Surveying the history of the press is a good way to see what is most important now, writes Samir Sobhi At the time of Khedive Ismail, the press was prohibited from discussing political matters. Then the khedive encouraged journalists from the Levant to come to encourage public debate. The newspaper Al-Ahram, appearing right after a Shura Council debate, carried a detailed report on the session. The khedive was pleased. Interestingly, law prohibited anyone from combining parliamentary duties with a career in the press. At one point, only Egyptians were allowed to serve as editors-in-chief. There was a reason for that. Non-Egyptians couldn't be tried in national courts, and so they wouldn't be accountable for publishing offences. Magazine editors contested the law, arguing that they differed from daily press in one important aspect: they didn't care much for politics. The first professional syndicate appeared in the country in 1912. This was the Lawyers' Syndicate, which was presided over by Ibrahim Al-Hilbawi. He had struggled along with other colleagues to create the syndicate, and his reputation as the defence lawyer in the Denshway propelled him into the presidency of that new syndicate. I am saying this because journalists, not the lawyers, should have formed the first syndicate. There is a story here, and the veteran journalist and former head of the Press Syndicate, Hafez Mahmoud, tells it. The quest for creating a syndicate for journalists started out at the turn of the last century. By 1907, journalism had expanded with the appearance of new publications. Al-Garida of Mustafa Kamel and Al-Muaayed of Sheikh Ali Youssef had joined the already existing Al-Ahram and Al-Moqattam. Journalists saw the need for a union. They started writing on that matter but while they were still debating it the lawyers stole the idea. Journalists needed 15 years to follow through. Egypt was under occupation at the time, but the press was largely free, although it was subject to the publications law passed by Lord Cromer, the British high commissioner, says Mahmoud. War held back the creation of the Press Syndicate twice. First, World War I broke out as the journalists were preparing to form a union in 1914. By the time journalists had filed a draft law for the union in 1939, World War II delayed parliamentary approval for two years. Finally the law was passed on 31 March 1941, along with the law creating the Doctors' Syndicate. The Press Syndicate was the second to be formed in the country. The reason was that the journalists managed to publish their law in the official gazette weeks before the doctors did. And they held their first elections in December 1941, weeks before the doctors followed suite. Hafez Mahmoud was the first secretary of the Press Syndicate. Since then, the following served as syndicate presidents: Mahmoud Abul- Fatah, Fikri Abaza, Hussein Abul-Fatah, Hussein Fahmi, Mohamed Abdel-Qader Hamza, Ahmed Qassem Gouda, Salah Salem, Ahmed Bahaaeddin, Ali Hamdi Al-Gammal, Salah Galal, Ibrahim Nafie, Makram Mohamed Ahmed and Galal Aref. Secret expense accounts were part of the profession at one point. Hafez Mahmoud has an interesting story about Fares Pasha Nimr, the owner of the pro-British Al-Moqattam who had one of the longest and most financially rewarding lives of any journalists. He lived to be 93 and was said to have assets of LE3 million in the late 1940s. Mahmoud, with a degree in philosophy, started working in Al-Moqattam on a salary of LE3 a month. He went to Nimr to negotiate the salary. There is no problem with the money, the pasha said. "What do you mean? A monthly salary of LE3 for someone with a college degree?" Mahmoud protested. "No, your salary is LE30." "There must have been a mistake. I was paid only LE3," Mahmoud replied. "There is no mistake. We pay you LE3 from Al-Moqattam's treasury. Then I give you a card on my name that you hand the deputy minister of interior, and he pays you LE10 a month. Then I give you another card to the secretary-general of the Council of Ministers, and he gives you another LE10. Those LE20 are from the secret expense accounts allocated to journalism and journalists. How much is the total now?" "Twenty-three pounds," Mahmoud said. "Then Al-Moqattam would give you free passes on all public transportation, worth LE7 a month," the pasha explained. Journalism has come a long way in searching for a law and for freedom of writing and expression. Consider, for example, the case of Tawfiq Diyab, owner of Al-Jihad newspaper, which took place in 1933. Here is an account of that case, provided by historian Yunan Labib Rizq. "Monday 27 February 1937 has gone into history, and we're not talking the history of Tawfiq Diyab but the history of Egyptian journalism. This is no exaggeration. On that day, the Higher Appeals Court, convening under Abdel-Aziz Fahmi Pasha to look into the case of defamation against two government agencies; namely the House of Representatives and the parliamentary committee formed to investigate the Gabal Al-Awliya Dam project, sentenced Mohamed Tawfiq Diyab, owner of the newspaper Al-Jihad, to three months of prison with labour plus a fine of LE50. What complicated matters further was the fact that Diyab had received a suspended sentence of six-months in prison on 31 March 1932 in connection with the case known as 'the forged letters'. So now Diyab had to serve both sentences." The two articles had been published by Diyab in Al-Jihad on 26 and 27 April of 1932. The first article was about the Gabal Al-Awliya Dam, a project that was repeatedly criticised in Al-Jihad. Here is what Diyab wrote. "A thunderbolt was going to strike down Egypt and the Egyptians. The credit for this disaster goes to Sidqi Pasha and the majority that is enthusiastically supporting the impending disaster, as well as to those people who, in their eagerness to humour the government, have refused to listen to the experts who oppose the projects. After the committee applied its keen sense of hearing, its sharp sense of vision, and its fervent zeal to anything, sensible or senseless, right and wrong, that is said by the champions of the disaster, the majority of the members of the parliamentary committee refused to credit the opinions of the critics with any ounce of acknowledgement, casting aside their professional opinions." Diyab then goes on to slam the parliament. "With what kind of conscience do you submit Egypt's neck to the British sword? What bizarre passion impels you to make the Gabal Al-Awliya disaster a partisan matter and a ploy for undermining your public critics and ingratiating yourself to your usurping allies?" The 1934 regulation of the press in 1934 occasioned another frenzied debate. Excerpts from the press follow. "Fikri Abaza's article, for which he was sent to court on charges of hatred and contempt for the ruling regime and the articles on the probity of government in the newspaper Al-Siyasa were the reason the government considered regulating the press... The new law punishes those who criticise rulers, former khedives and deceased ministers." Decades have gone by and the battle is once again on over freedom of the press. As if it weren't enough for the print press to be under assault by the modern media of globalisation -- namely, the Internet and satellite broadcasting -- now it has to contend once more with the same old question: where to draw the boundaries? The Internet and satellite channels come under no regulatory mechanism. We live in a smaller world now and the press is required to explain the news and not just relate it. All over the world, and not just in Egypt, the changing nature of the press is being debated. We mustn't, however, forget that the press is the thin thread linking the government with the people. This threat should not be cut. And difference of opinion must not be construed as enmity. I believe that freedom of the press mustn't be in debate. But perhaps the Press Syndicate, created in the early 20th century in Egypt, is in need of a new law. Since 1960, the year in which the press was regulated, a lot has changed. We used to have private ownership of the papers, then only a state-run press. Now we have a mixture of both, and we should get used to that and many other developments. The syndicate may house a strange hybrid of journalists, but there is no reason why we cannot achieve harmony. Recently, newspaper-marketing agents demanded their own special department in the syndicate. Theirs is a valid request. Perhaps doctors, engineers, technicians and printers working for newspapers also deserve some affiliation with the syndicate. We're going through a transitional phase, and unless we know what we want, things may get chaotic.
