II.

PICREADI: Could you outline the evolution of the Egyptian legal system? How secular or religious is it? What differences exist between the European and the Egyptian law? Finally, since you work with the international dispute resolution, could you elaborate on whether there are any national specificities affecting your professional field?

IL: People who have never studied the Egyptian legal framework tend to believe that the Egyptian laws are governed by Sharia and are of Islamic nature. This is a misconception; part of it is true but summing it up like this betrays the actual picture of what it is. For example, the Egyptian Civil Code, which was promulgated in 1949, is mainly inspired by the French civil law. The key author of the Egyptian Civil Code is called Abd El-Razzak El-Sanhuri, he was the Egyptian professor who have studied in France and was greatly inspired by the French doctrine and scholarship. The Civil Code of France was promulgated in 1804, and during around 150 years of its existence, the French courts and scholars were looking for loopholes to remedy several legal issues that it did not put straight or complicated. Egypt had a benefit of borrowing that experience, and as of now, the Egyptian law resembles the French law to a large extent.

However, where do religion and Sharia intervene? Sharia primarily intervenes in matters concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance and other things related to one's status. This is why on the Egyptian ID cards one's religion has to be indicated. You can be a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew, I have never seen an option such as "not applicable", for example. This is crucial because depending on your religion you will have different regulations that would govern your marriage, divorce and inheritance. Something that should be noted here is that the second article of the Egyptian Constitution states that Sharia is the main source of legislation in the Egyptian state. In actuality, however, what happens is that whenever we have a new regulation, we have to check if it complies with the Islamic laws and practices. In sum, civil and commercial matters are generally governed by the same legal concepts that exist in Europe and the religious legal framework is applied in matters concerning personal status.

As for how this relates to my practice, in most international agreements there is a dispute resolution clause that stipulates by which country's laws the given contract is governed. In many circumstances these international agreements, if they are performed in Egypt, might be governed by the Egyptian law, so I do get in contact with the Egyptian law a lot in my practice.

PICREADI: According to Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, Professor of Law at Emory University, Sharia lacks many components of a comprehensive legal system and is not supposed to be regarded as one. More than that, turning it into law violates the very idea behind Sharia. He also argues that the European colonial powers delinked the field of Islamic Family Law from Sharia as a whole and enforced it on the national level in their colonies. For them and the successive Muslim rulers, keeping this arrangement untouched was a way to maintain stability, while for the Muslim population Islamic Family Law served as an essential element of identity. However, is it not harmful when applied strictly? What is the situation like today?

IL: I agree with the point regarding the attachment to Sharia law as a means of resistance against the foreign occupancy; in case of Egypt, we are talking about British occupation which lasted from the end of the 19th through the beginning of the 20th century. Besides that, what is interesting is that as I mentioned earlier, the laws were mainly inspired by the French, and not the British, doctrine. I also agree with the idea that if applied strictly, the Islamic law can be harmful. In Sharia, there is no unified code, it is built on several sources. These are, in the first place, Quran; Hadith, a record of Prophet Muhammad's sayings and deeds; Ijma, consensus found between the Islamic scholars on various points of law. The problem is, the interpretations are numerous, and every state follows a different school of thought. Saudi Arabia, for instance, adheres to the Wahhabi tradition, which is one of the strictest; Egypt follows another one, and not even one, but the choice of the school depends on the matter being considered. It creates a sense of uncertainty as to what paradigm is to be applied, and this on every single occasion. Thus we often encounter contradictions within the same set of rules.

It has been two years now since Saudi Arabia has lifted the ban on female drivers and it is in general letting go of its most severe religious provisions. This might make us smile, we are in 2017, 2018, so of course women should drive, but what is happening in Saudi Arabia truly marks a big change. In Egypt, religion has become more of a social phenomenon, Sharia is not central to the legal framework.

III.

