Sunday, August 27, 2023

New Lit Review Essays: Northern Africa Selections

Three modern Arabic novels from Libya and Egypt are discussed on my Goodreads profile: Ibrahim Al-Kona’s Anubis, and two by Naguib Mahfouz—The Thief and the Dogs, and Adrift on the Nile   Despite the relative geographical proximities, each of the three works uniquely addresses facets of human life involving power, identity, purpose, location, and personal whim.   

“Packed within this rather short novella is a bewildering search for oneself amid solitude, the disorientations of desire, and a rise and loss of a sense of place and of power. … “ Remainder of this essay here

 Fast pace and action-fueled, with unexpected twists and turns forcing unintended consequences. this novella involves a main character (Said Mahran) who is conflicted by the search for societal justice based on ideals of creating a newer, better society, while being persuaded or manipulated towards questionable action in service of such a quest. …” Continue reading here

And, finally: “ Roughly the third installment of Mahfouz’s critique on the Egyptian society in the wake of July Republic/1952 Revolution-Coup. …” Continue reading here  


—Crouton

Sunday, May 2, 2021

Literary Review/Discussion Essay of Hosseini's A Thousand Splendid Suns

 OVERVIEW

Spanning two generations from the mid-20th century to the turn of the next millennium, Khaled Hosseini’s A Thousand Splendid Suns is a riveting fiction speaking to the long-drawn-out struggles and nascent, hidden strengths of female characters in a dehumanizing atmosphere and social system. Hosseini centers his plot between two central characters rooted in a male-predominant society constantly in flux  and uncertainty. The first central character, Mariam, represents a downtrodden yet eternal soul and essence of Afghanistan in its apparent simplicity. Stripped down in her initial naivety and innocent rebellion, but ultimately enduring and imposing like the country’s rugged mountainous landscape, she is the understated guiding ethos, the mirror of values and propriety. She is the illiterate ledger of history and tradition, and the hardened foundation of all that is, in another character’s semi-sarcastic appellation, the fractious nation’s “authentic” and rustic consciousness. 


We have the slightly younger generation in Leila, whom Hosseini personifies as the country’s energetic and frustrated, latent future-in-becoming. Placed as the emerging ‘anti-authentic’ consciousness, Leila is articulate, forward-looking. Alternatingly rebellious and curious she challenges the ethos, the mirror of values and propriety via both emotional recklessness and intellectually inquisitive logic. The daring, more-affluent alter-ego (?)to the modest timidity of Mariam’s. 


Located in the space between this apparent starkness is a spectrum of minor characters all set against the backdrop of an environment pulled, pushed, molded and ripped apart by a plethora of public and personal stimuli. Political instabilities and civil wars, social decay, economic downturns, religiously ideological rigidity and radicalization, foreign occupation, and personal loss congeal and diverge amid fleeting and rare progress, euphoric lucidity, or moments of unexpected respite. Although Mariam and Leila mainly merely observe, and respond to, their environments, there are key moments where their initiatives reshape where the novel transforms into character-driven through them. 


NOVEL PLOT


From the structuring of narrative and plot, Part 1 establishes Mariam as narrator while we follow her childhood and adolescence mainly in impoverished and isolated rural village. Shifting the center of action, Part 2 begins with handing us 9-year-old Leila as urbane and upper-middle-class, lively Kabul-based narrator. In parallel with societal flux overall and with the changing pace of the novel, chapter narrators in Part 3 alternate between the two females as their lives are increasingly brought closer together through both space and time, by circumstances and by deliberate action from Rasheed. With this forced intermingling and intersection, Mariam as Afghan foundation and Leila as Afghan future find and synthesize ways to co-exist, collaborate and converge however minute and cramped the windows of opportunity. More broadly on the socio-political stage, as the country descends further into post-Soviet civil war amongst the Mujahideen, the Taliban are brought out as a major player of events. Significantly, the puritanical group is the only other notable reference to religious figures. The plot reaches its personal climax with Rasheed’s demise at the conclusion of Part three, shifting the main plot line yet again. 


The skimpiest and final Part four lays out a conclusion-of-sorts for the master plot, helping to bring the novel full-circle. It is through Leila’s physical presence and through the consciousness of her surroundings and meditations that we are allowed to travel back to Mariam’s geographical and socio-economic origins. By directing the personification of the nation’s future to undertake this journey, it is as if Hosseini is giving us (in an otherwise linearly forward-moving novel) a simultaneous physical and metaphorical retrospective on Afghanistan itself.And one cannot escape the enormous weight of symbolism and reflection wrought here. Leila’s observations, contemplations, imaginations, and her presence itself are multiple manifestations —-of the country’s origins and past, the present and its essence, and a future of evasive hopefulness—-all fusing for an ephemera into one indistinguishable construct.  The present cannot exist and the future cannot move without the past. Evolutions and developments must have origins and values, etc. But, a delicate synchronization also has to take place between these elements and paradigms. For Hosseini notes that a diversity of forces, from the monarchy to the Soviets and their Afghan allies to warlord-like tribalism to the Taliban and their foreign allies, failed with disaster to remold Afghanistan in their own images. Those physical and metaphorical manifestations embedded in Leila’s visit to Mariam’s hometown are also one of several nods to the importance of finding a way for Afghan harmonization to counteract against societal strife borne from and reinforcing power vacuums. Finally, by another way of demonstrating harmonization, it is also a vehicle that Hosseini uses to refute the notion posited by Rasheed that socio-economic disparities and geographic differentiations prevent (or should prevent) Afghans from relating to one other.   



CENTRAL CHARACTERS AND RELATIONSHIPS


Encapsulated in the self-contained world of the mountainous village hut, the physical separation coupled with its arduous environment speak both to a sense of empowerment and to a profound sense of debilitation. On the one hand we witness the majesty of the biosphere in the Safad-Koh mountains overlooking Gul Daman, imposing itself upon onlookers as it remains unadulterated by the whims, hustle, and bustle of the metropole. On the other, we are brought before the foulness of material deprivation and the elusiveness of opportunity, re-entrenched by oppression of social shame a resentful and puzzled Mariam shares with her mother Nana over their physical and societal location in the country. 


That shame and the aftermath it unfolds are central to realizing the unstable warped relationships tying together the two females and Mariam’s father. In what emerges as a rare oddity among gendered interactions in A Thousand, Jalil is weakened in front of his wife due to his fling with Nana, then a housemaid. He has no choice but to defer to his wife’s judgment that a pregnant Nana be banished to Gul Daman. This act comes accompanied with an imposed arrangement to maintain a relationship at slightly more than arms’ length: an informal and tacit sociopolitical structuring surfaces, held loosely and cynically together by sporadic visits and gifts from Jalil. Nana advises her daughter to heed it and keep a ‘respectable’ distance of self-seclusion while invoking Mariam’s status as a harami, an illegitimate child. Moreover, the arrangement is designed to save face for Jalil, for his reputation (and by extension, his upper-class nuclear family) at least amongst the general public is preserved intact. 


