Televised historical dramas are often successful, yet critics are almost always astounded by their success. The public discussions around last Ramadan’s King Farouk television series are still alive.
In the past decade, two movies about former Presidents Nasser and Sadat, and a television series about the legendary Um Kulthoum sparked very similar reactions. Typically some factual errors are pointed out, but quickly dismissed in the face of overwhelming celebrations of the quality of the work and what it says about the possibility of good art in Egypt. Even more common is elevating the celebrated drama to the status of revisionist history or, even more boldly, historical rehabilitation.
Artists, scholars and columnists have credited the King Farouk series for correcting our views of the patriotic king and the liberal democracy that Egypt witnessed during his reign. His surviving relatives were sought by popular television programs in order to announce their civilized manners, patriotism and benevolence towards the poor. Furthermore, hundreds of black and white photos depicting pre-1952 streets, clean and uncrowded, were posted on the popular social networking website, Facebook.
Of course, this talk about the past is a way of criticizing the country’s present, which is anything but a liberal democracy with clean streets. However, criticizing the present is not necessarily the same as commendable political action. Factual errors notwithstanding, the political discussion instigated by the series was and still is wrongheaded in several ways.
First, many took the King Farouk drama as a demonstration of how a society can still function well despite being divided along class lines. The idealization and glorification of the royal court’s traditions must have been self-assuring for Egypt’s new elites. Their extravagant lifestyle is not only a function of their wealth. Rather, it is the continuation of a tradition that has existed in Egypt for a long time, save for the “dark ages of the 1950s and 1960s. Hence, it should not stir discontent among the have-nots. In this elite utopia, equality and social justice are relegated to a matter of benevolence on the part of the rich.
Today, as the government is giving in to private business, the issue of social responsibility is politically contentious, and rightly so. If the country is ever to transition successfully into a free-market economy where the role of government is minimal, it is just as important to do so safely. The distribution of wealth and social security are as urgent as economic performance. They cannot be replaced by erratic, even if sometimes generous, acts of giving by the rich.
Second, in response to official statements that Egypt is not ready for democracy, some were tempted to use King Farouk’s reign (1936-1952) as a way of proving that democracy can find a natural medium to grow in the country. This move is politically charged to the extent of being counter-productive. If democracy à la Farouk is what we want, then we are content with a monarch who is not a ceremonial head of state but an active player on the political scene. In other words, it is a way of saying that we see no contradiction and have no problem with a hereditary ruler and a veneer of democracy. It is dangerous to be making such a careless statement in this critical moment when this scenario is more than plausible.
Finally, the admiration that many have shown to the person of Farouk because of his alleged personal piety is laughable. The former King might not have enjoyed drinking alcohol and may have been a loyal husband. But, this should not be enough to make him praiseworthy and does not save him from political and historical judgment. He was an inexperienced, weak and ultimately failed ruler. The piety of a ruler, if at all ascertainable, is in many cases irrelevant to politics. The long tradition of political prisons, torture, corruption and military defeats that date back to pre-1952 governments are more serious than the King Farouk drama and its admirers would have us believe.
Engaging history could be a powerful means to participate in politics. This is exactly why this engagement should be politically responsible. The ongoing discussion about Egypt’s bygone monarchy is fixated on any system that resembles democracy and affluence even if for a small elite. Its dismissal of what this fixation means for Egypt today should and must be actively countered. Omar Chetais a doctoral student of Middle East history at New York University.