PICREADI: Bernard Lewis, an eminent historian of the Muslim world, emphasizes the distinction between the Christian and the Muslim worldviews. Jesus Christ is quoted as saying: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's". In Islam, conversely, there exists a notion of unity between the secular and religious powers. Lewis argues that the French Revolution was of interest to the Muslim thinkers because it was the first intellectual movement in the West not borne of the Christian tradition. Now, Egypt's former Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy in one of his public appearances said that Egypt has historically been a source of ideas for the Middle East. One may think of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded by al-Banna in Egypt, but this is just one example. Today, this organization is outlawed and the tension between the secular, or military, forces and the religion-driven groups, persists. In this context, does Egypt still remain the source of intellectual leadership?

IL: Historically, this is correct. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, influenced a lot of surrounding countries and, unfortunately, also inspired some terrorist organizations. That point aside, since after the 25th of January 2011 Revolution, Egypt did not have any organized political movement except for the Muslim Brotherhood, which was extraordinarily organized, along with the military, which is not a political power per se but is an institution within the state which boasts strong organization as well. These were the only two entities capable of ruling the country. And when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power, at some point many Egyptians sensed that they are steering the country towards increasing religiosity. They were imposing religious views where they were previously not imposed, and were actually favoring the benefit of their own organization rather than the benefit of the country. The Muslim Brotherhood served an ideology. This realization led to what we now call the 30th of June 2013 Revolution, or coup d'etat (the characterization is debated to this day). The then President Mohamed Morsi was removed from power and the country entered into a transition period which ended with the election of the new President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The conflict between the two entities, the Brotherhood and the military, is thus easily explained by the fact that there was none but them, no other group had the means to enter into the competition for power.

I do not believe that Egypt currently is as intellectually influential as it was before, whether regarding political or religious thinking. This has to do with the failure of the education system that has occurred over the past fifty years. Perhaps the fact that one of the most prestigious Islamic universities in the world, the famous Al-Azhar University, is situated in Egypt, allows us to retain some authority in religious matters in the region, but this is all there is.

PICREADI: Egypt had a great appeal in the 1950s and 60s under President Nasser who was calling on the Arab world and beyond to break free of colonial occupation and simultaneously, positioned Egypt as a power that can support and bring together the oppressed populations. But since then Egypt's appeal seems to have vanished and the state of public diplomacy of the country leaves much to be desired. The State Information Service and the public diplomacy branch under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lack skill, vision and, probably, are not being assigned sufficient significance by the state. Public diplomacy agents seek to counter information with information and rely on interpersonal rather than interinstitutional ties. Instead of inducing the foreign publics to view Egypt favorably, the governmental bodies in charge want to purify the media sphere and shape it to their liking using informal channels. Where do you see Egyptian foreign policy going and are there any efforts made with a view to upgrade the country's image?

IL: Egyptian diplomacy had indeed a lot of weight at the time of Abdel Nasser because he was calling for liberation and Arab unity. He actually endeavored towards this dream: Egypt and Syria were merged into one state for some time. However, later Egypt lost its influence on the Arab world after it had entered into peace with Israel in 1979. That move was regarded as a treason by a lot of Arab states who then shared the view that the state of Israel should be eliminated. Acknowledgement of Israel by Egypt led to a number of consequences, including the relocation of headquarters of the Arab League, that were earlier established in Egypt thanks to the key role it played in the organization, to Tunisia. After several years, the situation changed and they were moved back to Egypt. Because the issue regarding Israel is almost forgotten now, Egypt is slowly regaining its regional standing.

As far as I am concerned, Egypt today is viewed as a peacekeeper: the country has participated extensively in the peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel over the course of the past twenty years and continues to play an important role of mediator. Egypt is trying to restore its diplomatic power in the region, and this explains its approach to the ongoing issue of the Ethiopian dam. This giant hydroelectric dam is being constructed in Ethiopia, and the problem is, the speed with which its reservoir will be filled might affect water supply in the neighboring countries, including Egypt, and cause water shortages. Egypt has been acting calm and avoiding aggression throughout the conflict, even leading some Egyptians to accuse the state of being overly reactive. This is because the state has been only taking little steps and attempting to resolve the issue diplomatically. Another example of where Egypt has a role is in the regional alliances: in one instance, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates devised a unified approach to dealing with Qatar, which in turn forms an alliance with the surrounding Gulf States. Egypt increasingly uses peaceful diplomatic means of policy and regains its strength and importance in the region. It will grow even stronger once the economic situation in Egypt improves, because diplomatic and economic power go hand in hand.