Thus, their physical isolation accentuates the injustice of classism compounding the precariousness of Jalil’s relationship already beset by reckless patriarchy and suffocating misogyny. For it is Nana and Mariam who, as embattled lower-class females, bear the brunt of this power exercise. It is formalized more or less in Nana’s pithy admonition “like a compass needle that points north, a man’s accusing finger always finds a woman.” When Mariam’s innocent curiosity about her extended family challenges the taboo of proximity underlying the dual-faceted stratification (misogyny and classism), it explicitly unleashes such inequities to the surface. Mariam is made to wait through a cold non-reception and inhumane non-recognition by Jalil and his household, before laying eyes upon Jalil’s face instantaneously through the window of his house. For Nana, the defiance against her prompts her into an act of hopelessness that invites further ostracism, disdain, and estrangement upon Mariam. Following Nana’s demise,  once again Mariam is half-heartedly engaged only to be banished a second time by her extended family. This time, the expulsion is via coerced marriage to a much older shopkeeper farther away in Deh-Mazang, a suburb of Kabul. Setting up the confrontation between Mariam and Jalil’s wives as first conflict in the novel’s narratives, these inequities continue to shape the trajectories of Jalil’s and Mariam’s lives. Denied self-agency from the start due to her statuses, Mariam stumbles down a path of increasing dis-empowerment and dehumanization regardless of a change in setting; meanwhile Jalil , we learn later , finds himself gradually down a path in his own self-isolation, guilt, and misery (?). 


Early in the novel Hosseini uses village Quran teacher Mullah Faizullah to create an interesting traditional-based religious contrast to the other standard-bearers of tradition and identity. .His role as Mariam’s mentor and bedrock portrays him as a pivotal pillar of support both for Mariam personally and for  Afghanistan’s essence as a whole. Faizullah picks up on Mariam’s zest for life that shines and elusively promises to puncture through her circumstances, and unsuccessfully advocates to Nana for her admission into grade school. Doing his best to consoling Mariam during despair and being a source of guidance for her elsewhere, Faizullah was the closest person to a true father figure for her. Indeed it is the most that we ever witness in a sincere and close companionship that Mariam has with any character. In addition to teaching her basic literacy, he sees immense value, strength, resolve, and humanity in her in spite of her cast-away harami status.  In contrast to many other characters in A Thousand, Faizullah is honest and unpretentious about his own shortcomings with her. Mariam reciprocates with respect, adulation, and trust. An understanding most evocatively expressed when, in a short exchange after Nana’s death which involves a semi-playful self-blame, Mariam responds to him: “You don’t need excuses. Not you.” (p.40). 


But interestingly his Faizullah’s notable absence during Mariam’s deepest neediness and times of vulnerability and his old age, suggest a paralysis of such support. Similarly, his appearance makes noteworthy yet brief entrances and exits. Furthermore, there is no intersection between Faizullah and any other social ecosystem in the novel, which further circumscribes his role. We are left to ruminate fruitlessly on how Mullah Faizullah might assess the massive subsequent changes engulfing Afghanistan later on.  Yet, perhaps the gap intentionally serves as a literary device on the part of Hosseini. Extrapolating on these plot developments, we might conclude that he suggests a deleterious sense of incompleteness in the core Afghan essence as represented foremost in Faizullah’s lack of support and protection for Mariam. As displayed in Faizullah’s interactions with and for her earlier, this absence is interpreted to be an irreproachable (albeit fateful) weakness, rather than a malicious betrayal of her. 


In part two of  A Thousand Suns, Hosseini purposefully introduces Leila , not in a separate phase but rather as accompanying and juxtaposing track of narratives. Like Mariam, we start out seeing in Leila a youthfulness robust in will, vivacity, and curiosity. But there is quickly a stark departure from Mariam’s upbringing in Leila’s urbane environment and upper-class privilege. She displays an articulate, precocious personality bolstered by a more socially nurturing relationship with her family and neighborhood.  In intellect and purpose, she outshines her two classmates and best friends, Giti and Hassina. As relatively minor characters with regular occurrences in this part of the novel, they  provide momentary comic relief or support to Leila, or otherwise help the novel move along. They also provide contrast: Leila lacks Hasina’s wit, Giti’s serious bookishness  and thus occupying a space in between the other two. Ironically Hasina, who devises a comedic manner to disperse a potential suitor, ultimately ends up with the same fate of coerced marriage as many young Afghan females in spite of a relatively privileged background. Giti similarly is on the path of marrying too young, but willingly views it as desired purpose and future. Yet, in a dramatic turn Giti becomes one of the many victims of the Afghan civil war. 


Leila’s position as both a female and the youngest member in the household relegates her in significance in the eyes of her mother Fariba who clearly favors her two older brothers Ahmed and Noor in sentiment, attention, and action. Significantly, the young girl’s status doesn’t change with the loss of her siblings during the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation. Fariba, immersed in the sadness of loss and the near-mythic and starry-glorifying martyrdom of Ahmed and Noor,  slips into lifelessness and deeper into neglecting Leila’s presence. Rare moments of mammy’s acknowledgement of her are an insufficient counterbalance.  This is a point that Hosseini utilizes subtly to show that the imbalances within gender relations are not restricted particularly by class, geography, or ideology: “Leila knew that her future was no match for her brothers’ past. They had overshadowed her in life. They would obliterate her in death. Mammy was now the curator of their lives’ museum, and she Leila a mere visitor [p 128]”.  (So too is the domineering nature of Leila’s mother within the household, a direct parallel drawn with Jalil’s wife.) 


Though Leila is nowhere near as ostracized or isolated in her home as Mariam is in Gul Daman, Leila’s relegation (like Mariam’s isolation) is nonetheless a deeply formative experience in her social and personal development.  Leila is left to her own introverted devices, perceptively observing, critiquing, questioning all that is around her.  She is as skeptical towards the pro-Soviet and pro-Communist leanings of her grade school teacher’s lessons as she is towards Afghanistan’s social customs (particularly marriage at young age). That spark of intellectual and zeal is noticed by Leila’s father Hakim, more commonly denoted by the affectionate informal term babi. Hakim takes the form of secular version of an enhanced Mullah Faizullah, with the former being as open-minded and visionary as the latter is caring and compassionate. He is a cosmopolitan former high school teacher in Deh-Mazang. After a Communist coup transfers to him to a factory he still manages to dispense regular (albeit informal) lessons and references to Leila about Afghan history and art. He fortifies his attention with field trips (chapter 21). 


Here, with the trip to the ancient Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Hosseini comes closest to connecting history, the present, and the future with human identity and conduct, and with spatial geography.  Moments of exploration and conversations  reveal the intimacy of the relationship between the two characters. Babi explains to Leila the backstory of Afghan complex heritage via commentary on surrounding monuments. It also represents a statement of direct contrast to the relationship between Mariam and Jalil; Leila is further encouraged and empowered, not stifled, undermined or manipulated by those assumed to be among her closest loved ones. Furthermore Leila’s bond with Babi reveals itself not to be an insincere and superficial manifestation of gestures. Nor is it an afterthought replete with reluctance, apathy, and half-hearted guilt. In these ways, the trip also serves as a device for Hosseini’s literary meditation on Afghan orientation, the nuclear family, and finally personal reassessment and conviction in the debate over whether leaving Afghanistan would constitute a betrayal of Afghan martyrs’ memory and Afghan hope for independence. Hakim later continues this effort by homeschooling when the country descends into chaos. 


