Egyptian Copts, once again have decided to align themselves with the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) in the upcoming local council elections, appearing as a major source of voters for the regime. According to the top church clergymen, Copts base their unconditional support to the NDP on the premise that the party is moderate in comparison with the Muslim Brotherhood. The NDP also has absolute power in political life unlike the lethargic and weak opposition parties. I don't want to argue about whether clergymen have the right to speak on behalf of Copts, simply because they have been doing it for decades, while intellectuals continue to say that Copts are full-fledged citizens and should speak for themselves. Despite angry voices in both Christian and Muslim communities, Church leaders vehemently called on Copts to vote for President Mubarak in the first multi-candidate presidential elections and persuaded them to vote for NDP candidates in the parliamentary elections of 2005. In both cases, clergymen faced criticism from the liberal elite, not only because they decided to meddle in politics, but also because they presented the whole Coptic community as a monolithic group in allegiance with the regime. If the current regime ends, even theoretically, Copts will also go with it. A similar situation, critics say, happened in Iraq, and is feared to be replicated in Syria. This is not an invitation for Copts to ally with the opposition, but it is just a reminder that Copts are economically, socially and politically diverse and should reflect their diversity in clear political choices. I don't understand how a poor Copt can vote for the same party as a rich Copt or how all Copts can decided to turn their backs on all political parties except for the NDP. In the local elections all parties, not only the NDP, nominate Christian candidates to run represent them in the municipal council. So why should Copts support one party and ignore all others? The short answer to this is that the NDP is not just a party but is an integrated part of state apparatus. When Copts decide to support the NDP, they know that they vote for the state, and expect some rewards in return. It is a deal between Copts and the regime. Opposition groups have similar deals with the regime. Politics have become negotiations not competitions. Hence the Copts do what others are doing. But it is dangerous to regard the whole Coptic community as clients of the regime; this situation definitely doesn't help Egyptian Christians become better integrated in public life. In modern society, integration means a process of inclusion of different groups with various social and political labels. It is not a compulsory unity between religious and political blocks, but a process of co-existence based on recognition of different interests and respect for difference. Poor Muslims and Christians can find a proper political platform to defend their interests. Rich Muslims and Christians have common goals regardless of their religious affiliation. This is the definition of a modern society, which favors dynamic social and political groupings over static religious tightly-knit affiliations. There is an important lesson to learn for those who want real integration and co-existence in multi-religious societies. No one should claim a separate identity through religion, but identity should stem from a diverse social and political positions. Additionally no one can act in public life as part of a religious group rather than as a member of a socio-political allegiance. Ironically both Copts and Muslims are far from such logic but the situation for Copts is more harmful, simply because they are a minority. To live in peace and to remain a part of society they have to remain dispersed in political life. This will ensure that they are part of the national movement with its various political shades rather than clients of the regime. Sameh Fawzyis an Egyptian journalist, PhD researcher, and specialist in governance and citizenship.
