Once the law on places of worship has been passed, things will be smoother for both the government and the Coptic Church. Or will they? One question that will still have to be addressed is whether the Church will content itself with spiritual matters, or whether it will try to maintain a presence in politics and the media. Much has changed since January 2011. For one thing, the younger generation of Copts has become more involved in politics. They went to Cairo's Tahrir Square with their fellow Muslims, and they even marched on the state television building in Maspero in October 2011 to protest against the destruction of a church in Marinab, a town near Aswan in Upper Egypt. Dozens of people were killed or injured in the clashes that followed between the army and the Coptic protestors. Such events are unlikely to be repeated now that President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi is in power, and in light of the friendship that binds him to Coptic Pope Tawadros II and the fact that 36 Copts won seats in the 2015 parliamentary elections. The tide is turning, and in the right way. One can look back to 25 January 2011 with confidence, sensing that sectarian amity is not just rhetoric, but reality. In his recent visit to the Abbasiya Cathedral in Cairo, during the Christmas festivities, President Al-Sisi promised that all churches and monasteries damaged in the country up to January 2016 will be repaired. The president ordered that churches be repaired at the expense of the state, and he refused to accept any foreign help in this regard. Such things were the responsibility of the government, he intimated. This takes me back to the days of January 2011 when Muslims and Christians stood together, prayed together, and held a mass for the victims of the Qiddisin Church bombing in Alexandria a month before. We all know that the history of assaults against Egyptian Copts is not a new one. Nearly 200 attacks have been launched against the Copts over the past 40 years or so, perhaps most seriously those in Al-Zawya Al-Hamra, a neighbourhood in northern Cairo, where some 80 lives were allegedly lost in 1981. This prompted the US Congress to form a committee on religious rights and to periodically send congressmen to Egypt to follow up on the situation. It was around this time that political Islam began to gain traction in political life and the media, with some fanatics claiming that “Islam is the solution” and pushing for the implementation of Sharia law. However, Egypt successfully defended its secular norms, and in January 2011 its young people asserted their hopes for a future of democracy and social justice for all. It is to be hoped that the recently elected parliament will take further steps to deepen the country's commitment to democratisation and reform. The Al-Azhar Document, released in January 2013, is an immensely useful starting point in this regard. It says that the right to life is a paramount feature of all religions, that assaults on life and property are unacceptable, that the state has a duty to protect the safety and property of all citizens, that violence is to be rejected in all its forms, and that instigation towards violence is a crime. The document is a landmark in relations between Muslims and Copts, and it should be revisited by legislators, the media and rights groups. It may be a coincidence, but I have noticed that with almost every major change in Egyptian politics the Church tends to acquire a new leader. Under the monarchy, there was Pope Yousab II. Under then-President Gamal Abdel-Nasser there was Pope Kyrillos VI; under Anwar Al-Sadat, Pope Shenouda III; and under Al-Sisi, Pope Tawadros II. Pope Shenouda III was a soft-spoken and flexible man, with a penchant for diplomacy that helped him ride out many crises, always finding a way to placate his opponents while reassuring his congregation. But even he had to draw the line at one point, and when young members of the Church kept pushing him to engage in politics, he built a wall around the cathedral to preserve its sanctity. As it turned out, it wasn't always easy to keep the Church away from politics. If things happen that force Christians to look for someone to act on their behalf, they often ask the Church to play a role. The Church is understandably reluctant to do so, as worldly matters are not necessarily part of its mandate. It would be better, I believe, if a communal council were to be formed to advise the Church on non-spiritual matters and to speak on behalf of the community whenever the Church finds it awkward to do so. We have no shortage of experienced and reliable figures to serve on such a council, which would have a freedom of movement that the Church, due to the constraints of its status and its mission, lacks.