Whereas Mariam has herself, surrounding nature and a village elder/sheikh as deep-level daily companions, Leila finds this analog in Tariq, a similar-aged neighbor crippled by a landmine. His bravery in defending her from childhood male bullies draw them together, and Hosseini takes pains to delicately elaborate the budding warmth of anticipation, solace, and comfort between the two.  With Leila distant from her brothers, It is the only other relationship beside that with Babi upon which Hosseini meticulously focuses. The author describes her sickening angst in his absences, and the platonic ecstasy mixed with disappointment in their reunions. Tariq hails from a lower socio-economic background, and in spite of his personal faults, he stands out in character amongst all the male characters. Even though Leila scolds Tariq’s decisions and choices from time to time, her strong will and independent mindfulness(?) softens vis-a-vis him as their friendship  molds progressively over time into passionate adolescent romance. 


Interestingly Hosseini uses the final Soviet military withdrawal in January 1989 as a turning point (leaving an embattled transitional communist regime to face the Mujahideen alone)  to mark the beginning of this intense emotional change, suggesting a rosy-red renewal of hope and eager anticipation for Afghanistan. Broader social and political environment is placed alongside developments in one particular  where Leila’s thoughts and emotions as she sits adjacent to Tareq watching a poorly-dubbed old Soviet movie. With mismatched intonation in the movie, the poor editing implies the unquestionable collapse of a dysfunctional Soviet Communist hegemony over the society, while humor and levity in the reaction to its awkwardness represents a rejection of that hegemony. Meanwhile Leila, perhaps oblivious to her surroundings, is immersed in cloud-nine thoughts and emotion towards her companion. Although this example is somewhat of a cliched painting of setting in literature, in that moment Husseini succinctly captures the jubilee, the anxiety, the beginning murmurs of desire barely masked behind a half-hearted sarcasm at both the political situation and the gender social customs


As with the contrasts in  parent-child relations, so too do the origin and the trajectory of Leila’s relationship with Tariq represent a departure point in narration from Mariam’s spousal life. Leila’s friendship/romance is part-intensity, part-mutual understanding. Mariam’s marriage devolves into recurring moments of duty-bound and robotic physical intimacy that are repulsive to her, followed by or accompanied with emotional barrenness and finally total mutual estrangement. Leila’s physical convergence with Tariq is a single outburst of a long-held longing for exercised out. In the midst of this physical convergence is a building up of an intimate liaison in which desired pain and bliss are extracted and repetitively and fondly contemplated on. One may wonder what exactly Hosseini’s thoughts are regarding extramarital intercourse in and of itself (I.e.absent consideration of all other circumstance and elements).  We cannot recall other instances beside this one mentioned. Noteworthy, however, is that Hosseini reflects less upon Leila’s personal moral sentiments than upon her considerations of the social implications her liaison with Tariq stands to invite. Perhaps this is his intent. First, to create and  utilize this event to the extent that provides contrast with the relational/relationship turbulence Mariam encounters. Secondly, that it helps moving the action forward in the novel in other directions—broader themes on gender inequity informed by, among other things, cultural norms and religious interpretations, despite the particularities of both characters’ cases.


 Planted, budding, and intensifying in the midst of ugliness from civil strife, it is also a reflection on what Hosseini stress as the need to seek out beauty or permit it to happen when it emerges. That beauty must be tasted and relished as a medium through which the willpower to carry on is justified; that mere existence is redeeming and facilitated. Yet what comes with that search and experience, Hosseini isn’t too far from reminding us, are taxing socio-cultural costs. The extremely pivotal point here is that once again the burdening fallout of cost—- marginalization, exposure to the potential of victimization and abuse (as well as its methods in judgement/condemnation and action)—-is imposed arbitrarily,  unidirectionally, unrelentingly without consideration of nuance to character or circumstances. It is a theme of inequity in sanction and  punishment, and of inequity  in the very definition of both public and private spaces where greater circumscription is encountered, that Hosseini begins to address.


In this light, the two females are once again brought together thematically by abrupt, abject disempowerment. Circumstances and societal pressure force Mariam into an undesirable relationship which ultimately devolves into an uncertainty of doubt, recrimination, low self-esteem, and unfulfillment (?). Civil war and the loss of family and Tariq force Leila out of her relationships. Combined with the sting of her origins and the lack of a support structure, the prospect of a childless marriage produces a very public shame for Rasheed and Mariam.  This haunts her with guilt and further weakening of leverage vis-a-vis Rasheed, rendering her irredeemable as a member of society and helping to confine her indoors. In the context of societal norms, they also simultaneously enable her husband with opportunity to exercise harshness and abuse towards her with regular impunity. Much as in the relationship with Jalil Khan, Mariam’s marriage could not provide her any sense of safety, measurement, or nurturing. And in both relationships, so too does classism compound misogyny.  In the absence of loved ones, the fear towards exposure of a shame born in private from the prospect of an illicit arrival confines Leila and paralyzes her with few desperate options.  Despite the tensions evident in the differentiation between the private and public contextualizations in the two situations, the panic of trajectory heading towards the same ultimate outcome---arbitrary, unequal evaluation and punishment, and the marginalization which stems from such---bear down heavily on Mariam and Leila alike.  


It is in this height of similarities——personal weakness and debilitating circumstances—-that the worlds of the two women collide. As yet another reminder of the commanding male status embedded with Afghan patriarchy. Hosseini presents Rashid, Mariam’s husband, as the catalyst. 


He is a much simpler character that hardly undergoes any development from the author. Mostly patriarchal and condescending in the best of times, his whims and the downturns in circumstances push him towards violence and abusiveness. Though moments of tenderness and understanding arise in his demeanor and thinking, they are often employed alongside duplicity in expedient and calculated fashion towards his interests or appetites. Or, in the other contexts which nonetheless reflect a chauvinistic bias that runs parallel to broader Afghan political and social relations, as described by Hosseini. Rasheed derives his strength (and weakness) from such non-self-appraising, brutish intransigence and near-impenetrable immutability. 


One may fault Hosseini for giving us such a shallow, unsympathetic character in Rasheed. But maybe that is precisely the author’s intent. Though he risks a reductionist personification of  Afghan decline, Hosseni manages nevertheless to counterbalance the risk with character-development juxtaposition to more rounded interlocutors. Rasheed’s coarse obtuseness and short-sighted wiliness is the anti- Mariam as well as the anti-Leila. He takes advantage of the ‘steady’ soul and essence of Afghanistan (Mariam) despite much proclamations of fealty to its foundation. Similarly  he is also the anti-future (i.e. the anti-Leila), concealing his skepticism and disdain towards a conceptualized (more thoughtful) future (and present) behind what he views as societal preservation and personal pragmatism. For Hosseini, in  order for the entirety of Afghanistan itself to  thrive, let alone survive, all Rasheeds must be decisively knocked down. The author apparently suggests reforming, mitigating, or preempting their corrosive corruptions would be little more than acts of futility.  Rasheed’s incorrigibility is as solid and formidable as Afghanistan’s towering mountains, Mariam’s near-impeccable steadfast calm endurance, and Leila’s thoughtful inquisitiveness. 


Much of Rasheed’s demeanor and attitudes are simply borne out of naked opportunism. Yet, even here exists a slight depth to this pivotal character.  As if by another method for humanizing him, with a particular emphasis on  fragility, Hosseini describes a second significant impulse in survival instincts. Indeed, Rasheed frequently cajoles, advises, exhorts, and finally scolds the members of his household about the urgency of vigilance in protecting themselves (and him) against the brutality and selfishness of society. He, in other words, is simultaneously abuser and guardian of household at-large.


