This is an interview which Mahdi Elmandjra, prominent researcher and professor from Morocco, who travels extensively throughout the world. Our meeting with him was not an endless stream of questions. Mahdi Elmandjra is a man of passion. He never contradicts himself. He expresses his views freely and without restrictions. He once wrote about "francophony" (concept of French-speaking community) "The notion of francophony cannot be dissociated from the historical concepts legally connected with the colonial era and that of incomplete decolonization..." With all due academic respect, we shall now broadcast this interview from which we deleted some excerpts which we deemed too strong. Should Mahdi Elmandjra be listening to us now, he would find our decision quite normal.
(Leila Bouayad, Radio of the University of Algiers)
L.B.: Mahdi Elmandjra, you are a "man of fury." Since the beginning of the Gulf war, you have made remarkable statements. You have, so to speak, slammed the doors of institutions which we considered to be respectable ones. What did the Gulf war trigger?
H.E.: Madam, to be called a "man of fury" in the current circumstances is perhaps a privilege. Still, I think that I am, above all, a scientist and a researcher. My writings bear testimony to that. For more than twenty years I have been preaching in the desert. The reason is that our countries do not take the study of the future and of strategies as seriously as they should. Our leaders and decision-makers are absorbed by the management of daily crises. Several years ago, I described, in a much more composed manner, how our crisis is, above all, the consequence of a lack of vision regarding social projects. Then there is the plague of illiteracy which is seriously undermining our efforts in a world whose actual assets are human resources, not natural ones. Our crisis is also due to the lack of democracy and the requisites of civil society in addition to disrespect for human rights. Almost half our potential is wasted because of the status of women in our society. This loss is further compounded by our illiterate population, which represent 55% of our total population.
We are therefore using only 25% of our human resources in an environment where lack of freedom impedes creativity and innovation, the two prerequisites for successful entry into the 21st century. What you call "fury" is nothing but the manifestation of disappointment after almost a quarter of a century of patience and dialogue within numerous international institutions such as UNESCO, the Club of Rome, the Word Future Studies Federation (WFSF) and Futuribles International as a researcher in prospective studies and as an advocate of international cooperation. I have constantly warned the West against the deleterious consequences of excessive ethnocentrism
which prevents any cultural communication between the North and the South.
I declared to Radio France International on September 27 that there would be a war. They did not take my statement seriously. Yet this is not what hurts me. A researcher's pride is not hurt by such attitudes. What you call "fury" is in fact a reaction to the appalling by the attitude of our leaders in the first place, who did not live up to the expectations of their peoples and who, instead of facing the crisis with seriousness and honesty, sought not only to use it for other purposes totally out of step with the feelings of their populations but also to strike deals from the prevailing situation. They are still unscrupulously continuing to talk about "Arab-European" dialogue and "Mediterranean Cooperation." This is the very origin of our crisis and it is perhaps more devastating than what the North did to us.
I have devoted a lifetime to international cooperation. I have been issuing warnings for years. I left the Society for International Development (SID) five years ago, and resigned from the Club of Rome three years ago, and I have recently left the Institute of the Arab World (Paris) to preserve my dignity and my integrity which are absolute requisites if I am to advance in the world of learning.
L.B.: If I understand you well, and here I am addressing myself to the researcher, the scientist and the scholar, we must henceforth give a greater moral dimension to our political, socio-economic and cultural relations. But don't you think that the world is in a state of crisis, North and South alike?
M.E.: The term "moral" scares me. It is used all too often. I have grown wary of this term ever since President Bush used it in an immoral way. I prefer to talk about an "ethical" crisis experienced by the North as well as the South in various ways. This crisis is further compounded by the North's rejection of the notion of diversity with respect to value systems.
At the first North-South round table in Rome, in 1978, I indicated that
the chief political problem in North-South relations was cultural in its
essence and that without a two-way cultural communication from the South
to the North and vice-versa, there was no way we could make even one step
forward. Our current crisis is, above all, a two-level cultural communication
crisis, between North and South, but also within the countries of the South.
