INDICTMENT OF EGYPT ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: THE 2020 PEW REPORT

On 10 November 2020, Pew Research Center (a nonpartisan fact tank that inform the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world) published its 11^th report on a series of annual reports analysing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices. The report is concerned with the year 2018 (the most year for which data is available); and it studies, and rates, 198 countries and territories by their level of government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion. The study is based on 10-point indices, and these are grouped into two main indices:

• The Government Restriction Index (GRI): it measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices, including banning particular faiths, prohibiting conversion, limiting preaching or giving preferential treatment to one or more religious groups. In total, the GRI includes 20 measures of restrictions.
• The Social Hostilities Index (SHI): it measures acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organisations or groups in society. This includes religion-related armed conflict or terrorism, mob or sectarian violence, harassment over attire for religious reasons, or other religion-related intimidation or abuse. In total, the SHI includes 13 measures of hostilities.

The report is an indictment of Egypt’s treatment of its Coptic Christian minority; but the Coptic Christians of Egypt are not the only ones who find their religious freedom restricted by both government and society: other groups also suffered in 2018, including the Shiites, Baha’is, and Ahmadis. So, what are the general findings (global and regional) of the report and those that are specific to Egypt? Here are my analysis of the report.

FIRST: THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL PICTURE

1. Government Restrictions on Religion (GRI)

In 2018, the global median level of government restrictions continued to climb, reaching all-time high since Pew Research Center began tracking these trends in 2007.

The total number of counties with “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions has been mounting as well, climbing from 52 countries (26% of the 198 countries and territories included in the study) in 2017 to 56 (28%) in 2018, with most of these countries being in the Asia-Pacific region (25 countries out of 50, that’s 50%) and the Middle East and North Africa region (18 counties out of 20, that’s 90%).

The Middle East and North Africa still has the highest median level of government restrictions, with a score of 6.2 on GRI – up from 6.0 in 2017, more than double the global median (2.9) and its highest point since the aftermath of the Arab Spring in 2012.

But, within these countries, some countries stand out as the worst, including Egypt, as we shall see.

2. Social Hostilities Involving Religion

Globally, social hostilities declined slightly in 2018 after hitting an all-time high in 2017, with the SHI falling from 2.1 in 2017nto 2.0 in 2018, which is a tiny improvement.

In 2018, countries with “high” or “very high” levels of social hostilities also declined slightly from 56 (28% of the 198 countries and territories in the study) to 53 (27%).

The Middle East and North Africa region SHI also declined to a near its all-time low of 3.7 in 2007. As the reader shall see, Egypt’s score is still very high, and it still scores as having “very high” level of SHI.

The Middle East and North Africa stand out as the most harassing region for Christians in 2018. Of the 20 countries in the region, 19 had some sort of harassment targeting Christians (either by government or social groups).

SECOND: COUNTRIES WITH VERY HIGH LEVEL

Definition

A country with a very high level of government restriction on religion or social hostilities is a country with the most extensive restrictions.

1. Government Restrictions on Religion (GRI)

Definition: A country with a very high level of government restriction on religion is a country with the most extensive restrictions, scoring 6.6 or higher on the 10-point GRI.

The table below shows these countries in 2017 (27 countries) and 2018 (26 countries):

As the reader can see, Egypt ranks high, and has crept from number 6 in 2017 to number 5 in 2018. Egypt did not only go up in the list of the baddies, even when its GHI dropped a little from 8.0 in 2017 to 7.7 in 2018. It is still higher than its score in 2007 (7.2).

2. Social Hostilities Involving Religion

Definition: A country with a very high level of social hostilities is a country with the most extensive hostilities, scoring 7.2 or higher on the 10-point GRI.

The table below shows these countries in 2017 (10 countries) and 2018 (10 countries):

As the reader can see here again, Egypt ranks high, and comes second in the notorious list, and getting worse compared with 2017 (when it occupied the third place). The same thing we see here again, this happen as we see Egypt’s SHI improves from 8.5 in 2017 to 7.7 in 2018. This again is still higher than its index in 2007 (6.1). If Egypt is improving a little on the SHI and on the GRI, it is not improving significantly or in the same speed as the rest of the world; and both indices are still higher than what they were in 2007 under President Mubarak.

THIRD: RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGION BY REGIME TYPE

For the first time Pew studied the relationship between governmental restriction and social hostilities on one hand and the type of regime in the country. They wanted to see if these restrictions and hostilities in democratic countries are more or less than in authoritarian countries. In other words, does democracy decrease or increase governmental restrictions on religion and the social hostilities from the dominant religion towards the minority religions within the country.