At a more fundamental level, they also reflect a vigilance in the face of existential and primordial concern.  It is in part a self-rebuking of a previous carelessness that translated into tragic loss—-a stinging failure to preserve and prevent that what must not, at all costs, be repeated. Here we can trace broader analogies Hosseini draws upon about how male predominance is continuously fearful of losing Afghanistan, and about how survivability instincts (multiplied into the aggregate) is forcing through an aggregated sense of vigilance from multiple angles. Rasheed loses his beloved and prized son to preventable accident. Afghanistan loses its sons to war unleashed by foreign invasion. Afghan males perceive a loss of some public space to female socio-economic and political advancement. And finally their country and its storied history and cultures deteriorate in the face of internal post-Soviet strife and more foreign meddling. However questionable and misplaced are the specific modes of implementation of such vigilance, the anxiety is undeniable. Carried on its back is a vexing dilemma about how to properly cope with that loss in the meantime and then turn into a positive blueprint for going forward. 


Nonetheless, aside from Fariba’s lamentations and social dejection, once again, the female voice is not as present or prominent as Rashid’s.  To the extent that after his son’s drowning Rasheed returns to his profession, and re-marries and resumes family life, he is considered functionally successful in Afghan society. But for the Afghan woman Hosseini poses: What is her tragic loss in all of this rupture and turbulence? How does she define, and cope with, it? Where is her survivability other than in the context of an object being acted upon, or ultimately sidelined n individuality and in the aggregate? In trying to carve out a stake and a role in hostile social environment, where, when and how does she seek the fulfillment, contentment, and the integrity of personhood? To return to wholeness, humanity, after the sensation of setback or devastation?  To help us get an inkling of an answer for these questions, Hosseini guides us towards the complex relationship he crafts between Mariam and Leila.  


 Mariam and Leila begin their relationship in the distance accorded by a host providing shelter to a destitute and bereaved guest. Though sought out and brought by Rasheed to their home, Mariam patiently obliges to nurture Leila back into awareness and physical strength. This hospitality develops into into guardianship, then slowly into companionship, and finally a sort of surrogate motherhood. Beyond merely a situation brought to her doorstep, why else would Mariam display such attentiveness and care to Leila? We notice there is something more to a predictable reaction on her part to surface-level change in plot. Mariam sees in Leila’s abrupt vulnerability a manifestation of her childhood helplessness; the lack of a stable support structure in which she had no part.  Though Mariam approaches Leila cautiously, and is unsure of what to say or do to console and comfort her—indeed, demonstrated by third-person label (“the girl”) signifying Mariam’s unfamiliarity wth Leila—it is still clear that the former’s sympathy for the latter radiates through the scarce pages describing the initial momentary exchanges.     


The pattern of relationships in the household then begins to shift numerous times rather quickly. Soon enough, uncharacteristically jubilant and attentive transformations in Rasheed’s mood and attitude trigger suspicion in Mariam about his intentions for saving Leila. In turn, a mutual hostility emerges between the two women, each fearful and uncertain of her position in the home, of the status she finds herself in. Like Hasina earlier, Leila makes a rational decision to disrupt her childhood. Unlike her late friend, it is out of self-preservation against the options that societal chaos imposed upon them which Rasheed, as a relatively-prosperous male and head-of-household, exploits. Leila is deprived of any safe haven but this home; Mariam is powerless to negotiate a way out; and Rasheed refuses any alternative arrangement of family (for instance, treating Leila as a daughter or a foster child to him). The state-of-affairs (“the mutually orchestrated dance of avoidance” p 198) continues as Rasheed effectively renders Mariam subordinate and servile to Leila, denigrating the former and playing up on the latter’s more privileged upbringing. Further setting the tone for the new environment are a reinforcement of the chauvinism and possessiveness expressed more explicitly when Rasheed compares the two women directly to automobiles. Away from Rasheed’s sight, Mariam pushes back, but in displaying cold authority and cruel words towards an uncomfortable Leila. 


The environment  trajectory changes upon a new stimulus  when Leila gives birth to a girl, Aziza. Like the loss of his son and Mariam’s miscarriage, Rasheed views the new addition as a misfortune. Having committed a “graver sin” than Mariam’s childlessness, Leila falls out of his favor. But this brings neither concrete change to Mariam’s relationship with Rasheed,  nor any substantive satisfaction for her. 


Hosseini does, however, use this as departure point to create a stark change in the relationship both the two women and in plot of the novel. After some private gloating, Mariam begins to feel a sympathetic pity towards the new mother. Concurrently, Leila’s care for Aziza triggers an intense jealousy in Rasheed, who irrationally blames Mariam and simultaneously holds the innocent infant in contempt. (Perhaps Hosseini had read Freud beforehand, pointing to the psychiatrist’s controversial Odepidus Complex.). Leila intervenes to prevent Rasheed from exercising his anger in physical abuse of co-spouse; meanwhile, Mariam unexpectedly has a brief tender moment with Aziza while the latter’s mother is sleeping. The proximity continues to expand as each side takes the initiative with low-key friendliness or assistance: Mariam furnishes a pile of unused clothes for Aziza; Leila reciprocates by inviting Mariam to sit with her for afternoon tea in the front garden. Cementing closer cooperation, they begin doing chores together.  In the end, Hosseini stresses that two the two co-spouses consciously locate in the space between one other—a space whose parameters are confined by Rasheed’s patriarchy inside the home and by war and socio-cultural codes outside—a support structure and the young blooming of a sense of empowerment they have longed for.  For Mariam, it is also her decades-awaited arrival at an opportunity for self-contentment, an unlikely partial redemption or deliverance from all her quiet suffering. Above all, though the author paints a utopia of surreal serenity, he embarks upon a theme that women can and will find strength and humanity in themselves reinforced by the solidarity with each other. 


The self-contained utopia vanishes when the new-found empowerment ignites a misplaced hope for actual liberation. Leila convinces Mariam to risk a daring escape with her to Pakistan. By this time, the Taliban have  consolidated more  control over the country especially the border areas, adding another wrinkle to Leila’s plan. In this fraught political environment and against  the whims of personal preservation,  ultimately they find themselves betrayed by contacts during their journey.  The attempt crashes into a new depth of depravity and abuse from Rasheed. Finding his authority challenged and his reputation besmirched, Rasheed clarifies that he’s not only master of the household, but one who lords over the very lives (and deaths) of the family members by isolating Mariam and subjecting the remainder to perilous harm. While Hosseini uses the brief descriptions of interrogations of Mariam and Leila at the border police station to demonstrate once more the injustice emanating from the disadvantaged position of Afghan women. This time however, it comes explicitly with the veneer of legality and formal policy (backed up, as it is implied by particular theological interpretation), not social mores or culture.  