Indeed we still have leaders, teachers and intellectuals who do not know
or do not want to engage in a cultural dialogue with their fellow citizens.
There are culturally alienated people who suffer from an inferiority complex
and who derive strength and inspiration only from the values of those who
colonized them.
Today, we are fortunate to have a new generation of people who are less than 25 years of age and who represent 70% of the Maghreb population. They have confidence in themselves and they clearly showed it during the war against Iraq though their leaders did nothing but take planes and convene meetings of ministers of foreign affairs in search for a so-called diplomatic solution, an objective they knew to be unrealistic. This was a mere ploy designed to gain time vis-à-vis public opinion in their respective countries because they did not have the courage to any significant support, save offering verbal support, or allowing people to take to the streets. History will never forgive this.
L.B.: Do we have to learn again how to communicate and talk to one another?
M.E.: We have to learn again or simply learn from scratch to be ourselves. We have to be more rigorous in our analysis and have at least a minimum measure of integrity in our social behaviour. This is what we call decency. We have too many people who have willingly or otherwise tarnished their reputation. We still have too many intellectuals and politicians, in the Maghreb in particular who, because of the "francophonie" recognize their own merits only if they have been acknowledged beforehand in Paris. So long as we have not settled this problem, so long as we continue to lack the courage to be ourselves, I believe that we do not have the right to be dispensing knowledge or running public affairs where there should be no room for mercenaries working in the service of the ready-made ideas and causes of others. True freedom is that of the self. It is the freedom of the soul, the heart and the spirit. True freedom consists in finding out whether we sleep at night with a clear conscience.
L.B.: Mr. Mahdi Elmandjra, we wish to avail ourselves of your presence and to enable our young students to benefit from it as well. Yesterday, there were again three students who visited us and told us that you understood the Gulf war, that nothing would henceforth happen without South being involved and that they would no longer remain in the backstage. Our ideas and our integrity are geared towards them. We are placing them at their disposal because we need to do that. I am convinced, as much as you are, that they will know what they have to do. I would like to go back to the redefinition of concepts that we shall perhaps have to study when we talk about "Islamology" and "orientalism." I would like to know if these concepts are still valid or if we need to redefine and streamline them?
M.E.: I would like, first, to go back to your remark on the students'
appreciation of my analysis. I have partially understood the Gulf crisis
and foreseen the Gulf war few months before it actually broke out because
I have been, without false modesty, following for years the work of Western
strategic studies institutes which used to invite me to meetings on "the
Arab World of the year 2000," "Africa in the year 2000" and "Future North-South
relations."
My forecasts are but the fruit of research work which was carried out for the sake of research itself. This is what I would call "technical" forecasts. I, too, Madam, actually understood what is unfolding in the Gulf only through the eyes of my students with whom I have the honour to be in contact on a daily basis by virtue of my profession as a teacher. They are the ones who opened my eyes to reality. It is also thanks to their letters--I shall give you a model which you may read to your listeners--that I understood that the mental structures, which entail socio-economic dependence and cultural mimicry, no longer have a decisive impact on them. They are acutely aware of the unjust international system in which the North, representing 20% of the world population, exploits 80% of the world resources and refuses any form of redistribution of wealth.
The countries attacking the Gulf today do not want their privileges to be challenged. Bush said that this war was meant to defend Western lifestyle and jobs. Yet, imbalances within the international system have reached such a level that it is no longer possible to tackle them with makeshift solutions, meetings with the EEC or an "Arab-European" cooperation which never existed. The youth find such paternalism and cultural arrogance to be quite repugnant. That is why I have been talking about cultural war for many years. In 1984, in Tokyo, I insisted as a guest speaker on NHR television programme which boasts an audience of 50 million watchers on the fact that future conflicts can only be cultural conflicts generated by clashing value systems.
