From Sports To Politics, What Egypt Doesn’t Understand About Competition

-Analysis-

CAIRO — An Egyptian track cyclist was disqualified from the Paris Olympics by the Egyptian Olympic Committee on July 14, after a video surfaced that appeared to show her knocking a competitor off her bicycle during the national championship in April.

While she insists it was an accident, the incident has raised questions about her sports ethic and fair play mindset; she continued the race with indifference to her fallen colleague.

The cyclist’s attitude has prompted comparison with another Egyptian athlete: judoka Mohamed Rashwan, who chose fair play over a gold medal at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. In the finals against Japan’s Yasuhiro Yamashita, who had torn a right calf muscle in the preliminaries, Rashwan chose not to attack Yamashita’s right leg, later stating that he did not regard that as a fair play. Rashwan was subsequently given an award from the International Fairplay Committee and became a legend of modern sportsmanship.

These events raise questions about seeking victory by any means. But what is certain is that, in general, there is confusion about the concept of competition in Egyptian society, which denounces it in the first place.

The concept of competition

Anyone who is at the forefront of any field finds it shameful and perhaps impudent for someone to think about competing with him according to specific rules. The basic principle of political competition is that it is conducted in accordance with the constitution and the law, in order to gain the confidence of voters to establish the government.

Late President Anwar Sadat was an example when he denounced an opposition party’s effort to rule the country. After he allowed the creation of political parties in late 1970s, politician Fouad Serageldin and other politicians affiliated with Wafd Party, who established many governments in the first half of the 20th century, reestablished their party.

But Sadat, in a famous speech in September 1981, listed his democratic achievements including freeing political prisoners, allowing freedoms and political parties, including the Wafd Party.

In Egypt, there is great stigma against those who dare to compete.

“I gave them a party and a newspaper and allowed them to run in elections and speak freely with the people. But they want to rule the country,” Sadat said, denouncing the party’s efforts to win elections and form the government. It was as if any party’s pursuit of power was a crime and not a fundamental and main goal of political parties, and a legal and constitutional basis for the logic of the political process in a multi-party political environment.

The main goal of political parties is to compete for power. Their candidates compete for parliamentary seats or the presidential seat. That is not a shameful or criminal practice.

But in Egypt, there is great stigma against those who dare to compete, or seek to compete within an agreed upon legitimate framework. Presidential candidates are stigmatized on social media, and others are imprisoned for various reasons.

Limited competition

This aversion to competition also applies to sports, especially soccer, Egypt’s most popular sport. Teams should compete according to specific rules and regulations and equal opportunities, but many insiders indicate that fair competition does not exist in Egypt’s soccer system.

Many years ago, friend, who was a board member and former president of the Egyptian Football Association, explained to me how a senior military commander, who was known as a big fan of Cairo’s Zamalek soccer club, intervened in managing the Egyptian league in the 1990s to ensure that Zamalek came out on top.

This commander scheduled the matches so that Zamalek played the weakest teams before going up against the stronger teams, while, Al-Ahly, the most successful soccer club in Egypt and Africa, faced the stronger teams first. He also intervened to prevent the relegation of Zamalek to the lower division.

In 2000, Egyptian Affairs magazine, by the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, published a series of reports about how senior government officials, who were Al Ahly fans, asked then Prime Minister Kamal Ganzouri, who was also the president of the Supreme Council for Sports, to remove businessman Ibrahim Othman from his post as president of the government-owned Arab Contractors Company, because he was supporting the Ismaily soccer club with the company’s funds.

Preoccupy the masses

At the time, the Ismaily club was a frontrunner for the soccer league title, and the officials said Othman’s support would help Ismaily win the league and “irritate the public” — because Al Ahly has the biggest fanbase in Egypt. Othman was removed by then powerful Housing Minister Mohamed Ibrahim Suleiman. His removal benefited Al Ahly by cutting off a major support line for Ismaily.

Al Ahly then bought most of the Ismaily stars and formed a golden squad that dominated Egyptian competitions in the second half of the 2000s. Meanwhile, Ismaily club began a gradual journey of collapse and did not succeed in maintaining any of its brilliant stars in the following years.

Government policies were meant to limit the competition to Al Ahly and Zamalek, the most popular clubs.

I asked Ganzouri about this incident during a private meeting in 2011, and he did not deny it. He added that the governments at the time allowed the Zamalek club to settle large debts in order to keep it in the competition. He said the policies were meant to limit the competition to Al Ahly and Zamalek, the most popular clubs.

This popularity gave the two clubs the loudest voice and the strongest influence within Egypt’s soccer system. The government maintained the clubs and limited their competition as a means to preoccupy the masses.