When Rasheed finally gets his wish for a second opportunity at paternity over a male child, one would hope for a softening of attitude and demeanor. That the answering of Rasheed’s long tortured and mostly reticent (albeit tense) patience would allow for a space of compassion and understanding  to open up. And that that opening would join up with the positive change between Mariam and Leila. Once again the trajectory of narrative shifts awkwardly, and any essence of beauty within it fails to materialize in full form. Depressingly, it is insufficient to change the fundamentals of the relationships involving the three central characters. In fact, if anything, the new arrival Zalmai further reinforces the worst inclinations, dispositions, and biases in Rasheed. It also brings out  a marked negative change contradistinctive to Leila’s being. With highly descriptive detail Hosseini contrasts  the immense perilous and pained suffering  encountered (and equally the awe-inspiring  bravery displayed) by the young mother during a difficult labor involved in giving birth to Zalmai to the pleasurable pain with Tariq earlier. Similarly, Leila increasingly transforms into a loathing person struggling to love and care for Zalmai as much as she relishes Aziza’s presence. A male Zalmai, the legitimate child, is seen as an oppressive burden in all its physical and emotional proportions. At this point, a natural Impression by readers may be that Leila’s attitude is borne out of a counter-reaction to her own upbringing. She is granted an opportunity, however vaguely and rhetorically, to avenge herself and Afghan womanhood by denying emotional warmth to her son.  Or is this a metaphorical opportunity to rectify who and what he represents? 


In embodiment and action, Zalmai’s irascible neediness (on the one hand) and pampered bolstered hegemony (on the other) reproduce patriarchy and male privilege within the home. With active encouragement and reckless pampering from his father, Zalmai gauges Leila’s weakened stature— and through a mixture of childish naughtiness and verbal intimidation—-seeks to impose his will with impunity on her and his half-sister. Against Aziza, who exhibits independence and precociousness inherited from Leila, Rasheed’s jealousy towards them has now turned to blunt neglect . The children in Rasheed’s household hence reflect the qualities, positions, and treatment of the  adults. Economic downturns befalling the family and the advent of Taliban consolidation over the Afghan nation-state exacerbate such dynamics. Rasheed forces Leila to put up Aziza in an orphanage/boarding school (under-resourced due to continuing war and Taliban policy). Like other females it is Aziza the “cherished”, not Zalmai, who must suffer most through the developments. As a result her health and personal growth deteriorate, marked by a worsening speech impediment and by deplorable conditions at her new domicile.  Back at the Rasheed home, little else changes.  We may note that It is in the immense ironic gulf between the character’s name and fate here that Hosseini reveals the continuing disintegration of both Afghanistan as a societal construct with institutions and as a set of values. In a parallel to Mariam as fallible symbolism for Afghan origins and nationalisms, Hosseini appears to suggest that the entire country is yet again (via Aziza) metonyzed and symbolized in its femininity over which gendered and socio-economic positions are exercised, with multiple dimensions of stratifications bearing out unjust and unequal outcomes. For how can Aziza—and in turn, femininity in the country and the future of Afghanistan itself — be “cherished”, if she is forced in the status quo to sacrifice family care for herself? 


Here, the author points to a hint: solidarity amongst womanhood is once again stressed, this time reinforced generationally by the fact that it is Leila who gives Aziza her name—that her daughter is indeed cherished in spite of the patriarchy that deems her otherwise. And with Mariam’s assistance Leila repeatedly strives to back up in action for her daughter, despite the dangers, what she had already established through a few symbolic yet significant letters and syllables in naming her. Similarly, perhaps Hosseini is implying that it will ultimately rest upon Afghan women’s shoulders to “cherish” Afghanistan—-to safeguard, to develop and take it forward. In this way, Hosseini also suggests that “Zalmai” (as a metaphor for the present and future of Afghanistan’s men and masculinity) cannot be cherished, cannot be cared for without care and cherishing for “Aziza”. And it is “Aziza” that ultimately charges up the strength in Leila, that reorients Leila towards drawing from her deep well of compassion, care,and resolve—-sourced from, and mentored by, Mariam.  In spite of her apparently undersized role as a character,  as a literary device, “Aziza” is a potent metaphor, and the real-time physical embodiment of it. This circle which connects “Zalmai” to all this is thus complete: Mariam lies at one end of the diameter; Leila is at the other; Aziza is the center. Zalmai also exists in the circle, not at the its tangent—a position imposed upon women Hosseini blames and rebukes Afghan conventional wisdom for establishing and upholding. 


Heading back to the status quo, I interpret this decline as a statement on part of the author on gendered disparities in social relations. Taken against the backdrop of previous ephemeral periods of limited socio-political liberalization cited by Hosseini (Soviet-era professionalization of female labor, but political deliberalization and indoctrination overall).  I also interpret it as a statement on a cyclical reproduction of hope and despair. 


Presented with this exacerbated pattern, and with the closing off of all pressure-release valves, Hosseini’s novel reaches a troubled climax which logically cannot be resolved peaceably.  Three separate incidents in particular reignite Rasheed’s temper and lead him into a new depth of cruelty and abuse toward Mariam and Leila. Before Zalmai’s birth, the family’s failed attempt to escape from him is met with imprisonment of the two women, especially of Leila in life-threatening condition and in her bloody beating by him (239-43). Leila’s refusal of Rasheed’s attempt to parade Aziza as a street child and her response to his assault leads to him shoving a gun down her throat 266-7). A final episode in this pattern of abuse (pp 307-11)unfolds the novel’s climax: a surprise reunion between Leila and Tariq violently brings out all of Rasheed’s insecurities once again to the surface.  From the conversation with Tariq, Leila’s learns of Rasheed’s duplicity and machinations over her vulnerability that led her in the first place to continue seeking shelter in the Rashid household. In the confrontation between Leila and Rasheed afterwards, Mariam unsuccessfully intervenes with pleas to stop the beating, juxtaposing an interesting reversal to Leila’s intervention earlier to save the former near the beginning of their polygamous relationship.


Mariam however, does not continue to resign in despair and—in a resumption of a new-found strength and confidence—makes a more assertive attempt, as the focus of Rasheed’s rage alternates between the women with murderous resolve. Hosseini uses the stark transformation to mark a turning point for personal reflection by Mariam over herself as an individual and over her marriage life. As mentioned above, it was a process that commenced much earlier, in the space of reconciliation and solidarity that began to sprout up between her and Leila. Now, Rasheed’s final act of rage forces the culmination of that assessment out as assertively as her physical effort. Rasheed, she concludes, always cared more about his domination over her (and Leila) than her own being, sentiments, and interests, and that not even her sacrifices for him could exempt her from his condescension and cruelty. With such an epiphany and concerted action, Hosseini notes that Mariam is purging out what the author heretofore has described her innate docility and meekness. Furthermore Hosseini, once again, uses this incident to elaborate on a maternal proximity from Mariam with Leila, with the former comforting the latter at the sight of climatic result from the day’s confrontation. Mariam is depicted as decisive throughout with clarity of mind and spirit. Simultaneously, it is resumption of the solid essence and the unshakeable Afghan origins temporarily taking over, but with improvement, to lay the cornerstone for what is to come.  The two characters are brought together discussing the family’s future excluding Rasheed, albeit against the backdrop of an eerily darker mood. In reverse to their attempt to flee from Rasheed, a frail Leila is relatively anticipatory but doesn’t partake in the planning.  Mariam limits herself to finding a way out of the day’s mess, and her solution for the aftermath of their final encounter with Rasheed —-much  like her decisiveness during the encounter itself—-will ultimately re-transform the present and the future for them.


