In the wake of the news that “Islamists” have won the first round of the Egyptian elections, I’ve seen a lot of lazy writing from people who know better. They’re either saying that this proves revolutions don’t work or offering some light fearmongering about scary Mooslims.
Let’s look at this more closely. First, “Islamist” is a made-up word. Anyone who follows Islam, apparently, is an Islamist. Egypt is an Islamic country. There’s no surprise whatsoever that a culturally conservative party like the Muslim Brotherhood with a 20-year head start in organizing over every other party in the race would capture a plurality of votes in the first round of polling – a fact left out of most of the freak-outs, there are months and months to go in the Egyptian elections. Moderate Islamists took elections in Morocco and Tunisia as well, so this isn’t evidence of some failure of the revolution, but an obvious cultural and political shift.
Second, the Muslim Brotherhood is the more moderate of the so-called “Islamist” parties in Egypt. The hardline Salafists finished well back, although they did better than expected. And it was the Egyptian Bloc, a coalition of liberal parties, which ended up in second, despite having no experience in politics and dealing with snap elections against a far better organized opponent.
Third, I don’t think there’s any need for knee-jerk fear of the Muslim Brotherhood. We simply don’t have that level of analysis yet to understand what’s going on. Here’s Issandr El Amrani with his take. He says that the Salafists are the bigger concern, but that the Muslim Brotherhood has a choice to make:
The first choice the Muslim Brothers have to face (if they do not have a majority alone) is either to rally Islamists around them or try and create a broader coalition, as they have indicated over the summer they would prefer. It’s also a choice for those parties that, in a sense, ran specifically against the Brothers. They have to decide whether pragmatism should trump whatever incompatibilities exist.
Among my Egyptian friends (most decidedly on the liberal side) there is now tremendous worry about a future in which politics is ruled on the one hand by identitarian Islamist politics and on the other by a populist, hyper-nationalistic army. I don’t think it has to be so, and we could very well see a transition to a democratic (but not liberal) system which allows for rotation of power. Liberals now also have to make some tough choices about consolidating their presence, making alliances with both Islamists and people associated with the former ruling party. (And never mind the regional impact of this election, the subject of a future post.)
In the end, this seems to be mainly a factor of a well-organized group defeating a loose coalition thrown together at the last minute. Liberal democratic types in Egypt have to play catch-up. Revolutions may happen overnight, but the aftermath takes years. This is definitely a don’t mourn, organize moment.
For a far better take on the outcome, check Thomas P. Barnett. And Matt Yglesias has a good piece on the economics of Egypt.




7 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This was both predictable & widely predicted. BC of the organization thingy.
I’m not an expert on MB but have gathered info on them over the years, since reading a lot about Qutb and his formative role in MB and how splinter group eventually bc AQ. That reading I did soon after 9/11. It provided a solid base for more casually picking up new material.
As David says, MB today is more of a political party than anything else, fairly moderate. If it wants to retain power, it will have to cater to the voters (unlike the military) to some extent.
Besides, if Egyptians want a more religiously oriented govt, who are we to say they shouldn’t have it. Turkey voted that way with the election of Erdogan’s party in 2003, and what difference did that make. Not much.
OK, I’m not freaking, but the treatment–twice now, or is it three times?–of female journalists has me deeply concerned. I’d like to see at least one of those groups denounce violence against women. Abrahamic law, regardless of which “strain” it passes through, has repressed women throughout the age, all too often severely so.
El-Hamalawy uses the word Islamist. I think that’s synonymous with wanting to establish a caliphate, and since the olds are willing to cuddle up to the state, or to the Saudis, or even the US that idea doesn’t have so much truck.
He wrote a bit history of the politics and interactions between the MB and the leftists groups..
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer242/comrades-brothers
There has been a Generational shift and the young MB are not radical or right wing like the olds are.
it was the SCAF, and the Mubarak regime that would attack the copts
http://www.ssrc.org/pages/breaking-the-fear-barrier-of-mubarak-s-regime/
I suspect you are wrong – and indeed the Muslim Brotherhood, and terrorists as social organizations that win votes and only kill a few innocents (Hamas/Hez) – is not going to be good for the people they will control or for the world.
But I hope you are correct – and reasonable political parties have come out of terrorist org’s in the past. Maybe it will happen again.
Yes, of course it’s their business, not ours. First of all..then if you have a democracy what will happen as a result of that is not going to be what the USA likes, but what Egyptians want, and they want an Islamist government just like Turkey or any other Islamic country. It’s nobody’s business.
Do NOT kid yourselves. The Muslim Brotherhood has the same goals it had when it was founded in 1928, and it has never stopped supporting Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist operations.
Its mission statement: “Allah is our objective, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”
The Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna, stated that the group’s goal was to assert Islam’s manifest destiny and create an empire governed by Islamic religious law and unified in an autocratic caliphate. He claimed “It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”
Muslim Brotherhood’s publication in London, Risalat al-Ikhwan, has maintained a clearly jihadist orientation; in 2001 it featured at the top of its cover page the slogan: “Our Mission: World Domination” (siyadat al-dunya). This header was changed after 9/11, but the publication still carries the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto which includes: “Jihad is our path; martyrdom is our aspiration.”
Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Commander Muhammed Madhi Akef declared he was “prepared to send 10,000 jihad fighters immediately to fight at the side of Hezbollah” during the Lebanese terrorist group’s 2006 war against Israel.
Tariq Hasan, a columnist for the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, alerted his readers on June 23, 2007, that the Muslim Brotherhood was preparing a violent takeover in Egypt, using its “masked militias” in order to replicate the Hamas seizure of power in the Gaza Strip.
Hussein Shobokshi, writing in the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq al-Awsat on October 23, 2007, said that “to this day” the Muslim Brotherhood “has brought nothing but fanaticism, divisions, and extremism, and in some cases bloodshed and killings.” Thus, both Arab regimes and leading opinion-makers in Arab states still have serious reservations about the claim of a new moderation in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi’, gave a sermon in September 2010 stating that “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.”
When a country with a population predominantly Muslim, elects Muslim leaders it is no more surprising than the US electing Christian leaders. There are many in the media using a bigoted one size fits all denouncement of all things Muslim. Like all prejudice, this is ignorant and incorrect. The denigration of all Muslims is a cheap military tactic to remove equal human status of those perceived to be “the enemy”, in order to excuse the mistreatment of them.