IV.

PICREADI: The 25th of January 2011 Revolution, which was predominantly peaceful, could have been capitalized on to promote the image of Egypt globally. This chance was not seized and already in 2013, there was another change of government, whereby the military came to power and initial momentum seems to have been lost. When you now talk about future economic advances, many factors appear to question their probability. Moreover, we see in the media, how the President restricts civil freedoms and brings back memories of the recent years of continuously extended emergency law; we know about the challenges faced by the journalists and hear of the military actions in Sinai. In your assessment, how realistic the expectations of economic growth or diplomatic gains are against the backdrop of a poor, or even worsening, state of the civil society?

IL: Indeed, the state of the civil society and political parties in Egypt has never been worse throughout history. Opposition is not represented in the media, you can encounter opposing views very rarely. There is no dialogue between the people of diverging views simply because there are no political parties that would be sufficiently organized to offer a proper program and agenda to put up against al-Sisi. The society is fractured: you see people who are radically against al-Sisi — and a lot of them were pro-Muslim Brotherhood earlier — and, on the other side, you have what I call al-Sisi's fan club — these are the people who are applauding the President irrespective to the measures he is taking, who seek to justify his every move. Both camps eschew objectivity: one side always criticizes without engaging in analysis and the other keeps approving of everything providing no arguments either. There is no scientific political dialogue and public exchange of ideas, and this is partly due to the fact that we live under a kind of an emergency law and many people are afraid to talk and argue objectively.

Regarding the economy, I believe there is a progress. The state is focusing on attracting the investment and building new cities and infrastructure. Some people are understandably cynical about these billions of dollars invested in construction, the idea of the New Administrative Capital and other projects. Clearly, these require a lot of time to be accomplished and until now we have not seen any substantial advancement. The plan of the current government, I assume, extends until mid-2020s or even 2030 so we still have five to ten years before we start seeing any economic successes.

On the political side, political rights and parties are regarded as a side issue by the government as well as by many people. Civil freedoms and society are not a priority for the government. The priority, how government portrays it, is that we are now at war with the terrorist organizations that carry out the attacks in Sinai so we need to purge Sinai from the terrorists and, on the other hand, we have to work on improving the economy — these are the two priorities. In this context, any civil developments are undergoing marginalization.

PICREADI: Have you personally ever been politically involved or have you thought of turning to the state affairs? Does the Egyptian youth view the state service as a good career option?

IL: I do think about engaging in politics but I do not think that now is the best time for engagement. As I said before, there are no political parties that would seem attractive to me at this point. The alternative would be to create my own party, which would be a long, hefty process and a process that needs to be well-funded and pre-planned. So for the time being, as much as I closely follow the political scene and consider myself somewhat on the opposition rank, I do not believe that it is a good time for me or anyone of my age to step in — unless we manage to set up a political party or rearrange an existing one, but again, there are currently no political parties with clear ideas that would encourage one to adhere to them. I may get involved in politics in five or ten years, but probably not before that, because the actual state of the civil society does not offer much room for political involvement.

State jobs are attractive because they provide security. When you are a state employee, you enjoy certain guarantees: you cannot be fired, you have a retirement plan, so clearly, this is a good option for the people who do not have the means or appropriate academic background to join the private sector. This applies to all kinds of administrative jobs, but if we are talking about serious, high-level political positions, then the youth in Egypt is generally more worried about how to move forward in the career than about what is to be changed right now in the country politically. The reason is that a lot of people are demoralized and I cannot judge whether there is a solid foundation for that or not, but this is the reality. Even those coming back from abroad do not sense that they can make a difference, should they get involved in politics — nothing indicates that they might. Many of my friends who come from abroad with initial aspiration to change things, a couple of years later find themselves preoccupied with their chosen careers rather than with making a difference. Will they get involved? I think they will, because most of us who are interested in politics cannot get rid of that and continue monitoring the developments. If you want to make a change, that idea will never leave you, but I do not believe it is a proper timing for any kind of a political change now.

PICREADI: What countries exert the largest cultural, economic or otherwise influence on the Egyptian society these days?