For classifying countries according to the level of democracy, they relied on the Democracy Index (DI) compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This DI measures the state of democracy in 165 independent countries and two territories around the world. It assesses these based on 60 questions broadly covering five themes: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. Each state is given a numeric score between 0 and 10 on the index and is classified into four regime types:

• Full democracies: scores higher than 8
• Flawed democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than or equal to 8
• Hybrid regimes: scores greater than 4, and less or equal to 6
• Authoritarian regimes: score less than or equal to 4

1. Relationship between the level of democracy and religion restrictions by government

Pew found:

• There is nil association between fully democratic countries and religion restrictions (no country which is fully democratic has a “very high” level of governmental restriction on religion; and only one had a “high” level).
• There is, however a strong association between authoritarianism and government restrictions on religion (of countries with “very high” restriction on religion by government, 65% of them are authoritarian. Also, 40% of governments with “high” restrictions are authoritarian. Of authoritarian countries, only 7% had a low government restriction on religion).
• Governments that are either flawed democracies or hybrid regimes have mixed figures in between the full democracies and the authoritarian regimes.
• Egypt is classified as authoritarian regime since it scores only 3.36 on the DI, and it has a “very high” level of government restriction on religion (7.7 on the GRI as we have seen).

2. Relationship between the level of democracy and social hostilities by the majority religion

Pew found:

• Here again, we see that no full democracy exhibits any “very high” level of social hostility towards minority religions. There are five full democracies (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) that have “high” level of social hostilities. This includes things that are not injurious to life or property, as the writer can see. The report says: “In Switzerland, for instance, Muslim groups reported growing anti-Muslim sentiments due to negative coverage by the media and hostile discourse on Islam by right-leaning political parties. During the year, for instance, a journalist who had initiated a local ban on face coverings handed out a ‘Swiss Stop Islam Award’ of about $2,000 UDS to three recipients.” The reader can compare this type of social hostility in Switzerland to what the Copts in Egypt receive from the Islamists.
• But here, unlike with the case in relation to government restrictions on religion, we find that not as many countries with authoritarian regimes show “very high” or “high” level of hostilities towards religious minorities emanating from society’s individuals, organisations and groups that do not form part of the regime. In fact, 17 countries (21%), including Eritrea and Kazakhstan, with low social hostilities involving religion were classified as authoritarian. In addition, many other countries with very high government restrictions on religion, such as China, Iran and Uzbekistan, have moderate level of social hostilities. This, as Pew says, may be due to the high levels of government control over religion, leading to fewer hostilities by non-governmental actors. But Pew’s opinion is not clear enough: does that mean that the authoritarian regime actually does what society wants in terms of restricting religious freedom of minorities (and therefore there is no need for society to interfere)? Or does that mean that in these authoritarian regimes, though they restrict religious freedom, they don’t want any other group within the state to take action on this sphere and challenge the government’s authority?
• It is important to note Egypt’s position here:
  • Egypt has a very high level of religion restriction by the government.
  • Egypt has a very high level of social hostilities from the Sunni Muslim majority against the Coptic Christians.
  • So, the very high level of Egypt’s government’s restriction of religious freedom of non-Sunni inhabitants mirrors the social very high level of hostilities by the Sunni Muslim inhabitants. Why is that?
  • Let us first compare Iran (a Shiite Muslim authoritarian regime) with Egypt (a Sunni Muslim authoritarian regime) by studying their GRI and SHI in following table:

• Both Iran and Egypt have very high level of government restrictions; however, while Egypt’s social hostility level is very high too, that in Iran is moderate.
• Is the level of social hostility in Iran lower than that in Egypt because Iran’s level of restriction on religious freedom satisfies the Shiite majority or is it because Iran controls its people better and would not allow any non-governmental actors to act on the matter of religion? Is the level of social hostility in Egypt similar to the governmental restriction because the Muslims of Egypt are not satisfied by the very high of religious restrictions the government imposes or is it because the government is weaker than that of Iran’s and cannot control its mobs?
•  Another possibility, however, arises, born of Egypt’s internal politics at the present where the Military control power with a popular support from the Salafist Islamists who are widespread throughout Egypt. It seems that both Egypt’s government and its Muslim support base – the Salafists – work in tandem; and the high level of social hostilities towards the Copts – and others, including non-Sunni Muslims – is done with tacit approval by the government. This explains why the authoritarian regime of President Sisi is reluctant t tackle the attacks by the Salafists on the Copts: the Salafists are allies of the military regime.

CONCLUSION

1. Egypt is notorious for restriction of religion on both the governmental and society levels. It has very high level of Government Restriction Index (7.7) and Social Hostilities Index (7.5), occupying the 10th position on the global GRI list of 198 countries and territories and the 7th position on the SHI global list.
2. The government in Egypt is classified as authoritarian regime on the Democracy Index; and as such, it is unsurprising that it has a very high level of governmental restriction on religion and social hostilities by the Sunni Muslim majority against the Coptic Christians.
3. While many authoritarian regimes with very high level of governmental restriction on religion, such as China and Iran, succeed in controlling the social hostilities from the majority towards the minorities, Egypt fails in that. This is likely due to the alliance between the military regime and the Salafist Islamists, and indicates that President Sisi’s appearances as a non-partisan president and an anti-Islamist campaigner is actually deceptive. It is more accurate to think of Sisi as an ally to the Salafist Islamists even though he is anti-Muslim Brotherhood. President Sisi’s problem with the Muslim Brotherhood is not a marker of him being anti-Islamist but only a reflection of his political power struggle with the Muslim Brotherhood.
4. There is no indication, based on all Pew reports since 2013 when President Sisi seized power, that the governmental restriction on religion and social hostilities against the Copts have improved.
5. The Copts must work for democracy – full democracy – for, as the global picture demonstrates, only in full democracy does religious freedom reign.

_________________