Western
observers, including the U.S. government view the situation in Egypt as
improving. Actually, it's getting worse, partly due to U.S. policy. In
April, that will become even more obvious. Egyptian parliamentary
elections are scheduled for April 22. Supposedly, the Muslim Brotherhood
faces a setback. But that either isn't true
or doesn't matter. On one hand, the Islamists as a whole are likely to
emerge even stronger and more radical. On the other hand, if the
non-Islamist coalition boycotts the election, as it has announced, the
Brotherhood and the current regime will be a lot stronger!
Originally,
I wrote the following for paragraph two of this article: There will no
doubt be an assumption in Western reportage that if the “opposition”
does participate and does better and the Brotherhood does worse that
means moderation is gaining.
But
by the time this is being published the mainstream media's claims that
things are going great had already begun. For example, here's how the New York Times explains it all to you:
"With
the elections scheduled to begin in April, the Islamists who dominated
the 2011-12 parliamentary and presidential votes appear more vulnerable
than at any time since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak two years
ago."
But
what possible reasons are there to believe this? There is no evidence
that the Brotherhood or Salafists collectively will get a lot fewer
votes. The most serious Egyptian poll shows that the Brotherhood might
get just under 50 percent of the vote! Obviously
that's very tentative two months before the elections. So what did they
get last time? Answer: 37 percent of the vote and about half the seats.
True, this time the Salafist vote will be split so the two together can
be expected to get fewer than the 64 percent of the vote and almost 75
percent of the seats they won the first time. But a large majority of
Egyptians can be expected to vote for an Islamist regime. And if the
moderates boycott the Islamists could receive 90 percent of the seats!
The
Islamists' real problem is that there are now four Islamist parties,
varying from moderately radical to incredibly radical here’s the
list:
--The Strong Egypt Party headed by Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh.
He is presented as a moderate Islamist and will no doubt be the
favorite of the U.S. Columnist and Editorialist Party. Yet, one might
ask, if Fotouh is so moderate why was he endorsed in the first round of
the presidential election by radical Brotherhood guru Yusuf al-Qaradawi
and the Salafist al-Nur Party?
To
keep an open mind, Fotouh is more moderate than the others and he
opposed the constitution drafted by the Brotherhood. It is possible he
could form an alliance with the National Salvation Front. But there’s
something misleading here, too. Fotouh got an impressive 17 percent in
the presidential election. Yet wasn’t this vote due almost completely to
non-moderate Salafists who just didn’t want to back the Brotherhood
presidential candidate in the first round after their own candidate was
disqualified? If so, Fotouh’s party will be a failure.
--The
Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. This received 37
percent of the votes and about half the seats in the original
parliamentary election. If the National Salvation Front doesn't boycott,
the Brotherhood might lose seats but if the moderates don't run in the
election the Brotherhood will get even more seats!
--The
main Salafist party, al-Nur. This party won 27.8 percent in the
original parliamentary election but its candidate
for president was disqualified. Al-Nur varies between critical support
of the Brotherhood (we’re all Islamists!) to just plain criticism (the
Brotherhood isn’t Islamist enough!). Al-Nur would willingly become the
Brotherhood's coalition partner or at least support the regime from
outside.
--The
People's Party. The most radical forces in al-Nur have split from it,
considering al-Nur to be too soft on the Brotherhood. They viewed the
constitution--which provides for a transition to a Sharia state--too
subtle.
So
how will these parties split the Islamist vote? And will al-Nur and the
People’s parties back Mursi for all practical purposes on the
fundamental transformation of Egypt into a Sharia, Islamist state? Even
if the two Salafist parties demand more, that doesn’t mean they will
vote against the government to bring it down—they know they cannot win a
majority on their own—and they aren't going to ally with the hated
“secularists.”
Remember
that U.S. policy is to support the Brotherhood as a “moderate” group to
block the even more radical Salafists. Yet this strategy misses out on
four points:
--The Brotherhood itself is radical.
--It often cooperates with the Salafists on everything from writing the constitution to trying to stop the construction of churches.
