August 19, 2013
In 1947,
after the Second World War had drawn to a close, Elizabeth Noel Newman
established a public opinion research center in West Germany. One of Newman's
greatest accomplishments was the publication of her book in 1984 in which she
presented her theory, the “Spiral of Silence.” She outlined the process of
public opinion formation, and elucidated the causes and consequences of public
opinion by way of the majority, as a result of a sort of herd mentality. Her
theory explains the process of public opinion formation concerning a particular
topic as being driven, initially, by the idea having both supporters and opponents.
The insistence of the supporters, if met with failure from detractors to refute
the idea, leads to the gradual increase in effect of the idea. This forces detractors
into the difficult position of being embarrassed to put forth their opinion, resulting
in the gradual muffling of their voices until the idea becomes established as
one without opposition, perhaps the result of a form of social conformity.
The
spiral of silence then spreads into comprehensive systems and applies itself to
our contemporary political life in myriad situations. A case in point is the
High Dam project, which undoubtedly changed life in Egypt, from the system of
irrigation, tied to the lives of approximately half of the Egypt's population, to
securing of water, the primary necessity for survival. Opposition voices—disapproving
of the dam project on the grounds that it might produce negative repercussions like
a depletion of Nile silt or an increased risk of earthquakes—were weak at the
initiation of the project. Criticism was thus relegated to silence in the face
of a media machine that promoted the project as a historic achievement for
which all Egyptians could be proud. A number of years later, when the green
light was given to attack Gamal Abdel Nasser, opposition to the High Dam project
swelled. In parallel, voices supporting the project’s development schemes and efforts
to eliminate poverty in rural areas faded away.
The same
thing occurred in the sixties following the decision to nationalize the centers
of industrial production. Consider what happened in the wake of numerous
national and ministerial decisions in the past few decades, such as the housing
laws, the laws regulating and deregulating the rent of agricultural land, and
the decisions to first eliminate, and then reinstate the sixth year of primary
education. In each of these cases the loudest voice was the state, which
relentlessly strangled opposition voices, leaving no room for society to
reflect on the outcome of these decisions. There was no space to weigh the
positive and negative consequences against one another, or understand the
necessities of implementation. Over the decades, this context has robbed
Egyptian society of the opportunity to rationally align itself behind a
national project if its positive attributes outweigh the negative.
The
spiral of silence also appears in societies facing crises, be they democratic
or authoritarian societies. American history is full of such cases. Among them:
the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II; the promotion of
invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction; the many undulations of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The latter case
shows how citizens in the Western community fall into the clutches of the
spiral of silence, notwithstanding a few exceptions.
The
reader might well wonder why I raise this issue in such a tumultuous period
wherein we see Egypt teetering on the brink of collapse. The reason is my fear
that the current political scene might gradually lead to the Egyptian public
falling victim to this vicious spiral.
One of
the January 25th revolution's outcomes has certainly been the creation of a
sharp multi-dimensional polarization (remnants versus revolutionaries,
Islamists versus liberals, pro- versus anti-Muslim Brotherhood). Polarization
has extended to include class and geographical dimensions, which could
negatively affect the cohesiveness of Egyptian society in the future. Such
multi-dimensional polarization creates a context of tension and continuous
conflict. Given the tendency toward extremism and unwillingness to accept the
other, the consequence is a state of in fighting, which could lead to the
destruction of a nation that has been united for thousands of years. That being
said, multi-dimensional polarization presents a number of positive attributes that
allow for the expression of a modicum of diversity that enriches political and
cultural life.
The
current political situation is so complex, though, that it encourages observers
to point to a one-dimensional fault line, the focus of which is the Muslim
Brotherhood. Such a perspective underestimates the factors involved in the multidimensional
polarization that Egyptian society has experienced over the last three months. Reducing
the conflict to “pro-Brotherhood” or “anti-Brotherhood” muddles the picture. To
be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood has committed a number of grievous mistakes and
lost the trust bestowed upon them by the majority of the Egyptian electorate by
entering into a number of unnecessary political conflicts. However, we must
pause in the face of the content produced by most media institutions in the
last few weeks in terms of their evaluation of the Muslim Brotherhood, its role
and history. The content has been characterized by a significant degree of
generalization. It has failed to differentiate between the Brotherhood's
leadership— which may well have committed crimes against the Egyptian
public—and a faction of the Egyptian populace that belongs to or sympathizes
with the Brotherhood, but was not responsible for the leadership’s actions. This
oversimplification reduces the likelihood that Brotherhood members might revise
their positions, making it all but impossible for them to re-examine their
assumptions, and leaving the resort to radicalism and martyrdom as the only available
alternatives.
The
mistake we appear to have fallen into—in the wake of Brotherhood rule—is the
search for an enemy to whom we can assign all blame for previous mistakes
thereby justifying otherwise unjustifiable exceptional procedures. Such a situation will doubtless lead to
mistakes being committed that are just as grievous as those perpetrated by the
Muslim Brotherhood, whether it be the adoption of unnecessary decisions or the
failure to implement necessary policies.
Given the
fragility of the current situation and the necessity of avoiding violence, the
greatest danger is that the current political struggle be transformed into a
struggle that brings Egypt back to the paradigm of the sixties: “No voice should
be louder than the war’s voice.” This comfortable paradigm lends itself to a
lack of accountability and transparency, and is usually accompanied by the widening
of the spiral of silence to include within its grasp all citizens responding to
social conformity. If such a situation should occur, the hands of time would be
pulled backwards to the detriment of the nation.
Magued Osman is the CEO and
managing director of the Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research, Baseera. This article originally appeared in Al-Shorouk.