Stoking fears about political Islam

The fear-mongering consuming both the West and the Middle East over the rise of political Islamist groups is overblown.  There is a moderating effect for those groups who reach a position of power, as evidenced by the actions of Islamist groups in Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia.  None of them have even moved slightly toward the Iranian model, instead embracing a Turkish model in which they are political first and foremost, ruling on values embodied in Islam.  We have pseudo-religious parties in Europe, so I find it extremely hypocritical to get our panties in a twist. 

In Egypt, there is a possibility of backsliding away from the goals of the revolution over fears of insecurity and the goals of Islamists.  There’s this strange collaboration between liberal forces and the establishment to marginalize Islamists.  I think this is dangerous, as the majority of Egyptians support such candidates.  Marginalize these voters, and you estrange them from the system.  They need to buy in to the system, to feel included.  This is especially true as this is the first free election in Egyptian memory.  Their disillusionment will lead to the systems delegitimization.  

They will know if the elite work against their wishes. 

The Washington Post ran an interesting op-ed this morning on the topic.  This is not an endorsement.  But it’s worth a read and raises interesting points. 

His point about minority groups is particularly notable.  Whenever I speak with Copts and they say they support felool candidates because they think they will be better protected, I die a bit inside.  It’s sacrificing your country’s and fellow citizens’ freedom and progression for nominal protection. 

And look at what happened at Maspero.  The government is just as willing—if not more so—to put down and kill Copts as Muslims. 

It’s a dangerous bargain that perpetuates their outsider status in the larger Egyptian community. 

Political Islamism is not to be feared 

By Marwan Muasher, former Jordanian prime minister

 The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for president of Egypt has moved on to the second round of voting. As fear mounts over the rise of Islamists, nostalgia for the old Arab world is stirring among many inside and outside the region. Some are starting to push the argument that former regimes restricted personal freedoms and stifled economic development but at least we all knew who we were dealing with and where we stood. And chaos was held in check.

 Today, a glance at headlines around the globe leads one to believe that Islamism is pitted against secularism in the battle for control over the new Arab world. This rise of Islamists clearly stokes fear in the West and leaves many clamoring for the good ol’ days when the good ol’ boys were in charge.

 Don’t buy the hype.

 This thinking ignores reality. It whitewashes the problems of the past, reflects unrealistic expectations for instant political transformations in the wake of revolutions and mislabels the battle being waged in the Arab world. This is not a clash between Islam and the rest — this is a battle for pluralism. It pits the believers in pluralism from both secular and Islamist camps against those who cling to outdated notions of exclusion or superiority and insist on disenfranchising others.

 For this battle to be won, we can’t ignore three critical lessons emerging from the ashes of the old Arab world.

 First, constituent politics are unavoidable and necessary. Reforms imposed from above are not enough to achieve political maturity. All groups and parties need to shift gears and participate in politics on the ground to fulfill society’s wants and needs.

 This is perhaps the most important lesson, and Islamists seemed to figure it out decades ago. One need only point out the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Some secularists, on the other hand, alternated between elitist political theorizing and smearing partisan politics. This thinking left many of them out of touch and lacking sufficient networks on the ground to be successful. In the short term, this is good news for Islamists, but constituent politics is the only way to defend individual liberties and protect political rights.

 Second, the reliance of certain groups or minorities on dictatorial regimes to safeguard their rights and guarantee their way of life — while usurping the rights of their fellow citizens — is simply untenable. For example, Tunisia’s former regime defended women’s rights but ignored the rights of many others. Many Syrian Christians have supported the government of Bashar al-Assad, which has killed thousands over the past year, purely because Assad’s Alawite regime protected their religious rights when alternative rulers might not.

 These are unacceptable, unsustainable bargains. Instead of ignoring the mistreatment of others, groups should fight for the rights of all, regardless of affiliation. This is the only way they can be seen as fellow citizens rather than as minorities.

 Third, Islamists lost their holiness the moment they entered politics. Whether religious or secular, conservative or radical, in or out of government, all those who enter the political fray can no longer adopt a holier-than-thou approach. Electorates across the Arab world will now view all who aspire to lead them equally.

 The field in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya and elsewhere is now open to all, and the people alone are the true source of authority. Society has claimed the right to bring in or remove anyone from power. Religious parties can’t hide behind religion or indulge in pretensions of sainthood — slogans such as “Islam is the solution” won’t fly without being accompanied by actions. And secularists can’t ban Islamists from politics under the pretext that the latter are uncommitted to pluralism, particularly because secular forces were often the ones curtailing open politics in the past. Both parties’ “holiness” is over.

 Groups will be held accountable if their programs succeed or fail in meeting citizens’ needs. Rhetoric and slogans will ring hollow if they are not matched with their promises — concrete programs that create jobs and defend rights. This is what will end up being the main criteria for political parties’ success or failure in the Arab world — the ability to deliver rather than to pontificate.

 This means that all must work together to defend basic rights and transition to true democracies. Policies of exclusion must give way to inclusion. Only a coalition of pluralists can succeed in building a democratic society where the majority rules, where minority rights are respected, and where individual rights are safe and the rule of law applies to all, without favoritism.

 The battle for pluralism has begun.

Ikhwan vs. Felool: Quick thoughts on the Egyptian election results

The results of the first round of voting for the Egyptian presidency point to a runoff between Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, a felool, or remnant, of the previous regime.  Both options are unattractive to Egypt's revolutionary youth.  They are stuck between voting for a conservative candidate whose platform is perceived to run counter to their ideals, a member of the former regime--which sucks in and of itself, and not voting at all.  A boycott, however, is a terrible option and would only further marginalize them. 

Morsi supporters.
AP photo

That they find themselves in this situation is largely self-inflicted.  The revolutionary youth and left ran multiple candidates, dividing the vote, rather than rallying behind one candidate.  I said before, half jokingly, they did what liberals do best--bicker and eat each other alive.  Just look at the Democratic party. It's the same thing--such a big tent that it's difficult to unify everyone.  Our repubs are much better at imposing party discipline (at least until the rise of the Tea Partiers, whom them have now embraced), as the felool and Islamist candidates are able to do.  

Graffiti in Cairo depicting Mubarak and SCAF leader Tantawy as the same person, with felool candidates Amr Moussa and Ahmed Shafiq behind them.
Reuters photo

I've spoken to a lot of expat Copts in the US and all of them voted for Shafiq.  It hurts me inside to see how their fear of an Islamist presidency pushes them to embrace figures from the same regime.  A win for Shafiq is really the end of the revolution.  Especially after going to Saudi, I know Egypt will not be like that.  The society is too dynamic, the political sphere too open, vested interests too deep, for Egypt to turn incredibly constricted.  There may be bold-name reforms to symbolize the new government's embrace of shariah--no booze or bikinis, although even that is unlikely.  

It is unlikely the FJP (MB's party) will even pursue such policies.  Their model is more Turkey's AKP, the ruling Islamist party, than Iran's theocratic government or Saudi's monarchy-Wahhabi model.  It's the economy, stupid--they're going to have to deal with Egypt's floundering economy first and foremost.  

Many of the expat and upperclass Egyptian youth rallied behind Mohammed el-Baradei, but he didn't even run.  

The transition was never going to be smooth or quick.  

I hope fear doesn't win the election.