So I was away on an extended bi-country vacation recently when to my surprise riots broke out in Egypt. I caught snippets here and there concerning what was going on; that they were happening, the calls for democracy by western powers, the calls for Mubarak to resign and the involvement of the army.
As with any such event going on in the world there are opinions galore and conflation of many different ideas and agendas. In trying to do a little bit of reading concerning the ongoing events in Egypt I see that there are a number of reasons being supported by those protesting, or at least reasons that are being publicized concerning why the people in Egypt are protesting.
For some it is a show of solidarity with their Tunisian counterparts for their actions in the previous weeks. For some there are political motivations involving corruption, free speech, and free elections. For some there are economic motivations given the high unemployment rate, high food prices and low minimum wages. For some there are legal motivations concerning police brutality and the state of emergency laws. I’m sure that those taking part in these historic protests hold a vast array of motivations concerning why they are taking part in the riots. I’ve read though that the primary focus for the demonstrations has been deposing Hosni Mubarak's regime from power along with "a new government that represents the interests of the Egyptian people, and respects rights of freedom and justice."
From what I can gather there were two incidents that sparked the demonstrations / riots in Egypt. One is the previously mentioned Tunisian revolt. The other is the Parliamentary elections held in November of 2010 in which the ruling National Democratic Party won a majority of 420 seats, an increase of 90 seats, while the main opposition party the Muslim Brotherhood won only a single seat, a decrease of 87 seats. In the previous elections held in 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood had gained 71 seats, while the ruling NDP party had lost 73 seats.
The 2010 results were a dramatic turn of events. The NDP had won a (surprising?) 209 of 211 available seats. The opposition Waft party had won the other two seats but still joined the Muslim Brotherhood in boycotting the subsequent round of voting alleging voter violence, intimidation and fraud. The first demonstration was led by many of the country’s youth and was organized using social media. The first protest was held on January 25, 2011. This use of social media in organizing the protests led to the NDP government cutting the country off from the internet and mobile phone service beginning on the 28th, the fourth day of protests and now openly supported by the opposition Muslim Brotherhood.
Amid this atmosphere of popular revolt and calls for democracy, the western powers tried to play things close to the vest while condemning the violence surrounding the protests and calling on the Egyptian authorities to ensure democratic reforms, that the will of the people would be heard and that their freedoms would be protected.
It’s hard to argue with that.
Yet they fall short of either condemning Mubarak or supporting him, instead trying to walk the fine line that gives the appearance of support for the Egyptian people while simultaneously trying to keep things with Mubarak intact in case he comes out of this still in power.
Noted commentator and MIT professor Noam Chomsky argued that what he western powers want is not real democracy in Egypt but rather a government that would help the west meet and / or maintain their geopolitical goals, as this has been their pattern in the past.
This too is hard to argue with.
The thing that I wonder about in all of this is the calls from many for democracy in Egypt. Many of those making such calls live in what are nominally democratic nations but haven’t truly experienced democracy themselves. Perhaps they see the plight of the Egyptian people living as they do under a succession of military dictators and subconsciously identify with them and are living vicariously through them knowing that they don’t have the balls to demand true democracy of their own governments.
Just a thought.
The second thing that I wonder about in the midst of these riots / protests is what is it supposed to look like? What should have been the results of the Egyptian elections that sparked this outrage?
In the 2000 elections the NDP party won 353 seats, an increase of 35 from the 1995 elections. The largest single block of opposition was the Muslim Brotherhood with 17 seats, although they are officially listed as independents. The New Wafd Party won only seven seats, an increase of a single seat from the 1995 elections.
In 2005 the NDP party won 330 seats, the NWP won five seats, while the Muslim Brotherhood won 88 seats, an increase of 71 seats.
In 2010 the NDP party won 420 seats (their most seats ever won by a single party in Egypt’s history), the NWP won six, while the Muslim Brotherhood won only a single seat, a very dramatic turnaround from the seemingly growing support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
So it would appear that the dramatic results of the 2010 elections that led to calls of voter intimidation, violence and corruption was not the will of the people. The NWP and the Muslim Brotherhood both boycotted the election after the first round of voting noting the massive dominance of the NDP and the near complete lack of support for the NWP and the failure of the MB to win a single seat.
Historically the NWP has maintained a rather small portion of representation within parliament so it seems unlikely that they were expecting a massive windfall in 2010 (they in fact won 6 seats which fits in with their historical representation levels). The Muslim Brotherhood though may have entertained notions of gaining increased support from the Egyptian people given their successes in the previous two elections, going from 19% of the parliament seats to perhaps 25% or 110 seats.
I of course can’t say what the MB expected from the election or what level of support they felt they could realistically count on in terms of parliamentary seats. It does however seem logical that they expected at least equal or increased representation given that they boycotted the election. It also seems logical that this was the expectation of the people given their willingness to openly demonstrate against the elections results.
So if this is correct and that the Muslim Brotherhood was expecting greater representation and increased power within the government, calls for Mubarak to step down and for democracy within Egypt would seem to point to willingness by others to see the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power within Egypt if that is indeed the will of the people.
Again, fair enough.
In reading about the Brotherhood I’ve found out that they condemned the 9/11 attacks, have maintained a position of non-violence, and have been criticized by none other than Osama Bin Laden himself for having betrayed jihad. I’ve read that “the Muslim brotherhood started off as a social organization, preaching Islam, teaching the illiterate, setting up hospitals, and even launched commercial enterprises.” It is also reported to be the world’s largest, oldest and most influential Islamist group.
It "preaches that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedom to the extent allowed by the laws of Islam" and is echoed in their slogan: Islam is the Answer. They oppose western colonialism and see themselves as the inheritors of the west’s prior position as the leader of mankind due to the west’s loss of life giving values. It has been argued by Sayyid Qutb in his 1964 book Ma'alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones) that "it is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable. Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life." It also holds that Islam must reclaim its manifest destiny as an empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia unified in a Caliphate and organized around the Quran and Sunnah.
It’s hard to know what such an organization would be like if in power. The closest we can get is to look at Hamas, an official political entity based upon the Muslim Brotherhood movement.
It’s hard to know what a democratic Egypt would look like with the Muslim Brotherhood holding positions of power. Would it be the political entity that was condemned by Bin Laden as having betrayed the ideals of Qutb? Would it be like Hamas? It is almost impossible to know what they would be like given that they have been repressed numerous times over the past several decades. Driven underground have they become a moderated political group striving to do what is right for the people of Egypt? Or have they become more hardened in their positions of striving for Islamic empire?
I don’t know. Perhaps nobody does, even those within the MB itself. Power has a way of corrupting those who seek it.
I hope that those who call democracy in Egypt are willing to accept the will of the Egyptian people. Democracy in the occupied territories of Israel didn’t bring peace to the Middle East. Democracy isn’t the magic silver bullet for the world’s problems that some might think it to be. It is an imperfect method of mobilizing the apparent will of a group of people. It’s important to remember thought that not all people think alike and while one person might see secularism as utopia, for another it’s an Islamic Caliphate.
Can two opposed utopias coexist?
Well there is one way to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment