|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 1, 2011 8:51:10 GMT -5
I don't claim to understand who really is a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and who isn't but when you see comments like "Prepare the people of Egypt for war with Israel" being attributed to a "senior member" of the brotherhood then I think it makes one wonder about the earlier article labeling the Muslim Brotherhood as some sort of moderate Islamic group. www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130El Barade (? spell) doesn't exactly come across as a strong politician able to effectively manage any unity government with the Muslim Brotherhood. I have strong concerns he would get rolled like a cheap suit. So if it were as simple as finding a ready infrastructure to transfer a new democratic government to then I would be fine with punting Mubarak. But I don't see a clear way to do that and in fact see a much clearer path to a Muslim Brotherhood view of a Middle East governed by a pan Islamic movement with absolutely huge implications for every government there from Saudi Arabia to Packistan to true moderate governments in places like Qatar. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 1, 2011 12:44:54 GMT -5
My concern is twofold - first, it's not right to deny democracy to people, no matter how nasty the representatives that those people elect may be.
The bigger concern is that denying the Muslim Brotherhood a voice gives them credence - they're supported at least in part because they oppose the government. Take that away - make it legal for them to run and govern - and they either lose, or they win and get tasked with governing.
And Egypt's screwed if they decide to fight Israel. Even Turkey, who is run by an Islamist government, stepped back on the rhetoric after two weeks after the Israeli raid on the ship - the two countries are intermingled too much. Forcing the Muslim Brotherhood to help govern the country would eliminate some of the radical wings pretty quick.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Feb 1, 2011 13:14:05 GMT -5
My concern is twofold - first, it's not right to deny democracy to people, no matter how nasty the representatives that those people elect may be. The bigger concern is that denying the Muslim Brotherhood a voice gives them credence - they're supported at least in part because they oppose the government. Take that away - make it legal for them to run and govern - and they either lose, or they win and get tasked with governing. And Egypt's screwed if they decide to fight Israel. Even Turkey, who is run by an Islamist government, stepped back on the rhetoric after two weeks after the Israeli raid on the ship - the two countries are intermingled too much. Forcing the Muslim Brotherhood to help govern the country would eliminate some of the radical wings pretty quick. Since when has Turkey's government been islamist? |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 1, 2011 13:20:27 GMT -5
Sicne 2003, when the Justice and Development Party took power. You can quibble and say that they're officially secular, but they have very significant Islamist influences and have been referred to as an Islamist party in a variety of publications.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Feb 1, 2011 13:28:02 GMT -5
Sicne 2003, when the Justice and Development Party took power. You can quibble and say that they're officially secular, but they have very significant Islamist influences and have been referred to as an Islamist party in a variety of publications. Eh, I'll wait until the Hijab ban in all public buildings/schools is repealed before I consider it an "Islamist" gov't. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 1, 2011 13:29:46 GMT -5
There was similar hope for Hezbulah and Hamas when they became part of governing in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. With the demands of governing they would reduce themilitancy and moderate. Unfortunately I don't think that has been the case. Peronally I don't think we have anything but hope that it would be for the Muslim Brotherhood either.
However, I recognize that one could argue that the Turkish government is the model where an islamic party was elected with a major secular segment of the population and a very secular army to keep them in check. For me though I think the Turkey example is where one would hope Egypt is in about a decade after they have built some of the political infrastructure to have checks and balances. Right now I don't believe they do and if I have a choice (which I don't) I would for sure not want to risk the future of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood being more like Hamas than Turkey.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 1, 2011 14:14:04 GMT -5
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 1, 2011 14:17:57 GMT -5
Sicne 2003, when the Justice and Development Party took power. You can quibble and say that they're officially secular, but they have very significant Islamist influences and have been referred to as an Islamist party in a variety of publications. Eh, I'll wait until the Hijab ban in all public buildings/schools is repealed before I consider it an "Islamist" gov't. Turkey is a militantly secular state (though AKP has been working to repeal what they can). There's a difference between the country and the party - even the ruling party. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 1, 2011 14:24:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 1, 2011 16:17:49 GMT -5
Early reports are that crowds have remained in Tahrir Square after Mubarek's speech. It does not seem like Mubarek can peel off some of the protestors without stepping down in advance of elections. El Baradei has asked him to resign this week.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 1, 2011 19:37:26 GMT -5
If the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt entered politics, it would probably fragment pretty quickly. There's huge divides between different parts of the party. Most of them are fairly moderate, though. They wouldn't be friendly to the US, but I doubt they'd be overtly hostile.
I don't think there's much risk of Egypt turning into Iran. For starters, Egyptians are Sunni, Iran is Shia. Shia Islam, with its well-established hierarchy, is much more appropriate for a theocracy.
