Salafists move in
No good. Bad. Islamists are having success in Egypt.
It is already clear that the liberal-minded parties that have been the focus of
much Western media attention are not doing well as the competition hots up…When a protest was called in Tahrir Square late last week, it was known the
Islamists would dominate it. But the numbers brought in by the Salafists far
exceeded even those the Muslim Brotherhood could muster.The Salafists favour an Islamic state, with Sharia law, as soon as possible,
whereas the Brotherhood has emphasised the separation of state and religion – at least for the time being.Hundreds of thousands of Salafists came to the square – many waving the flag of Al Nour or “The Light”, the party they have established to contest the
elections.
Oh, shit.
One Westernised Cairo woman who was shocked by this show of strength said to me “I think I will have to leave Egypt”.
Bad.
I guessed this was in their future when I read how Egyptian women were treated when they dared to demonstrate for their rights. Short form: Not now, girls — “important” issues first.
Call me Cassandra, not Athena.
Part of me feels bad that this post has so few comments. But then, I really can’t think of anything to say about this other than to echo your “Oh, shit.”
Jeez,what a surprise,how unexpected!
The West and Israel’s, political elites have long assumed that the most likely outcome of popular uprisings in Moslem nations was not liberal democracy, but Islamic theocracy, that’s why they supported tyrants like Mubarak. The majority of Egyptians have absolutely no support for liberal democracy. The notion that there was any possibility of a democratic government emerging in Egypt was always a fantasy of some Western commentators–and Egypt is probably the first domino to fall.
This is still the better option, as it will be the Egyptian people who decide their own fate.
And at least here(unlike Iran) they have the democratic process to oust the islamists from power, since the desire for free elections is clear and unambiguous from all Egyptians.
Plus, the outcome is still an open question. The islamists may protest in large numbers but if most of their supporters are on the streets they don’t have the votes to win. Egyptian voters will decide this election, not the activists.
Worst case scenario(if Egypt does turn into another Iran), it would simply mean that 2 revolutions are needed instead of one. And so all the better that the first one is already behind them.
Besides, it’s silly to complain about this. We simply can’t justify holding islamic countries hostage under tyrannical rulers while claiming to stand for secular human rights. The hypocrisy is so blatant we should be embarrassed to even give off the false impression that we prefer dictators to democratically elected leaders in the muslim world.
Worry, certainly. But stop the ‘i told you so’ comments. It’s embarrassing.
Not exclusively! Certainly some Egyptians had the same notion.
No it won’t, it will be some of the Egyptian people deciding everyone’s fate. And let’s not be too glib about what’s the better option. It’s perfectly possible for a majority to choose a fate that is much worse for a lot of people or even for most people.
And it’s not a bit silly to complain about it. Complaining about it isn’t saying “Gee I wish the CIA were in charge instead.” There are more than two options – 1. support dictators or 2. complain about it.
Frankly, when I saw <a href=”http://pewglobal.org/files/2010/12/2010-muslim-01-13.png”>this</a> poll, any optimism that I might have had was snuffed out like a candle knocked into a toilet bowl. I’d love to be proved wrong.
Ah, nads, sorry. I forgot about these fancy-schmancy instant-html features ya got here.
Better link.
#4 Toronto Atheist
The majority of Egyptians have no interest in Western style democracy, their ‘democracy’ is not our ‘democracy’, so given the parameters indicated by the Pew poll what do you think the outcome of ‘free and fair’ elections in Egypt will be.
Ophelia,
“It’s perfectly possible for a majority to choose a fate that is much worse for a lot of people or even for most people.” Yes,agreed, it’s a rather naive view to believe that democratic processes necessarily lead to democracy.
“Certainly some Egyptians had the same notion”, of course, but not a significant proportion of the population, as the Pew poll indicates.
#6 BenSix,
you won’t be proved wrong.
@ToAtheist (#4):
Likely scenario: election held. election won by religious party. theocracy established. either no more elections or rigged elections ensuring return of theocrats to power each time. There are extant examples of both models.
Unless the army, which is the real power in Egypt at present, prevents it.
I dont know enough about the people of Egypt to gauge their desire for an islamist state- really, one PEW poll is not much to go on when making such strong assertions as RJW is . I thought the MB was bad enough and am gobsmacked that a worse lot are out there in apparently large numbers.
The eternal optimist in me hopes that the show of force by the salafists actually scares the majority of Egyptians into voting for the secularist parties. Islamists often garner a lot of attention but dont do as well in elections as most muslims – like all people- do have a healthy sense of self-preservation.
However, in Egypt, the army seems to working behind the scenes with the MB, and the secularists appear to be on the losing end even at this preliminary stage. So a happy ending is highly unlikely.
#11 Mirax,
I’m not making strong assertions on the basis of one Pew poll, that’s simply the reference I chose. If you have the interest, read, for example, The Arabs by Eugene Rogan, you’ll understand why,so far, the Western version of democracy is an alien concept to most Moslems. If the majority of Moslems were secular and moderate, majority Moslem nations would be..well..secular and moderate already. So I doubt if Western supported dictators are the only barriers to Arab democracy.
My opinion of Egypt’s future, even if it is completely incorrect, is not based on one poll result.
I do think it’s rather insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people who died in Europe over the course of several hundred years to establish liberal democracy there to assume that other parts of the world can arrive at the same state quickly and easily.
But then I have also noticed that the sort of people who make the loudest noises about supporting ‘revolution’ aren’t actually interested in liberal democracy, seeming to prefer the contents of their own imagination to the outcomes of any actual democratic process (and indisputably preferring their own rectitude to any ‘liberal’ notion of regard for the views of others), when it comes to asserting how the future ought to look.
Of course, I do go around with my irony meter turned up rather high, so it may all be my own fault.
I have a question to ask.
Is a democratic theocracy better than a corrupt, western-influenced dictatorship?
A democratic theocracy is an oxymoron. Not that that ever stopped anybody.
Just having elections does not a democracy make.
This is a country with an illiteracy rate of 50 %.
The pious pricks have an enormous advantage over the secular, actually they have two: they read from the one book everyone is familiar with, and their message is simple…God said so, therefore it is so, now do as I say, and shut the hell up.
Also, these bearded assholes are very, very motivated.
Depends on how many votes god gets. If the answer’s more than none your democratic theocracy is an institutionally corrupt democracy. And probably a dictatorship (with its own ‘influences’) as well. So probably a lot worse and certainly not better.
In the end, though, your question’s irrelevant to those of us who dared to hope for something better and are now realising we’re not likely to see it any time soon. (Seriously, do you think are there any Dick Cheney fans around here.)
I’m not so sure that theocratic democracy is in fact an oxymoron. Hence the question. I’d say Turkey is fairly theocratic, and yet it’s a functioning, democratic state. Nearly every country in the world has theocratic laws of some kind or other on the books. What happens if the laws are very restrictive, very theocratic, and yet the right to vote is still retained by everyone? Does it potentially set the stage for changes in opinion over time eventually resulting in a better, freer nation, the way it did with, say, the United States? I’m not saying that this is a good thing. I think any time theocracy is on the table, it is a bad thing; what I am asking is, is it better than a corrupt, violent, western-backed dictatorship?
I also can’t agree that it’s irrelevant, Francis. Of course one hopes for better. I still hope for better. But is it really more productive to shout angrily about what we would’ve wanted rather than discuss the reality of what’s likely to actually happen?
To what extent is the US itself a ‘theocracy’?
Whatever the word ‘God’ might variously mean, any candidate or party that missed out on a sprinkling of pious references in speeches and campaign publications would likely suffer for it; heavily IMHO. However, the ‘theocracies’ of the world are not ruled by God, but by clerics with strongly fascistic inclinations.
