Much has been said about the situation in Egypt; pundits, policy wonks, and bored pseudo-intellectuals such as myself are all having a field day. But behind all the predictions, editorials, columns, and media coverage lies an essential truth: no one really knows what the hell is going on.
I won’t pretend to. Trying to predict events in the Middle East is about as easy as understanding why newspapers still publish Marmaduke. Sure, Hosni Mubarak will probably step down. But then what?
There are many schools of thought. Some believe Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian opposition’s figurehead, will eventually manage to win a majority in the upcoming elections and steer Egypt to freedom. Others believe the Muslim Brotherhood will somehow use the elections to implement a “one-man, one-vote, one-time” policy and take over. Others still believe the army will crush the protests and the elections will not even take place.
Those who read my online column know I take a somewhat positive opinion of Egypt’s future: that a coalition government will ultimately succeed, and Egypt will finally be a democracy, if a flawed one. I still believe this. However, the United States and the West must ensure that Egypt becomes a secular democracy and is not co-opted by Islamists. The United States’ calling for Mubarak to step down is a good step. Nevertheless, Washington must still try and bring down the Muslim Brotherhood, whose flowery talks of peace and democracy will not be acted upon if they take power; the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch is, after all, the recognized terrorist organization Hamas.
To do so, Washington must throw its backing behind the Egyptian people at large and avoid all temptations to sit down and talk with the Brotherhood. Inviting them to the negotiating table is, in effect, empowering them. By ignoring them publicly and working behind the scenes to weaken them, the United States and a provisional Egyptian government of sorts can help ensure future Egyptian stability.
Mohamed ElBaradei is, for all intents and purposes, a fairly useless figure. Though his courage in the face of a repressive government is commendable, he has no real domestic base and no clear plan for action. ElBaradei’s shaky alliance with the Brotherhood proves how desperate he is for some sort of formal authority. Ultimately, ElBaradei is well-meaning fellow who bears much resemblance to the leader of Russia’s short-lived provisional government, Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky took power in 1917, and despite his best intentions and desire for liberty in Russia, he lost out to the more radical elements of the Russian political arena: the Bolsheviks. In Egypt, the Brotherhood has existed since 1924 and has very deep roots, and ElBaradei is no match for them.
This is why the United States must support the Egyptian ‘people’, and, most importantly, the Egyptian military. In Egypt, the army has proven itself by not firing at protesting crowds; moreover, it knows the Muslim Brotherhood is bad news for Egypt’s precarious peace with Israel and fruitful alliance with the US. The military can help ensure stability in Egypt until the elections, in which Omar Suleiman, the current head of the Egyptian intelligence service, or some other figure will hopefully be able to run and head something that looks like a democracy. The army can then retain its position as a stabilizing force, much like the military does in modern-day Turkey, an overwhelmingly Muslim yet Islamic terrorism-free country. Without muscle, such a secular democracy is doomed in Egypt.
So much for my policy recommendations. Who will ultimately win the Egyptian power struggle is still hard to see in the murkiness which often accompanies revolutions. Despite the clear benefits of a prosperous, stable, and democratic Egypt, the US must avoid a Gaza-in-2006 situation. Blindly promoting democracy will not secure freedom in the long run. Hopefully, after a decade of failed revolutions and Islamist takeovers, Washington has learned that.
But what of the Egyptian Revolution’s repercussions on the Middle East? Israel is, understandably, scared. Egypt, with a burgeoning population of 80 million and a large, powerful, and U.S.-equipped army, is the only serious threat to Israel’s military hegemony in the Levant. Jordan, Syria, Algeria, and Yemen have also experienced varying degrees of instability as the Cairo revolution spreads. Although the Egyptian protests clearly show to Arab dictators that their people can fight back, it is difficult to see any other country besides Egypt and Tunisia in 2011 experiencing a complete transition from dictatorship to democracy. Syria’s police state was always more efficient and ruthless than Egypt’s, and it has Israel as a boogeyman to blame for all its problems. Though Jordan and Egypt’s governments have some similarities, Jordanians are a generally prosperous lot and are unlikely to demand as much of a rapid change. And Algeria and Yemen still have extremely dangerous terroristic elements at home that will ensure a steady stream of Western aid and ”security-first, freedom later” votes.
Charles, your Orientalist and Islamophobic views continue to baffle me. Associating the Muslim Brotherhood with Hamas is like associating the New York Mets with Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme.
Do you get all of your information from Wikipedia? Or just most of it? Don’t joke about not being an expert in one sentence and then claim to be in the next.
Regardless of who takes over Egypt, a conflict with Israel will not occur because A) Egypt knows it would get its butt kicked, and B) the United States would withdraw every penny of funding to the military, effectively disabling it.
The United States can’t have a double standard. Democracy is of the people. And the Muslim Brotherhood – which makes up 20 percent of the population – can and will gain the majority in any sort of representative government.
I’m not saying the Brotherhood’s power is the best thing for the United States. But lumping them together with violent groups such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda is folly. It the democratic Islamist group does, in fact, take power in free elections, then it will need the United States’ support in order to maintain stability. In other words, they’re not going to piss us off.
Alright, proto-Eddie-Said, maybe there is a difference between the Brotherhood and, say, Hamas. But that difference is not ideological; it is practical. Hamas can and does use violence to achieve its means; the Brotherhood has avoided that in recent days. But don’t be surprised if the Brotherhood takes over and transforms Egypt into a new Sunni version of Iran. And again, look at one of the Brotherhood’s major founders and influences: Qutb, a man who still inspires jihadists worldwide. Your point that even the Brotherhood would need US help is valid, though. Nevertheless, a Brotherhood takeover would still be extremely negative for Egypt’s international relations and its still relatively secular domestic condition.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not composed of 20% of the population. That would be preposterous.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a opposition movement whose candidates recently LOST their 20% hold in parliament in December.
Wow. This article really takes an imperialist view of American foreign policy. This dude advocates for America to dictate the terms on which Egypt can have its own elections and who Egyptians are allowed to elect.
First, America has not called for Mubarak to step down- it’s only thrown its backing behind Suleiman.
Second, America cannot tell Egypt who it can and can’t invite to the negotiating table. As the largest opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has every right to be at the negotiating table. Its absence would only mean that Egypt is not on track to becoming a real democracy and is only selecting which popular views it wants to listen to.
Third, Egyptians would never accept someone so closely associated with the Mubarak regime as Omar Suleiman to be their next president.
Fourth, ElBaradei’s alliance with the Brotherhood is not a grasp for formal authority. He’s never sought formal authority. He invited all oppositions parties and movements to join his National Association for Change, and the Brotherhood accepted the offer.
Charles, if you’re going to write articles about Egypt, try to learn more than just the absolute basic facts. And don’t twist facts to suit your purpose. Furthermore, whoever the Egyptians decide they want to lead them should be their choice and their choice alone- enough with foreign intervention.
Yep, and Hamas was supposed to represent the Palestinian people too in 2006. For some strange reason, they aren’t allowing any more elections in their own homeland…and Hamas was very popular amongst Gazans. Looked how it turned out for them.
On another note, though, thanks for staying cordial, Mufasa… and you do make good points. If I had the time I’d write an article as a rebuttal.
Also, check out this article on the Muslim Brotherhood’s history of violence:
http://www.cfr.org/africa/egypts-muslim-brotherhood/p23991