We have committed monstruous mistakes during this war, which was primarily a psychological war and a war of misinformation. We endorsed concepts such as the "New World Order" and we even held symposia on the subject in Algiers and elsewhere. We also started using the term "humiliation." Westerners do not know that there is no equivalent in Arabic for the word "humiliation." The Arabic terms "Ihtiqaar" and "dhul" apply only to a person in the sense that the he or she feels self-humiliation; one may drop to one's knees before someone who is stronger. However, the true meaning of humiliation in Arabic does not apply to the person who suffers humiliation as much as it applies to the person whose intention is to humiliate another. The more our estranged Maghrebian intellectuals continue to say that we have "to wash out the humiliation we have suffered" the less chances they will have to understand grass-root reactions, particularly among our youth.
In the Maghreb, we are still too much influenced by French training.
French is spoken by less than 4% of the world population. According to
French experts themselves, France has a 15-year lee-way to make up for
in the technological field as is being shown by the Gulf war. Two-thirds
of French researchers publish their works in English because they know
that if they publish their findings in French, no one would read them,
not even in France.
We are lagging behind because of this situation. I am not saying, however, that we should replace the hegemony of French by that of English. Actually, the problem is elsewhere. There are times in history during which some languages imposed themselves in vehiculating ideas. Today, it is English; tomorrow, it could be Spanish or Japanese. Do people realize that by the year 2025 or 2030, Spanish will be the first spoken language in the United States? Whereas things are fastly developing, we persistently cling to a country which is regressing day after day. The French weekly, "L'Express," published last week the results of a poll which concerned public opinion in Europe. It revealed that not a single European country still considered France to be a power and many of them questioned its permanent seat in the Security Council.
Mitterand accepted to go to war not only because he wanted a piece of the after-war cake, but also because this was the price to pay if the United States is to continue to consider France as a "Superpower." It is this "logic of war" which led Mitterand yesterday to propose a meeting of the Security Council at Summit level. A few years ago, France still referred to the United Nations as a "gadget" ("machin"). Political opportunism, as we can say, has a flexibility of its own.
I would like to go back to your question on concepts. I think that we should no longer be merely responding to things. Systematic reacting is often an unhealthy phenomenon.
There is, in this world, something called the "human being," and the notion of human being transcends that of borders. I have struggled for the independence of my country with the same fervour as for that of Maghrebian, African, Asian and Latin-American countries regardless of race or religion. This universalism implies acknowledgement of the right to diversity. As you are a university radio station, those among you who specialize in biology surely realize that ecological survival, like that of species, including human beings, hinges primarily on diversity.
Each time we forego the slightest measure of this cultural diversity in our countries, each time we fight this diversity instead of highlighting it, we are inevitably taken one step backward.
Universalism does not mean hegemony. True universalism means acceptance
of differences. No two trees are alike, nor are any two human beings, nor
the two hands of the same body. The history of the evolution of organic
life--the latter itself being the outcome of an increasing diversification
which is the alpha and omega of a greater complexity--is tantamount to
a call for creativity and innovation. For human beings, freedom is the
power to safeguard and promote this diversity and to use, unrestrictedly,
the creativity it implies. To tell me that universalism means that I must
systematically agree with you is, to me, the very negation of the principle
of diversity.
You raised questions related to Islam. In my opinion, it is the religion which made diversity one of its fundamental pillars. Better still, Islam defends the right to differ ("haq al-ikhtilaf"). The Prophet even said that if a community on the earth should reach unanimity, God will replace it by another; the reason is that agreement is worthwile only if it is the outcome of a process encompassing all aspects of diversity.
People talk about democracy. As far as I am concerned, democracy died in the West. It died in the United States three days ago. When I read that 91% of the American population fully supported the policy of Mr. Bush and that, following the President's press conference, the White House spokesman turned to the journalists and asked them to shout "Long live Bush"--which they refused to do--I wondered what difference there was between that specific case and the situation prevailing in too many Third World countries.
Democracy is safe when no political party or movement receives more than 49.9% of the votes. If any single party or movement in any country receives more than 50.1% of the votes, democracy is in jeopardy because control mechanisms and protective measures are necessary; they are no longer possible in plebiscite cases.
The chief problem I faced as a human rights militant and about which I failed to be understood, concerned my rejection of imposed concepts which leave no room for people to voice their choice or to participate in the decision-making process, thus denying them the right--though fundamental--to difference. What is unquestionably universal is the sense of dignity in human beings and perhaps even in all living organisms.
I am deeply convinced that one day we shall discover a gene which will prove that the sense of dignity is innate in all human beings. Dignity is part and parcel of creativity. To seek to control and confiscate that dignity connotes not only cultural arrogance but also disrespect for the human species.
L.B.: Elmandjra is a man who is constantly struggling, even with himself and with his own passions. In fact, he is a passionate man, full of fire. What about freedom of thinking then?
M.E.: Without freedom of thinking, all what I am saying would be meaningless. Independent thinking is the ultimate value because it determines the very choice of values.
L.B.: Where does this independent thinking stand in the Arab world?
M.E.: This may be surprising to you, Madam, but independent thinking in the Arab world today is to be found in the streets and among students. Most of our leaders cannot enjoy this freedom because their minds are monitored from Washington, Moscow or Paris. The day our decision-makers will liberate themselves and
allow themselves the luxury of thinking freely without waiting for instructions from abroad, many things will change. What is involved here is not an elitist paternalism. Change does not proceed solely from the top.
Because of elitist views, some of our thinkers and politicians claim that our populations do not want democracy yet and that the elite must first educate the majority and steer it! According to this logic, the hundreds of thousands of victims of colonialism were not really asking for freedom, though they sacrificed their lives while "leaders" were signing petitions, appealing to the outside world and holding press conferences throughout the globe. When people were needed to fight and die for the country or to join the underground forces, they were asking for democracy and freedom. Today, however, as some people have seized power, corruption has become standard practice; they have burdened our countries with debt thanks to foreign assistance, but only so that they can remain in power. Things have changed however. What human being would not ask for dignity, justice, freedom and democracy?
L.B.: You cannot be naive, Mr. Elmandjra, and you know that the world has been this way for centuries. Do you want a new order, new ethical standards?
M.E.: This is hardly a problem of Mahdi Elmandjra. Evidently, I am for the survival of mankind. For the first time in history, Man has the ability to destroy himself. Do you know why, as early as September 1990, I was convinced that a military confrontation would break out and declared this on Radio France International (RFI)? The reason is that for 10 years, the United States has been investing huge funds in very sophisticated weaponry. I am referring to weapons they could never test on the field lest military secrets would be discovered by the USSR through their satellites. With the end of the cold war, it became possible to test these weapons in the Gulf.
Moreover, the Gulf war was, in a way, a simulation of a Soviet-American war. The Soviets wanted to assess the performance of these new weapons thanks to their satellites. 90% of the Iraqi weapons and military equipment were Soviet made, and the Iraqi army itself was trained along Soviet military lines.
Since the end of World War II, there have been 250 military conflicts; all of them took place in Third World countries. And today, these people want to give us lectures in morals and ethics! I am not a moralist. After freedom, self-commitment should be one of our top priorities. We no longer have the right to deceive ourselves or lie to others, particularly if we belong to the elite; an elite of whom a sizeable part has unfortunately been "recuperated."
When intellectuals or policy-makers become purchasable commodities with a quoted price, like in the stock exchange, the situation becomes quite worrisome. Here lies our crisis. The
crisis is in us in the first place. We should have the courage to
engage in self-criticism.
The Arab world has changed. It has learned a great deal from the Gulf crisis. It will never be the same again. The first positive lesson is that we are aware today, more than ever before, of the huge gap between the rulers and the governed.
History teaches us that, eventually, the governed always prevail. It is simply a matter of time. Even the pace of history has accelerated.
I do not feel any "humiliation." I am proud of the reactions of the young generations that will shape the future of this part of the world. I am happy that I have struggled, with the means available to me, against an injustice of unprecedented savagery. I do not have a guilty conscience. I was both surprised and extremely happy when Bagdad Radio contacted me by telephone on 24 January 1991 at 10:26 and asked me to make a statement to its audience. I was on the verge of tears because I kept thinking about those tens of thousands of innocent victims. No, I did not forget and never will. I know in advance that in few weeks or days, a number of our leaders and intellectuals will forget the death of 200,000 Iraqis. There are no bounds to opportunism in our countries.
