When political dissidents who challenge authoritarian leaders are locked away in prison, when they are tortured and their families threatened, the goal is to break their resolve, to crush their spirit, to silence them.
Many political prisoners in Egypt are kept at Tora Prison. For many opponents of authoritarian regimes, jail hardens their resolve.
So how come so many get right back to it when they are finally freed? What compels them to fight on at the risk of great personal sacrifice?
Last week, Fathi al-Jahmi died a prisoner of Libya. He was a father, a husband, an older brother, a sharp critic of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In 2004, after 18 months in prison, he was set free. But he was supposed to remain silent, to go home and vanish from public view. His family begged him to comply. He refused.
“He suffered so much, the torture, he really felt he had no choice,” said his younger brother, Mohamed Eljahmi, in a telephone interview from his home in the United States.
All across the Middle East, indeed the world, authoritarian governments use the power of punishment to try to intimidate and silence.
The practice may succeed as a deterrent, spreading fear among those who have not yet experienced the chill of a jail cell, the debasement of a strip search, the pain of electric shock.
But for those who have already faced the worst, the threats often have the reverse effect. In Iran, the state once jailed Emad Baghi for his work against the death penalty and in support of prisoners’ rights. In Syria, Michel Kilo was locked up after calling on President Bashar al-Assad to build citizenship and rule of law. In Egypt, Saad Eddin Ibrahim was imprisoned because of his work in support of democracy.
As Mr. Jahmi did, they each chose to continue to speak up when they were released.
“If I abandon my cause, then I will let them accomplish their goal,” Mr. Kilo said in a telephone interview after being released this month after three years in prison.
“No, I have not been broken,” he said, his voice still frail and weak.
Ayman Nour, a former presidential candidate and sharp critic of President Hosni Mubarak, served four years in Egypt’s Tora Prison after being convicted of charges widely regarded as politically inspired. But the night of his release in February, he appeared on Egypt’s most popular television talk show and resumed his attacks on the government.
Are these dissidents extraordinary? Are they crazy, perhaps, or egomaniacal, as some critics have said? Or are they all too human, fighting to maintain a sense of personal worth that the state has tried to strip away?
What do you think? After asking those questions, the author of the article goes on to attribute the stubornness of dissidents to something in the culture of the Middle East, though the phenomenon seems pretty universal, having little to do with culture. (These are the "zero threshold" people). Read the rest.
(cross-posted)
Reading this article I get the sense that these activists are defined and have defined themselves as opponents to tyranny. They talk about being unable to stop speaking out about the courruption and abuse of power of their governments. To back down at the threat of more physical punishment would not be worth it as physical hardship is nothing compared to moral and spiritual emptiness. They define themselves as opponents to bad regime and any deprivations they suffer at the hands of that regime only further demonstrates the righteousness of their cause. You can only bend a bar so far until it breaks.
ReplyDeleteThe aritcle argues that the history of martyrdom may account for the stubborness of these dissidents, but I agree with Xavier that it is a universal phenomenom. Mandela, Ghandi and Qutb are three revolutionary types that I can think of offhand who depsite being locked up and abused refused to shut up and slink away and thus led supporters to see a sense of divine providence in their struggles. And has anyone seen "The Wind That Shakes The Barley"? Cilian Murphy plays one stubborn mick. Oh and "Braveheart" too, thats pretty good.
Another aspect that this article doesn't seem to raise is that a lot of these dissidents are do what they do for people other than themselves. In some cases they know of people whose welfare they hold above their own suffering abuses or they may value their own suffering as bearable and recognise other peoples as not being so. Additionally, many people probably feel that if they are able bodied and free then it is their OBLIGATION to do whatever is in their power to fight for what is right!
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that this pattern of dissidence and martyrdom is certainly universal, history has probably had an affect of some sort. When there are examples around, and when there is evidence that those example have led to important and progressive change, it surely would act as reassurance and inspiration to those who choose to resist tyranny
Or perhaps you could argue that these dissidents are selfish? They don't care about pain inflicted on themselves so it is no consequence to them, but they also don't care that by their actions pain will be inflicted on their family and friends. Aha! (Thank you Gregory House)
ReplyDelete