Hosseini makes a poignant statement here that essence and origin don’t have an immutable and permanent grip on society. Mariam sacrifices herself, but this time it is different. The aim is to break the cycle of flashes of intermittent hope crushed by marginalization and despair. What follows is not, rather a relinquishment to a doomed status-quo. but a somewhat-Shakespearean sense of self-purification and redemption given the limitations of circumstance and environment. For Mariam individually. it is utterly a full circle of travel touching nodes of loss and gain. Of arbitrarily imposed order and fits of rebellion. Of tyranny and liberation. Of finding herself rendered a lowly creature condemned by ostracism and then of developing into person radiating with initiative. But, in a twist, it is also a circle which ends with a sober or stoic personal satisfaction.  In her downfall being “back in the kolba” and the once-again target of “a man’s accusing finger”, **she** senses that she—with all that this “she” comprises and implies—-has unearthed  triumph and fulfillment however understated. Though Mariam’s demise is both metaphorical and physical, her resolve even here is an unleashing of liberation, dignity, equality through a display of indomitable spirit. It is a resolution (unexpected) to the conditions suffered in her trial and subsequent developments. Hosseini draws a significant parallel between her signature affirming a trial lacking due process and her signature affirming her marriage to Rashid. Simultaneously, it is a resolution to the entire **trajectory** of her life—to all the layerings of history, class, gender, stigma and social mores, and geography that had invalidated her.  At Mariam’s final moments, however, stressing that she was seeking validation from no one for her action, Hosseini describes the distillation and crystallization of such triumph at which arrives (pp 329): 


“... it was not regret any longer ... She thought of her entry into his world, the harami child of a lowly villager, an unintended thing, a pitiable, regrettable accident. ... And yet she was leaving the world as a woman who had loved and been loved back. .. a friend, a companion, a guardian. A mother. A person of consequence at last. ... This was a legitimate end to a life of illegitimate beginnings.”

       

In the meantime, the novel reflects on the broader trials and tribulations the country has been facing. It is unclear how the society is taking steps to move forward as the country stumbles from convulsion to convulsion. Reflecting on the aftermath of Talibans’ quick downfall at the hands of American military invasion, he is hesitant on a physically gung-ho approach. By pointing to re-empowerment and entrenchment of fractious warlords and to the naked legitimization of their financial and political influence, what emerges here is a hint of euphoric liberation to resumption of old ethnic and geographical jealousies and rivalries left open by the creation of the modern Afghan nation-state. All is set against a backdrop of dire impunity drawing upon legacies of war, and power vacuums. A concern about a return to pre-Taliban status quo marked by tribalistic cronyism and factional  distrust, wide-scale violence and strife worries Hosseini deeply. He ironically posits that the outlier ultra-conservative movement nevertheless spared the country some measure of instability and gained some level of acquiesce if not support by the populace. Hosseini mentions that no such parallel breadth of acceptance could be found towards the emerging/resurgent non-Taliban elites. [There is a brief mention of the foreigners’ ascendancy here who operate as murky, mysteriously, and suddenly as they appear.]  Perhaps almost axiomatically, he ultimately seems to conclude that persistent, resolute outreach, dialogue and negotiation are the only certain key to salvation here. 


The emphasis on dialogue and cooperation is also buttressed by Hosseini’s accounts and reflections on interactions of the Mujahideen following the Soviets’ departure from Afghanistan. Giving way to mutual suspicions and corrosive greed for power and influence, complete breakdowns surface in the transitional governing structures, the jirgas, and complete disintegrations take over the roadmap processes they and other Afghan representatives create in the transitional period. Gradually and increasingly, the Mujahideen transform from actors with valiant heroics to fickle factional gangs. Weapons and blunt might replace public discourse and reasoned argumentation as the modes and instruments of negotiations  Despite its brevity and fragmented presentation, Hosseini is careful to point out these crucial developments of opportunities being squandered as further cautionary tales. He tries to strike a measure of neutrality in recalling them, and few escape Hosseini’s voice of condemnation. In the end, Hosseini faults both the failures to take a decisive stand towards transgressors and to resolve conflict through a dialogue and political solution.   

 

There are shimmers of hope for a new trajectory for the country, and Hosseini exerts to demonstrate it as if microcosmically on the level of the central characters’ personal relationships. In a slow but assured manner Tariq develops rapport with Zalmai. Hosseini implies that Tariq has the capacity to bear down on Zalmai with values of compassion, respect, and even equity towards fellow Afghans. Despite an initial slump, Aziza continues to excel and flourish both at school and personally. We see possible breaks in the cycle of intermittent hope and near-permanent despair


Yet the novel ends too abruptly. We don’t get the opportunity to see the relationship between Tariq and Zalmai fully develop and evolve, and the mysteriousness of Rasheed’s absence to Zalmai’s knowledge looms and lingers as a shadow over the novel’s progression. And we also to continue to see glimpses of fractional tribalism and warlordism being politically and economically legitimized. Employing it as another metaphor for the state of the country and its people, Hosseini sets up this conundrum of determinism (via finding oneself in hard-molded environments and values) and nurture (via conscious action) as an unresolved problem. Much like the emphasis on cooperation and tolerance and on the fusion of essence and future, the author seems to suggest that these other paradigms had always been fusing and simultaneously clashing with each other. 


Novel is peppered throughout with conversational references in Pashtun and Farsi. For fuller flavor, there are also sprinklings of historical, literary, cultural, and political references to ancient poets, contemporary statesmen, traditional folk-singers. More effort could have been exerted to contextualize these references with appendexed glossary or margined footnotes for unfamiliar readers, given the broad scope and semi-standalone nature of the work. 




——————-


Tuesday, May 10, 2011

At uncertain crossroads: a brief preliminary note on Egypt's landmark referendum (March 20, 2011)

**This post was originally published on Sunday, March 20, 2011. But it suddenly disappeared from the blog without any explanation. Luckily, there was an extra copy.**

The referendum results came out earlier today: about 77% in favor of the proposed amendments and roughly 23% opposed, with a 41% turnout.  In the days before the referendum, I have maintained the latter position (of "no" to the amendments).  My understanding is that a number of things need to be established before parliamentary and presidential elections can be held.  A new solid constitution laying out separation of powers, checks-and-balances, individual rights (civil rights and civil liberties), due process of law, rule of law, etc.  An alternative administrative framework for the interim/transitional period (that allows for more transparent and open power-sharing and policy-crafting) between a civilian transitional government and the military, with which security is coordinated.  More time for further developing the political and social momentum and revolutionary environment (i.e. for example, restrengthening of existing parties and building of new ones, along with time for developing platforms, cohesiveness and outreach to and support with the public, etc).  [Under the current plan announced by the Supreme Military Council and supported by the referendum, the parliamentary and presidential elections are expected to be held in June and August respectively, or by slightly later on in the year. ]  

Many reasons exist for this rationale.  One deals with examining historical examples of rushed or nervous elections and state-building across countries.  The examples point out how incomplete evaluation of circumstances and/or the creation of insufficiently adequate institutions, along with other factors, ultimately resulted in tragic missed opportunities.  A second reason lies in concerns about the constitutional amendment proposals themselves.  The amendments address a number of popular demands, such as some restrictions on the ability to institute the state of emergency and limits on presidential terms, which create a positive incentive for approval.  Yet, they still present problems, among them a reluctance to dive deeper and more substantially into the still-extensive and expansive presidential executive powers.  There are also concerns I have about the relatively closed process that brought those proposals forward.  A committee comprised of a few men was charged by the supervising military council to come up with a draft for amendments within 10 days.  The committee deliberated behind closed doors, and nothing emerged from those meetings except the draft that would, with some modifications, become the text of the referendum.  In the end, only 9 changes were proposed, and these changes addressed a few articles in the Constitution.  Reportedly only 3 weeks were given for public discussion of this text.  Finally, there are concerns I have about the process the referendum will institutionalize for rewriting the Constitution.  One of the provisions of the referendum stipulate that, after parliamentary elections, the incoming parliament will appoint a body to rewrite the Constitution.  I share others' concern that the resultant body may not be as inclusive in its representational makeup, and that some groups may have an edge over others in drafting a new foundational document for the country's politics and government.   

Yet, I am very cautiously optimistic about what comes next.  We all have the seen the reawakening of socio-political consciousness in Tahrir and throughout post-Revolution Egypt.  Which is a good sign, but this is not enough as Egypt moves forward.  Turning momentum into concrete efforts and results will take, at the very least, time, openness of space, wise vigilance, and continued civic engagement.  I do believe and notice that this has begun to come out very early on, and that will be of a measure of reassurance.  Furthermore there is the realization that, since approval of the landmark referendum is the majority position, it must be respected and Egyptians must move forward from this point on.  To challenge it may not be a wise move, and may be more likely counterproductive, allowing for instability and institutional uncertainty by fomenting unnecessary divisions and frictions.  While abstaining from post-referendum organizing might risk missing upcoming opportunities in further shaping dynamics of reform, of rebuilding the government's and the state's institutions (and enhancing socio-economic institutions too), and of participating proactively in the creation of a new constitutional framework.  

The hope and (guarded) anticipation are that Saturday's approval was based on informed decision as well as on careful and thorough evaluation.  Hopefully, such approval is reinforced by continued vigorous debate and discussion in an open, respectful, and inclusive atmosphere, which is then translated into careful, concrete, and timely actionable policy.  I also hope that, above all, such an atmosphere also results in strong, meaningful institutions which balance security and individual rights through separation of powers, through checks-and-balances, and through the expansion and maintenance of a vibrant civil society.  The beaming of civility, eagerness and earnestness towards a better a future, and a calmness (excepting a reported rare incident of violence towards  Mohamed El Baradei) displayed during the hours of waiting in long lines and voting is a positive sign and potentially shining indicator in this pivotal moment.  Previously voting was marred by irregularities and intimidations, and results were virtually guaranteed well in advance.  Though much remains to be done in the period(s) ahead, the referendum is---at least initially for now---a major step towards a break from a past so familiar to many Egyptians.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The new bumpy and curvy road for Egypt

Here's a thought or a few.  A peaceful, substantive, deliberating, yet non-restrictive and transparent transition to democracy should be the focal point in/for Egypt from this past Friday forward.  The nation of 80 plus million people now faces a formidable to-do list on the domestic front.


Meticulous and wise constitutional rewriting with enshrining of individual rights and responsibilities to include: championing the rule of law, as well as the separation of powers and checks and balances to especially guarantee judiciary independence as a co-equal branch with the executive and the legislative.  Ending the status of emergency and placing restrictions over its future use.  Starting to rework the government bureaucracies into a beaming bastion of public service.  Eliminating government influence on professional syndicates and student unions, while scrapping out or at least drastically revising the gripping laws on non-governmental and charitable organizations.  Commencing the reform and retraining of police and other security agencies of the state to conduct themselves professionally and to uphold individual liberties and rights (--among them the right to live in dignity without fear of extortion, harassment, or other abuses of power).  Release of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.  The abolition of military tribunals used in the past against civilians.  Creation of an independent electoral commission (or one supervised/staffed by judges) with verifiable assurances of non-interference from authorities, empowered to ensure free, fair, open, and transparent elections.  All of this list means ultimately for concrete and timely progressive steps be taken to create a system that facilitates and reinforces public accountability and equal opportunity for representation in civilian governance throughout all levels and branches.  Part and parcel of this undertaking is a solid ongoing commitment by authorities (and vigilance by the public) towards an open and flourishing, vibrant climate of public debate and discussion that is actionable and productive.


The dynamics inside the country is bound to be busy with other rejuvenation in the political sphere.  Perhaps most crucial is the creation of a non-military transitional body as soon as possible to guide the county towards reform.  An independent civilian caretaker government, divorced from the Mubarak regime, can be installed.  One that is comprised of respected, credible, meticulous, diligent, and wise persons who regularly and openly consult with the people.


Perhaps as good omen of things to come, the Egyptian military's professionalism and restraint was noted in its conduct towards the protesters during the Revolution.  With few reported exceptions, this conduct was exemplary and it contrasted deeply with that of armies in many other developing and newly-industrializing countries in times of crises and uncertainties.


However, a military cannot run the administrative affairs of a country for long.  And---as the cases of, say, Turkey (from the 1920s to the 1990s), post-colonial Algeria, Nigeria (post-colonial to Obesanjo), and post-colonial Sudan, among others---it cannot be the ultimate 'guardian' of democracy or revolution.  Nor can it be the ultimate 'arbiter' of the people's will.  It's primary function is border security, national defense, and helping with logistics and security during the most pressing emergencies, because it is equipped and trained to do so efficiently.  It is generally not as good at the normal daily functions of the state like managing day-to-day traffic, police affairs, managing/monitoring of the economy, and creating policy.  For now, Mubarak's newly-installed cabinet still runs the country but with the highly notable addition that it directly reports to the military.  And this is an arrangement that more or less could last as little as six months with little clear timetables or specifics.  In the overall balance of the current circumstances, a spectrum of speculation has arisen, from dooming worry to cautious optimism to wild optimism/euphoria despite coming odds, among observers, reporters, and protesters (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).  [Earlier, I had blogged a bit about possible roles for the Egyptian military here.]  


More immediate steps taken commensurate with facilitating democratic politics involves the creation of adequate time and space for the rebuilding and strengthening of political parties as well as for the construction of new ones.  Parties need ample time and space to branch out and get better acquainted with the Egyptian population and to build viable political platforms and programs, but they need to begin now.  In the Sadat policy of infitah (or "opening," "liberalization"), parties were very limited in number by law (about 3 in total) and they were almost micromanaged by the regime.  During the Mubarak presidency---in some ways a continuation of Sadat's ideologically and tactically---there was a visible expansion in the number of parties operating on the political stage.  However, these new additions were approved by the Egyptian Government under very strict conditions and laws, and so the new few that were 'legally' allowed to operate were very weak, functionally incoherent, and with relatively very small numbers of members and supporters.  Similar tweaking and manipulation was done "legally" (i.e. for example, in tightly-closed ways of creating laws favorable to the regime) and extra-legally (i.e. for example, in ways that allowed selective targeting in application/dis-application of laws in combination with state-sponsored violence, intimidation, and fraud).  Thus allowing Mubarak regime domination over space in policy-making or policy discussion, such as elections to student unions, parliament, and even the presidency.  So, it is essential that this time around political institutions like parties and systems like electoral channels are allowed to develop in an atmosphere of openness where the caretaker transitional authority is politically neutral and transparent.  [The Egyptian military reportedly urging the former youth protesters to begin to form parties is encouraging, but it remains to be seen what the military's response will be in developments to come.]      


