Articles

Mahgoub Al-Tigani, Ph.D.

Recently (January 1, 2001) Mr. Shafie' Khidir, NDA leader, and Dr. Omer Nour Al-Dayim, Umma leader, discussed with GOS representative, the Sudanese Ambassador in the U.K., many issues on the state of affair of Sudan via the Jazeera Channel in Qatar.

The way Mr. Khidir, in particular, carefully listened, thoughtfully replied, and consistently curbed himself from interruption of the opponent on the other side of the program was indeed a unique example of civilized discussion in the Jazeera influential media.

On the other hand, I was indeed wondering, having carefully watched almost most of the Arab politicians, government or opposition, debating with Dr. Faysal Al-Qasim, coordinator of the well-known Jazeera program "Akthar min Ray" issues of their Arab States, why is it that the discussants:

• Would not allow one another to speak without interruption
• Shout at one another, sometimes with offensive words
• Would not answer directly any question but rather make lengthy introductions or roundabouts before they address themselves to the question.

I thought it might be that (1) the discussants know that there is a small margin of liberty back at home for both of them to talk.  (2) This lacking in public freedoms at home creates the demand for the discussants to supply as much ideas as they could. They need to say as much as they can within the limited time of the program. (3) Perhaps there is a special psychology for the Arab discussants.

The Arab speaking discussants, I thought, might want to satisfy Antar (the famous knight who continues to live inside them for centuries through socialization and education). They might need to talk like Antar, shout at the enemy like Antar, interrupt the opponent like Antar, and of course triumph over the other discussant (even if there is a good chance for logical agreements without this Antarism).

The Arab speaking intellectuals and politicians I am seeing these days at the Jazeera Channel want to behave like Antar with no possibility of any compromise or agreement, whatever. They do like the Northern Sudanese proverb: "Ya qiriq, ya geet ha-zima" [i.e., Either I win the whole thing or leave it all].

I watched the coordinator, Faysal Al-Qasim, a professional media specialist, always interrupting the discussants, never leaving them to complete their sentences. He like them will not lose a minute not to incite the discussants with all kinds of interruptions. The program is thus a real picture of the political arena in the Arab States today.

Many of the sightseers would feel frustrated, as the discussants are not clearly saying what they are supposed to say. Many would feel funny as some commentators follow suit, shouting and interrupting and going about the questions. The program coordinator, the discussants, the commentators, and the sightseers all shouting and yelling at one another!

The exceptional cases are there too. Very few times, Faysal would invite Arab thinkers or politicians who exert a great effort not to allow Antar to show his face from under their tongues or through their thought. They would not interrupt one another. They would agree and sometimes surrender in peace, perhaps because they would have known the other discussant might have been completely overridden by Abu Al-Fawaris [the Knight of Knights], Antar! So, better watch out in silence, in a noble protest than join a brutal shout, I sometimes feels.

The interesting fact, though, is that the majority of these exceptional discussants were visitors whom Faysal invited to participate in his program from time to time. They mostly live in western societies, the U.K. or the U.S.A. That is when the commentators would pour all insults on them, "Americans! Colonial subjects!" and some other labels I never would write.

When would the Arab discussants pull off their souls, for good, the Antar who continues to seat a non-compromising presence upon the Arab political relations as well as cultural or social relations? Antar is already living in the Arab family relations, marriage relations, or even the friendship relations between the citizens of Arab States, the Arab speaking versus the
non-Arabs, the Arab Muslims versus the non-Muslims.

Why couldn't the Arab citizens start the corrective process with the simple workaday discussions that most humans do all over the world without a compelling mode to victor over one another or smilingly humiliate the peaceful opponent?