IL: I would definitely single out the UAE as a major regional influence. Many Egyptians are seeking job opportunities in the Emirates thanks to its remarkable economic performance. Saudi Arabia can be mentioned as well, however it was mainly influential in the 1970s through 90s and was gradually overtaken by the UAE. Among other countries, I would mention the US and Canada. I do not think there is any country that has managed to escape the American influence in the 21st century, its cinema and gadget markets in particular. And Canada exerts influence because of its education system and the fact that it encourages people to come and study or even to immigrate and apply for Canadian citizenship. As for the cultural aspect, I do not think that there is a single country that impacts on the Egyptian culture. The reason is that the Egyptian culture is quite special and Egyptians keep their own customs; there is no imported culture. Each particular community has its preferences: one can listen to the French music, another can admire the Dutch paintings and so on. Although not long ago, in the 1980s and 90s, the Saudi Arabian influence on Egypt led the religion to shape the public sphere to a large extent. That period is over, and I cannot pinpoint one country that would bear a dominant effect on Egypt culturally and artistically, as of now.

V.

PICREADI: What is your take on the relationship between Egypt and Russia in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East?

IL: The main countries with which Egypt finds itself in diplomatic tension today are Turkey, Qatar and, obviously, Iran. And what is viewed of Russia's activity in the Middle East is that it seeks to protect its interests everywhere, be it in Turkey, Syria or in its relationship with Iran. Egypt has always maintained good diplomatic ties with Russia and considered it an ally, however the recent attack on the airplane tempered that warmth. Some people believe that Russia might take a radical stance against Turkey in its involvement either in Libya or in Syria, but it is also understood that Turkey and Russia have common economic interests. That is perceived to be part of the reason why Russia is not pursuing any proactive strategy to oppose Turkey's involvement into those conflicts. Russia definitely is regarded as a huge power but it is not viewed as an entity that is moving things a lot in the region because of the difficult position it is in. It has interests to protect with respect to several countries in the Middle East and therefore has to navigate carefully not to hinder its diplomatic relations with any party. This sticky situation explains why Russia largely avoids active involvement in the ongoing conflicts.

PICREADI: In 2019, Putin and al-Sisi met on several occasions. One of them was in October at the first Russia-Africa Summit and Economic Forum in the Russian city of Sochi. The two presidents acted as co-chairs of the Summit, al-Sisi essentially representing the African side. Listening to his speeches, once notices his attempt to emphasize Egypt's African identity. Being aware of the state of Egyptian public diplomacy and the fact that it generally aims at reinforcing the image of a certain person or administration, one may wonder as to who is seen as an addressee of this message. Where does this narrative take Egypt then?

IL: It is certainly true that President Sisi recently has been working not only on the relationships with the countries of the Middle East but also on restoring diplomatic relations with the African states. The current administration is very much encouraging economic cooperation with the rest of Africa; this is a fairly new phenomenon. Because of that, if you just ask the people in the streets of Egypt to put Egyptian identity in a word, they would say, it is an Arab, Muslim country but none would probably say it is African. These African endeavors go in line with Egypt's intention to regain its diplomatic weight, and not only in the region but on the continent at large. This is a long process whose results we might only start seeing in five to ten years from now.

PICREADI: Is there in Egypt a sense of nostalgia for any of the previous epochs or a narrative of making Egypt great again? And is there an aspiration towards greater democracy?

IL: Any Egyptian who feels nostalgic about a point in time would definitely miss the monarchy. This is especially true of the elderly. Before the 23rd of July 1952 Revolution, which was a coup d'etat in reality, Egypt was a monarchy. You hear a lot of people say: oh, back then, the education was good, the public service was good, the infrastructure was good and Egypt was a beautiful country. And indeed, Cairo won the prize of the most beautiful city in the region in 1937 or so; you now look at the photos and the city does impress you. So when people recall the past Egyptian greatness, the nostalgia they experience has to do with the pre-Republican times.

Do people aspire for democracy? Well, a lot of people do not actually understand what democracy is.

PICREADI: But at the time of the revolution, there were slogans that contained this word, written and chanted.