--The Salafists push the Brotherhood to be more militant.
--The Salafists get away, with Brotherhood support or tolerance, of extra-parliamentary violence
against Christians, women, anti-Islamists, foreign embassies, etc.
Meanwhile,
what of the National Salvation Front? It is led by ex-nuclear agency
director Muhammad al-Baradei who in the past himself was a Brotherhood
ally. He is also a dreadful politician with little or no personal appeal
to the masses. It is comprised of two dozen parties, including far
left and radical nationalist ones. Two of its best-known members are the
New Wafd Party, which is nominally liberal and pro-capitalist but can
engage in radical demagoguery, and the truly anti-Islamist Free
Egyptians Party. It even includes ex-foreign minister and radical
nationalist Amr Moussa.
Please be subscriber 31,249 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand
box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
And the New York Times gives the official line on this aspect also:
"Nonetheless,
the boycott by the...National Salvation Front, underscores the depth of
its animosity toward the governing Islamists. And it reveals the
opposition’s continuing distrust of Egypt’s nascent political process."
Well,
yeah, but most of all it underscores the depth of their foolishness and
incompetence as the opposition is about--if it doesn't change its
mind--to turn over the country totally to an Islamist regime. A boycott
of the election is suicide, turning future legislation over to whatever
the Brotherhood and Salafists agree on. Such a strategy would be the
death knell of any remaining shreds of hope in a democratic Egypt.
Indeed, U.S. credibility with the opposition is so low that it refused the State Department's urging to participate in the elections.
If
the differences among Islamists seem wide, those of the other side are
even broader. Boycott or no boycott are these people really going to
stick together?
The
likely result is a mess, conducive to anarchy or—more likely—an
increasingly entrenched Islamist regime than to a moderate democracy. We
are going to be told
often in the next two months that things are going to get better in
Egypt. I think it likely that they are going to get worse. A proper U.S.
policy would be working covertly to strengthen and encourage the
National Salvation Front, persuade it to participate in elections, and
stop praising the Muslim Brotherhood regime.
Instead the opposition boycotted
Secretary of
State John Kerry because U.S. policy is deemed to be supporting the
Islamists. One of the slogans of the small anti-Kerry demonstrations
was that U.S. policy wanted to turn Egypt into Pakistan. Think of
that: the moderate, non-Islamist forces in Egypt (and in Turkey and
other countries for that matter) believe the U.S. government is their
enemy, helping to foist Islamist dictatorships on their countries!
And that opposition isn't wrong in thinking that's what's happening in practice.
And so, as one of my readers wrote me:
"You
know the world has turned upside down via two American presidential
elections when there exists more ardor for an Islamist government in the
U.S. [government] than in Egypt at large."
Egypt
favors the Brotherhood by around 40 to 50 percent and backs the
Islamists as a whole by around 66 percent. The U.S. government favors
the Islamists by 100 percent.
To
summarize, while Western coverage will stress the election as a defeat
for the Brotherhood and a step toward greater moderation in fact the
probable outcome is a government based either on a minority Brotherhood
regime with Salafist support from outside the coalition or a Brotherhood
governing alliance with al-Nur. Despite continuing
protests, the majority of the Egyptian people aren't objecting against
too much extremism; they are demanding even more!
While
Salafists might join with moderates on some actions to limit government
power overall, they can be expected to support the Brotherhood on any
steps toward more Islamization of Egypt. The al-Nur Party is working
hard to avoid any conflict with the Brotherhood. It's People's Party
rival is going to criticize the Brotherhood for being too moderate! The
idea of a Salafist-moderate alliance in any meaningful way doesn't make
sense. And the government will have less incentive to counter any
Salafist
violence as long as it isn't directed against the regime, the main
exception being armed struggle against the government in the Sinai.
In
short, rather than making the Egyptian regime more moderate it is
likely to make it more radical. But we'll have to get closer to the
election date and then see the results to know for sure.
This article was published on PJMedia.
This article was published on PJMedia.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel:
An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment