce — through lawful and/or extra-judicial punishments — apostasy and blasphemy codes, which protect from criticism anything and anyone claiming to be Islamic, including quite likely criticism of the Islamist parliamentarians and governmental leaders themselves.” Similarly, the same morning, the New York Times in its lead article, headlined, “Islamists Claim Mandate in Early Voting.”

There are some fundamental problems with these analyses. First thing first, it is merely the first round of voting and 18 more provinces will go for it next. The areas that have gone for voting are mostly rural areas where the Islamists have their base. The much bigger, and more liberal cities like Cairo and Alexandria, will go for polls in another round and that will affect the end result considerably, though not dramatically.    Also, this line of argument that combines Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood in one group, Islamist, is troublesome. In Egypt, for example, people mock such broad generalisations and see both these parties as chalk and cheese. There are very few points on which both parties agree. In the pure ideological stance, Brotherhood is equivalent to Christian Democrats of Europe whereas Salafists are extremists. On the other hand, the New York Times’s columnist David D Kirkpatrick was more rational in his assessment. He, in one of his columns, clearly demarcates the difference.

“The Brotherhood has pledged to respect basic individual freedoms while using the influence of the state to nudge the culture in a more traditional direction. But the Salafists often talk openly of laws mandating a shift to Islamic banking, restricting the sale of alcohol, providing special curriculums for boys and girls in public schools, and censoring the content of arts and entertainment.” On the other hand, in his column “In Egypt, don’t blame the election”, Lincoln A Mitchell stresses that the west must not curse the democratisation of Egypt just because it is no more its stooge and the results are not in their favour. He maintains: “Elections did not conjure Islamist or even anti-western feelings in Egypt. Nor did they suddenly make these sentiments part of the political discourse in Egypt.  Similarly, it was not elections that ended, at least from the perspective of Washington, the stable and positive role Mubarak played.  The corrupt, authoritarian and ineffective regime which Mubarak led was a far more significant cause for these sentiments. This Islamist majority, and strong anti-American views, did not emerge simply because an election was held; it had existed throughout most of the later Mubarak period in Egypt.” Concerns were also raised as to how the western media tried to play up the divide between Muslims and Coptic Christians. It was pegged as the aftermath of the revolution. However, the most troubling aspect of this narrative was, the incident in question, “Maspero Massacre” of October 9, was done by the army establishment and not an Islamist group. In contrary, numerous photos of Muslims and Copts protecting each other during prayers gave a completely different picture.  

Arab media, on the other hand, remained immature in its coverage and reflected their respective biases. The independent al-Wasat ran several stories on the front-page, while the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat cited the military council leader Hussein Tantawi under the headline: “Egypt: Tantawi warns against failure, and religious edicts urge people to vote.” On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s leading pan-Arab TV outlet Al Arabiya carried heavy coverage of the Egyptian vote, emphasising that it had been a success. Clearly, the motive was to project that the security forces, who have close links to Saudi Arabia, were successful in their endeavour. Basically it discredited the revolution.  All in all, in my opinion, the coverage of the Egyptian election varied from outlet to outlet and from region to region. However, the analysis of the widespread coverage suggests that pre-concieved notions and individual interests of the nations outsmarted a rational analysis.