Second, most Egyptians aren't Islamists. The leaders of the current protests certainly aren't. If anything, they're more secular than Egyptian society as a whole. This revolt is being led by the youth, the intellectuals, and the liberals. All three of those are like oil and water with the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood may have the support of a plurality of Egyptians (mostly because of their charitable work), but I highly doubt that they have the support of the majority.
Finally, you've got the military, who are largely secular and pro-Western. Most of them have been trained by Americans and have a very high opinion of the US. They also see themselves as the guardians of the people, and won't hesitate to intervene if they think the people are being oppressed by an Islamist government. Given the respect most Egyptians have for the military, I doubt they'd be strongly opposed if they did this. This may be the strongest link to the Turkish example. The Turkish military is extremely secular, professional, and well-respected domestically. They have overthrown several governments that have strayed too far from the country's democratic and secular ideals.
In Iran, you had the Islamists leading the revolution with a charismatic leader. The Iranian military in 1979 was secular, but they were also despised by the people. The initial revolution raised the Islamists' profile in a huge way, to the point that they were able to take over the government in the second revolution.
In Egypt, a successful revolution won't do much to raise the Muslim Brotherhood's profile, since the revolution is being led by groups that certainly don't like the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood also lacks a Khomeini-like figure to lead them. Finally, the Egyptian military has the power and respect to prevent any swing towards a theocracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 2, 2011 9:15:31 GMT -5
Stig - I take your points and see you putting forward the optimistic scenario for how things would/could turn out. I sincerely hope you are correct as it seems that there will be a transfer of power - either short term forced out or after September elections.
My concerns with your optimistic scenario comes from several analogies throughout the middle east and elsewhere. I hope your view that the Muslim Brotherhood would fragment holds true. But I haven't seen any evidence of that and in fact it seems to be a group that has been remarkably cohesive despite decades of "persecution" by Mubarak and his predecessors. Certainly their philosophical pronouncements remain consistently hard line. Expecting the Muslim Brotherhood to splinter with increased power and visibility is a huge unknown and risk. It is IMHO just as likely that the discipline that allowed them to survive all these years carries through to a new reality for the group.
Totally agree the leaders are not islamists in the hard line sense. And they are Sunni not Shia. But the paralells to Iran still hold. By most accounts the majority of the Iranians are not too thrilled with the current regime - especially the young and intellectuals. They even tried to revolt or at least get the government to moderate but were rebuffed and brutally put down by paramilitary groups (not the military). While pessimistic for sure it is not unreasonable to envision the Muslim Brotherhood to be able to generate the same hard line leadership and paramilitary groups out of their connections or control over large groups of the poor in Egypt. They certainly have the infrastructure to accomplish it.
But while the leaders of the revolution are not hard liners, to my perspective they also do not seem to be skilled politicians or leaders that seem to have the ability to be strong in the face of a well organized and potentially aggressive Muslim Brotherhood. El Barade (? spell) does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling that he can keep the lid on them. Quite the opposite - I would expect him to get rolled. And the pessimistic scenario then becomes who would win in street fights between the current protesters and ones controlled by the Muslim brotherhood - after Mubarak is gone.
I do wholeheartedly agree with you that the military is the key group. And one that is getting stressed significantly today with the counter demonstrations. I fear that the program right now is setting up the conditions to allow/require them to crack down to restore order. That will not be a positive development.
I fully remember how the Iranian military was perceived and treated in the Iranian revolution. I was in college and a friend of mine was the son of an Iranian Air Force General. I saw him a day or so after he got the news his Dad had been shot. Not pretty and don't want to see it again. But of all the upsides the military in Egypt is by far the most comforting - unless they get drawn into the current mess and lose that luster.
Anyway, not trying to be aggressive in my dissent. Just a long winded way of pointing out your view has a lot of optimistic assumptions that I hope pan out but are not necessarily supported by a broader review. And I fully admit that I have a more pessimistic view of what happens when a immature political structure is put in place in the face of a well organized and by all accounts ideologically driven group like the Muslim Brotherhood.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 2, 2011 9:44:51 GMT -5
Just to add on to hoyawatcher's comments - there's a lot of people in Egypt, and most of them don't have twitter accounts or the ability to write protest signs in English. The people who do have these things are more likely to be more western. In Iran's recent uprising, the western media reported on something that seemed like a larger movement than it was since the percentage of the population with Twitter accounts is minimal.
The other item is that the Muslim Brotherhood has gotten a lot of its chops for providing basic social services. Much of the credit to Hamas for its electoral victory in the Gaza Strip was for similar reasons - providing basics led people to trust them, and led to their electoral victory.
I'm still of the belief that democracy is the best approach, simply because Egypt is such a connected part of the Middle East that Gaza (with Hamas) and Afghanistan (when the Taliban took over and shut down the country) never were. The next year could be dicey, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 2, 2011 11:23:17 GMT -5
It sounds like the situation in Egypt has deteriorated significantly, with gunfire, street combat, etc. Mubarek is not popular, but he may be the best among a set of bad options (for Egypt, not to mention the US).
Somewhere in a coffee shop, Thomas Friedman is talking about lexuses and olive trees.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 2, 2011 12:54:02 GMT -5
Hoyawatcher, The Stig and others have provided an interesting and informative discussion on this issue. Thank you. I read a column in the FT that I think you'll be interested in. Essentially, the author is encouraging engagement with the brotherhood now, to reduce the risk of the current situation turning into a replay of Iran. Excerpts
Instead we must engage them, initially on the role of Islam itself. Islamists and western observers too often agree that sharia equates to state law, rather than a body of legal opinion. The Brotherhood repeats the absurd doctrine that “the Koran is our constitution”, but the vast majority of Muslims disagree, seeing the Koran as a divine, not political document. With discussion and political incentives the Brotherhood can be persuaded to follow the lead of mainstream opinion.
There are other encouraging signs. Mohammed Badie, the Brotherhood’s leader, comes from its conservative wing. But he recently scoffed at the notion of an Islamic state, saying his aim was to be part of a civilian administration. Another relative hardliner (and my former teacher) Kamal ElHelbawi, said this weekend: “Islamists would not be able to rule Egypt alone.” He argued for co-operation with secularists. Mr ElHelbawi has been a Brotherhood stalwart for half a century. If he and Mr Badie want to talk, we have cause for optimism.
...
We must avoid the mistake we made with Iran, and seize this moment to support Egypt’s democrats and ensure that religious parties moderate. Without this, Egypt could all too easily go the way of Iran, or Gaza. With it, we can have confidence that Egyptians themselves can bring democracy into being, and over the long term, they will be their country’s greatest bulwark against Islamists. Egypt can bring in the Brotherhood One other point for Hoyawatcher. I understand your concerns about ElBaradei, but I think you could be underestimating him. Being the head of the IAEA is not a cushy job. He has had to run inspections and investigations into some of the most corrupt and dangerous regimes in the world (Iran, Iraq, N Korea, Syria, Pakistan) While taking constant crossfire from their protectors -- China, Russia, etc. He has been on the hot seat, negotiated with the widest possible array of players, published unwelcome results, and handled a highly critical press. Doesn't mean there aren't risks associated with his potential role in a new Egyptian Government, I just think you might be prematurely selling him a little short. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 2, 2011 13:06:53 GMT -5
Agreed. Being the head of the IAEA is definitely a dangerous job:
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 2, 2011 19:29:29 GMT -5
El Baradei is a technocrat. He's an able administrator and a very intelligent man. But he'll never be a popular politician. He makes John Kerry look charismatic.
Also, one of the protesters' main problems with Mubarak is that he's out of touch. Mubarak is indeed out of touch, but at least he's been in Egypt for the past 30 years. El Baradei has spent most of that time in Vienna at the IAEA. He's not the solution the protesters are looking for.
The Brotherhood isn't the solution either, for reasons I mentioned before. Who is the solution? Nobody, right now, which is exactly how Mubarak wants it. He's spent the last 30 years doing everything he can to ensure that the opposition can't unite behind any one leader, and now we're seeing just how successful he's been.
I think today's brutality made it clear that Mubarak isn't going lightly, despite what he said last night. I still think he might ride this out.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 2, 2011 20:02:20 GMT -5
"A quick election would not be wise IMO, particularly when folks are riled up as they are. They'd be well-served by a transition that develops the infrastructure for a meaningful election with monitors and allows for greater participation from Egyptians who may want to return. Egyptians would also be well-served by learning more about candidates (as would the rest of the world)." Maybe Obama should hire Bush to help institute in Egypt what he did in Iraq. Only half kidding. Can you do Iraq without all the death? Is that why you're half kidding? |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 3, 2011 1:41:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 3, 2011 6:52:59 GMT -5
Stig has articulated my concerns about El Baradei better than I could. I don't see him as a politician with a deep natural constituency. For all his warts Mubarak has deep constituencies in the Army and parts of the population which allow him to function. IMHO without getting into a Editeding match over whether he was a good technocrat or a bad technocrat at the IAEA, he isn't the engaging politician who can hold this movement together once the Mubarak bogeyman is gone.
The problem and the logic loop I have trouble getting over is what Stig stated. Mubarak has spent the last 30 years making sure there isn't anyone else with the ability to take over. And now he/we/the Egyptian people are paying the piper. I have an aversion to the idea put forth by the US Administration that the transfer HAS to happen NOW. I don't think Egypt is ready for it and I see visions of Iran and even Lebanon with a transfer to an immature political structure. But the obvious con is whether those structures can be put in place between now and September - even if Mubarak wanted to put them in place. They normally take decades or at least years.
When you take the genie out of the bottle and allow elections you are going to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood. Being able to control them when that happens is not an easy thing to do politically. The recent examples of power sharing in Lebanon and Gaza are not encouraging.
|
|