I think that God has probably moved house to the far side of the Universe, out of earshot of all the special pleading from rent-seekers.
CMT:
Could well be, unless the theocracy manages to turn its country into a nuclear ashtray, as the Iranian one seems inclined to do.
Ian McD:
It’s important to consider Iran, of course, but it isn’t a democracy at all. It may be the case, however, that there’s a tipping point where theocratic ideas wholly devour the democratic process. As you rightly pointed out, they certainly have injured it here in the States, but it’s not entirely dead.
What I think still may be the case is this: that Egyptians must come to liberal democracy on their own terms and on their own timetable, for it to be a lasting, stable endeavor. And even though it’s beginning to look as though they aren’t ready for it yet, the fall of Mubarak may still have been a good, solid first step in that direction.
Parenthetically, I still wish very much to be wrong about that; I would much rather see Egyptians realize that they need a secular constitution today, in order to preserve a lasting, viable, peaceful government. I wonder if an alliance with the Copts isn’t the ace in the hole for the secularists in Egypt right now?
#8 RJW
So it’s not a democracy if they don’t choose the leaders you and I prefer? This is just silly.
#10 sailor1031
Likely scenario? I seriously doubt that the Egyptian people, many of whom risked their own lives to gain the freedoms they now enjoy(some losing loved ones in the process) would just stand by while an islamist theocracy takes those rights away. And I don’t think that even islamists, after watching Egyptians successfully make wholly secular demands for free speech, due process and fair wages, would be dumb enough to attempt to impose a dictatorship. That would be political suicide.
But if the people elect an islamist government that runs on the promise to implement sharia law, that’s their choice. We certainly can and should complain about the results, but not the democratic process itself. Our support for democratic freedoms can’t be conditional on the results of elections. That is surely the height of hypocrisy.
Toronto Atheist:
Never mind Egypt: here in Australia more often than not, the rest of the voters install governments I would prefer we didn’t have. And I am a swinging voter.
It’s always a valid question, and it covers a whole lot of recent history. The neo-Marxist theory of ‘false consciousness’ was put forward to explain why ‘the masses’ so frequently, if given the choice, elect governments that neo-Marxists don’t like. According to the theory, they do not know where their true, ‘objective’ interests lie, and so vote for people who are their ‘objective’ class enemies.
On the other side, the US, having fought WW2 in the name of democracy, bankrolled the French state (which emerged from WW2 flat broke) for its colonial war in Vietnam. The Viet Minh (reluctantly) accepted the 1954 armistice brokered by the Soviet and Chinese communists, because it had a provision for Vietnam-wide elections to be held within a year. President Eisenhower reneged on that agreement, because as he later said, US intelligence predicted that if the election was held, the Viet Minh side would get 80 percent of the vote. The 10-year Vietnam War was the result.
By definition, it is hard to conceive of any struggle quite so inevitably antidemocratic as a colonial war.
#21 Toronto Atheist,
“So it’s not a democracy if they don’t choose the leaders you and I prefer? This is just silly.”
You’ve missed the point. To many Egyptians, ‘democracy’ is a means to and end(an Islamic state) not as in the Western ideal, an end in itself and a continuous process. So, if you prefer to equate the two concepts of ‘democracy’, it’s your perogative.
The Nazis achieved absolute power through a constitutional parliamentary process.
I sincerely hope that the Salafists do not finish up being voted into power in Egypt. As I see it, the whole ethos of their style of Islam is against popular election of governments.
Neither does one need a crystal ball to predict the longer term perspective of such an outcome. Once installed, the Salafists would probably be loath to stand for re-election at another open and fair contest. They would probably rig the next one, or find excuses to dispense with it completely. Such hijacking has been known.
The one big advantage constitutionally elected representative government has over all other forms is that it provides the population with a means of getting rid of unpopular regimes without having to resort to civil war. Relevant are the situations in Syria and Libya at the moment.