IL: Yes, but things change. I will try to be objective here. The main issue is that most Egyptians are trying to live day by day; there are many people whose income is extremely low and they are understandably occupied by how they can put food on the table rather than by thinking of the country's political scene. This is why over the past ten years we witnessed an emergence, right after the revolutionary events, of the practices that distort the very meaning of democracy. For example, when the people are supposed to vote, whether in the presidential elections or in a nationwide referendum, many would either do so to support a certain individual based on the ideology proposed or they would vote to obtain some kind of a short-term material gain. What I mean is that the experience of democracy in Egypt is rather demagogic than real. To give an example, in the elections that led President Morsi to power, many people were told to vote for him because doing so would bring them to paradise. There is an ideological, religious manipulation here, this is not an informed decision. Yet other people were told to vote for a certain person in exchange for food — and they then get a box with several meals. This is to say that the democratic system in the last ten years was totally manipulated and perverted. So, do some people aspire for democracy? Yes. But those are the people from a certain class who received appropriate education and understand what democracy is; they are far from constituting the majority of the country. On the contrary, the majority either has no idea about democracy or has to worry about making ends meet.

VI.

PICREADI: Let us now address the image of Russia that you personally have. What were your first encounters with Russia and how did your view of the country change overtime?

IL: The first image I had of Russia when I was still little was associated with the tourism in the Red Sea. There are many tourists in Hurghada and Sharm El Sheikh, and the vast majority of them back in time when I travelled there were Russian. Owing to this, a lot of people employed in the tourism sector there speak Russian. As you grow up, you start learning about the history of Russia, but only from the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution onwards: the course of history starts there and you basically know nothing about Russia's earlier background. Yet later, when you start following politics, you see the importance of the modern Russia as one of the strongest political and economic powers in the world. And if you are lucky enough like me, you get to listen to the Russian classical music and overall develop an interest for the culture and the art exported by the country.

In terms of economy, as I mentioned earlier, Russia is crucial for Egypt since Russian tourists bring in a lot of money serving as a source of income for many employed in tourism. Therefore the terrorist attack that occurred in October 2015, when the Russian aircraft was hit and more than two hundred people died, is the single most disastrous terrorist attack that has affected tourism since as far as I can remember. It essentially halted the flights between Russia and the Red Sea; there are many hotels that have been completely empty for the past years and therefore many people who have lost their jobs.

PICREADI: Public diplomacy is, among other things, about inspiring in people the desire to follow the lead of as well as borrow practices and ideas from the given country. Every state that possesses considerable soft power has something to offer, be it a political model or a cultural richness. If Egypt were to carry out any internal reforms, which country's societal model would it rather look up to?

IL: If there is a model that Egypt as it stands today would rather follow, it would probably be that of the UAE. And for a simple reason: because it is a Muslim country. Religion enjoys a powerful social presence in Egypt, so if it had to copy a model of a state, it would definitely choose to copy that of a Muslim state. This is clearly not an objective way to decide on that, it is based on religious background exclusively. However, if we set this aside and just look at the political systems in Europe and the US, the so-called liberal democracies, what we see nowadays is that they are failing. There is a crisis of representation, people do not feel anymore that they are represented, or represented well. These systems have been struggling for several years now, and we are seeing their limits first hand. Take France, for example: it has been two years now that it is in a state of unrest. What causes it are chiefly issues relating to the fiscal injustice and the like, but still, the liberal democracy in its core is at stake here since there is a representation crisis. I think that whereas in the past fifty years, the people in Egypt used to consider these political models successful, this is not the case anymore. We start thinking of alternatives. As for Russia, its system is mostly viewed as pragmatic: it is functioning, the country remains one of the most powerful states in the world, and as long as it keeps this status of one of the leading powers in several spheres, nobody will really reflect upon the way its political system and the civil society are being managed. Obviously, things might look different on the inside, but this is how people look at it from outside anyway: Russia is powerful, so it must be doing well on the political front.


Interviewed by Madina Plieva, PICREADI editor-in-chief

Cover picture: People waving Egyptian flags on the Dam Square in Amsterdam to commemorate the 2011 Revolution on January 25, 2020; photo by Madina Plieva

Views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily coincide with those of PICREADI