Judging from Egypt's past experiences with regime-managed electoral and other procedures, many on this (non-exhaustive) to-do list would will need thorough attention and serious resolve, as well as reasonable speed, before parliamentary or presidential elections can take place.  

Meanwhile, action in the political and policy-making realms needs to be coupled with steps to assist the positive Revolution-generated momentum in affecting long-lasting economic and social rebuilding and strengthening.  The enhancement of hospitals which have at times lacked even basic necessary medical supplies, and the reform of overburdened educational institutions are examples of crucial problem areas that need to be tackled.  A lack of access to basic housing amenities such as plumbing in the shantytowns, a near-crisis problem in the lack of access in affordable housing more generally, and construction code violations which continue to place people in harm's way are others.  


[And, in another sign pointing to years-long under-the-surface deterioration, labor strikes have already erupted across multiple industries from the stock exchange, textile and steel firms, media organisations, the postal service to railways, the Culture Ministry, and the Health Ministry.  These occur barely at the end of this past weekend's celebrations, over an array of demands and issues: living and working conditions, better pay, medical care, stable contracts, and the dismissal of superiors viewed as corrupt and unfairly enriched (1, 2, 3, 4).  This new wave of protests prompted the Supreme Military Council in its Fifth Communique to call for an end to these protests.]  


Added to these problems is an overarching one of an economic and business climate that was criticized as unfair nepotism and clientelism---and one with many red-tape hurdles and long considered the personal playground of a privileged few connected to, or close to, the intricacies of the Mubarak regime.  Enacting and enforcing strong anti-corruption, anti-monopoly, intellectual property, and business transparency rules are essential to allow Egypt to profit fully from its human capital and to nurture, expand, and retain enormous Egyptian talent and ingenuity.


The grassroots and re-organizing potential rooted in the desire to realize a better Egypt has already surfaced in the tent city in Tahrir Square, even before the announcement of President Mubarak's resignation.  Scores of self-motivated clean-up volunteers that have emerged in Tahrir after Friday's celebrations continue to show hope of revolutionary country-altering potential.  Tweets and Facebook statuses abound with proclamations of social responsibility as well as with pride and euphoria.  So do YouTube video posts of interviews and activity of people on the streets.  The atmosphere is painted with a civic consciousness the level of which I have never witnessed before in my all years of summer visits to, or in my time spent studying and living in, Egypt.  But, such potential cannot be left to walk the path on its own.  An equally determined and conscientious official effort needs to support and provide platforms for this potential to extend itself.  Some of the Supreme Military Council's announcements and actions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in the wake of Mubarak's resignation are a step in the right direction to install and renew confidence of its intentions in the public.  So too does Egypt's business community elite need to step up here, as bigger and bolder calls have been made for their participation.  One high profile call was made for a 100 billion Egyptian Pound development fund for rebuilding the country.  Smaller projects can work alongside separately, or supplement, these calls.   

These are admittedly enormous undertakings, to be handled calmly and methodically but with a sense of urgency and of making visible progress.  These are what part of the processes that political scientists and development specialists have referred to as nation-building and state building.  Monitoring this reconstruction and guaranteeing its success is just as important as keeping tabs on the evolution of Egypt's foreign policy, foremost among them in observers' eyes being Egypt-Israel relations.  Yet, in the immediate present and near future, this reconstruction may take priority over the concern regarding the continuity of Egypt-Israel relations.  It has long been argued and shown that democratic governments, ruling over well-informed populations and an inclusive political culture, are hesitant toward war/conflict, and that they rarely behave aggressively toward other nations.  

Israeli officials and voices in Israeli media have made a lot of noise during the protests about a post-Mubarak era, expressing fear of radicalism waiting to be unleashed.  At the same time, the characterization seemingly anointed Mubarak's regime as the only Egyptian pillar of stability in Egypt's relations with Israel (and by extension, as the only Egyptian pillar of stability in the region more broadly).  After all, as Sadat's vice president with intimate ties to the Egyptian military going back to the days spent as an air force commander, Mubarak was said to be part of the Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel Treaty.  His regime's easing of Egypt into expanding economic ties with Israel would serve to the latter as another assurance of the former's attention to keep the bi-lateral peace solid.


But the continuation of Mubarak's regime was more likely to perpetuate a false shell of stability.  This shell would be little more than one propped up by autocratic repression and denial of human rights, slowly cracking and eventually shattering.  In this context, Israel's on-record support of Mubarak could give the impression that it is more important to implement a relatively narrow set of objectives or interests at about any costs---call them "externalities," or "collateral damage," or "non-priorities"---his regime may bring.  It could create the impression that assisting a crafty yet unyielding Egyptian strongman system is more important than other, more-domestically rooted aspirations (for democracy, dignity, and wide-based economic well-being).


Perhaps then Egyptians will conclude that the prevailing Israeli concern was not so much over keeping intact the bi-lateral peace than maintaining, a-la-Mubarak, that Egypt completely sees eye-to-eye with Israel strategically and tactically in enforcing that peace.  A more open, vibrant, and democratic Egypt may try to renegotiate the terms of peace with Israel, which will undoubtedly add dynamics and dimensions to ponder over.  But in the whole balance of things in the region, that may not necessarily be of a negative consequence for Israel or for the broader region.  For that may, with new energy, breath life again into a tangible prospect for a lasting and just Israeli-Palestinian peace.  It may give birth to a real indispensable chance to help redress (rather than perpetuate) the setbacks of the Oslo Process.  To help the region start on a clean page, after decades of suffering partly brought about imbalances in influence, mixed in with animosity and nearly two decades of seemingly over-inflated hope.


At any rate, Egyptians will face a bumpy road ahead as they negotiate around the curves and turns, through the frictions, and above the potholes towards rebuilding and improvement.  The military will certainly play a crucial role in shepherding the country as it travels on this road helping to ensure security, thereby helping to stabilize the political and economic environments.  But as it does, it will need first and foremost to ultimately make good on its commitment to cede political power to civilian rule.  Heeding the lessons of human history and of Egypt's post-colonial history, that will require the military to partner with the Egyptian people as equals during the transition (and then step down from the political and administrative stages).  The international community, from international forums like the U.N. to individual nation-states like the U.S. to groups like the European Union, could lend valuable material, moral, and logistical support to this transition phase/process.  If it chooses to get involved, the international community will also need to partner with the Egyptian people, in ways which place a desire (to see a democratic Egypt lively with self-determination and economic progress) above national or other interests that may conflict with such desire.  


More closer to home, Israel---Egypt's principal neighbor and peace partner in the Mideast region---could learn to deal more with its nervousness in a manner that is more constructive than the conduct it has shown in the run-up to Mubarak's resignation.  Israel knows very well that it is America's principal ally in the region.  An alarmist tone or an aggressive conduct can prompt heavy negative pressure, thereby doing more to jeopardize Egypt's transition than to provide meaningful criticism.  Years of conflict with Israel, followed by a solidly-upheld peace and close cooperation (in the midst of the environment and dynamics of  post-1979 Middle East) are imprinted on the collective memory and awareness of Egyptians.  None of this will do much to reassure Egyptians if Israel sounds out signals that appear less-than-productive to them.  


Time, effort, perseverance, determination, coolness, inclusiveness, openness, care and meticulousness, and wisdom (and/or lack thereof) will ultimately shape the domestic Egyptian dynamics ahead ...