L.B.: Is it oblivion? Amnesia?
M.E.: Oblivion, Madam, is one of our biggest sins. We have no collective memory. Anti-colonial struggle in the Arab World since World War II entailed 3 million casualties. For the entire Third World, the figure probably stands at 8 million casualties, men, women and children. We keep no record of the names of those casualties and much less information on the conditions of their disappearance. If we cannot honour even our deceased people, what could those who are still alive look forward to. Amnesia therefore permeates everything, even where genocide is involved. We have much to learn from Christians and Jews in this respect because our holocausts fall into oblivion amid a lack of human solidarity.
This amnesia is also due to a twofold fear. There is first an internal fear among leaders who are afraid of the future, who try to ignore the past in order to eternally live in the present. There is also a fear, outside our regions, in a West which is uncertain as to its medium and long-term future owing to the considerable imbalances of the international system.
I have been stressing for ten years the three major fears of the West, which are turning into obsessions.
First is the demographic fear. The total population of the countries of the North represents only 18% of the world population but is using 80% of total world resources. Before the year 2010 that figure will drop to 15% of the world population and less than 12% by the year 2040. This is the first major fear
of the West and the other two are partly related to it.
Second is the fear of Islam. According to Vatican figures, it was in 1985 that the number of Muslims (865 million) exceeded that of Christians (850 million) for the first time in history. Since then, there have been national as well as international campaigns against Islam, supported by the media, in which the only subject was fundamentalism, integrism and "bearded people." The figures are quite clear: today, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world (less than 20% of whom are Arabs). According to Bourgeois Pichat, President of the International Demographers Association (who died a few months ago), Muslims will account for a third of the world population by the year 2025.
Third, is the fear of Asia, primarily of Japan, the technological and economic giant, but also of the Chinese and Indian sub-continents.
Let us, however, set aside fears and go back to our shortcomings. The two biggest mistakes made by our governments since independence are the lack of political will to eradicate illiteracy and the lack of interest in scientific research. Fundamental principles of Islam have thus been violated. The first revealed Qur'anic verse starts with: "Read in the name of God." This clearly shows that Islam has come to free the individual from any form of clergy so that he may acquire the ability to interpret the Holy Book himself.
As for scientific research, which is a form of "Ijtihad" in the noblest acceptation of the term, we fail to devote to it even 0.3% of our GDP.
As a result, we do not take the rightful measure of interest in our human resources. Similarly, our officials neglect our local experts and are constantly seeking foreign technical assistance. Do people realize that there are 1,200 Maghrebian researchers at France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)? Who helps whom? Since the Gulf conflict, their number is being checked both by the CNRS and by French security services, but not by our official authorities!
Let me conclude in the hope that my conclusion will answer some of
your implicit as well as explicit questions. My resignation from the Institute
of the Arab World was meant to convey two messages: to show at least a
minimum of self-respect in the face of the hypocrisy and animosity shown
by the French government towards the Arab world; second, it was a token
of respect and support for its President, Edgar Pisani, who was truly shattered
by this war. It is the duty of each intellectual to undertake self-examination
and draw his own conclusions. I grew up in the fifties, the years of Maghrebian
liberation movements. Our struggle implied respect for the other party
and the hope that it would change its behaviour in the light of actual
facts and of the intrinsic generosity of human beings in which we believed.
I spent more than half of my life abroad. I have always spoken my
mind in all frankness and honesty, and I hold this to be a token of respect
for my interlocutors, and most of the time it is understood as such particularly
when the other party does not agree with you. The main thing is to have
confidence in oneself. I am happy to note what the University of Algiers
is doing in this respect. When I am in Algiers, I listen only to your radio.
I do not need a dish to listen to news from elsewhere for you are working
on building a collective memory which is the prime source of the confidence,
dignity and hope of all these young people who are listening to you. Thank
you for having given me the opportunity to get closer to them.
Algiers, 6 March 1991
(Interview Leila Boutaleb)
* Broadcast, by the Radio of the University of Algiers, on the evening of March 6, 1992.