Our member Gillian Kennedy from King's College London is writing her Ph.D. on strategies within the Egyptian Islamists movement and recently argued on atlantic-community.org that the West's political leaders must not be afraid to engage with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).
The MB is not seeking an Iranian style theocracy she says, but rather
a democratic system with conservative Islamic norms. She argues that
the younger generation of Muslim Brothers is even open to dialogue with
Israel and stated that in no other country is there an Islamist movement
so experienced with working with a coalition of broad based groups.
Ed Husain, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations made similar arguments in this video statement:
Gillian Kennedy's article provoked intense debate with more than 40 comments. Many
atlantic-community.org members are concerned about the Muslim
Brotherhood gaining power in Egypt, while others are less apprehensive
or stress that the West cannot and should not interfere in Cairo after
decades of support for Mubarak's brutal authoritarian regime.
Felix Seidler (University of Würzburg) stated that,
"after the failure of US and European policy, Westerners should keep
quiet with demands or proposals and, instead, let the Egyptians find
their own way." He was joined by Anamaria Tamas (Institute for Cultural Diplomacy)
who argued that the West should not "automatically fear an Islamic
alternative/opposition to Mubarak, but encourage the choice of the
Egyptian people, regardless of what that might be. After all, that's
what democracy means."
The author of the piece, Gillian Kennedy responded by saying that
"banning Islamist parties from taking part in an open political process
has only played into the hands of the more extreme fringes of the
Islamist movements. The West's policy of aiding authoritarian regimes is
counter productive because it results in more fervent anti-West feeling
across the Arab world...the present revolution that we are seeing on the
streets of Cairo is about economic and social grievances, not about some
anti-Israeli/global jihad crusade." However, Niklas Anzinger (University of Bayreuth) argued that is in the West's interest to "help build democratic institutions that can in the end outplay the MB's influence."
All commenters agreed that the Muslim Brotherhood is the strongest
and best organized opposition group. Yet, some members like Marco Funk (University of Central Florida),
pointed out that our discussion should not focus on the MB because
"what we are seeing is a broadly-based popular movement against the
Mubarak regime, not a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood." He went
on to argue that the majority of the Muslim Brotherhood is anti-western
because of the West's continued support of the Mubarak regime and that
religion played only a secondary role.
Marcel Lewicki (University of Munich) added that so far
"Copts and Muslims, secularists and religious people have set their
differences aside and protest (for the most part) peacefully and side by
side." He also rejected several arguments making comparisons between
the situation in Egypt today with Iran 1979.
Regarding the democratic credentials of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ms.
Kennedy persuasively argued that "from examining the previous 30 years
of MB policies, they are willing to take part in the democratic process
and to form alliances with other secular or leftist parties in order to
form a coalition of governance in Egypt."
Despite this, a few commenters remained unconvinced that the MB are
committed democrats. They were concerned that they would only use the
democratic process, cooperation and non-violence to gain power, after
which they would renege on their commitments. Their plan according to
John Hadjisky (blogger) is thus: "One person. One vote. One
time." He was also concerned about the possibility of the MB starting a
"proxy war" with Israel by gaining control of Hamas and making
incursions into Gaza.
Niklas Anzinger emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of the
Muslim Brotherhood and voiced his concerned that the US administration
was considering "involving the MB in a prospective democratic process".
However, he remained optimistic on the developments in Tunisia at the
moment, "where there are indeed a lot of indications of democratic
change without Islamist bypasses."
Dear members of atlantic-community.org,
- Are you supportive
of the ongoing popular uprising in Egypt? Or are you
primarily concerned about groups like the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power? - What do you think is
the best approach the US
and Europe should adopt toward Egypt?
- In a broader context, do you believe that the current wave of uprisings throughout North Africa and the Middle East could spread even further? How can a democratic transition be best supported?
Read related articles from atlantic-community.org members:
- Gillian Kennedy: Don't Be Afraid of Egypt's Muslim Brothers
- Ioan Mircea Paşcu: How to Respond to the Revolutionary Wave
- Editorial Team: Democratic Change in the Arab World?
Photo License: CC BY 2.0 Nick Bygon
- 11
February 10, 2011
Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)
"There are no easy answers how to respond to the unrest in the Middle East at the moment. I think its safe to say that the entire West stands behind the notion of the region becoming populated by western oriented, liberal democracies that embrace women's rights, minority rights, etc.
Whether this is the actual end game in the region is debateable and certainly unknowable in the short-term. Could such an eventuality evolve over the period of several decades? Of course. However, the West seems to have difficulty understanding that just because other peoples in other regions want to increase their material well being through better jobs and the capacity to obtain more comforts, does not mean they share all Western values...
Sure the elites of various societities may subscribe to remarkably similar views, but do the 'people?'
The world remains far from homogeneized. As long as it is, there will always be some issues that are irreconcilable except through force or through clever diplomacy that obfuscates rather than elucidates core differences...
So what to do? Mostly, wait and see. It is not a mark of wisdom to rush to judgement on what history's verdict will be. Too many have tried that before and been quite disappointed. Orderly transitions, not revolutionary overthrows should be the outcome sought. "
I suppose that the above selections sound "cautious" or maybe even slightly cynical. However, the thing that keeps getting lost amidst all the sense of euphoria about "democratization" is that a democracy can empower those that are the antithesis of what the West considers democratic. This does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the demonstrations. Nor does it mean we can't attempt to use limited leverage to open the political system in Egypt. That is consistent with Western ideals. However, many seem to want the West, and especially the U.S., to dump Mubarak immediately.
That is exactly the kind of thing that opens the door to Jacobinism. After all, I am sure no one thought Robespierre would be so aggressive with the guillotine. Nor did many expect a Corsican corporal to take advantage of unrest to become an Emperor. The same thing could be said when the Germans sent a certain Mr. Lenin into Russia during WWI and when an Ayatollah recording on audiotapes in Paris returned to Iran in 79.
Every case is unique and I do not argue that radicalization is an inevitable result of Mubarak being unceremoniusly taken out of power. Yet, it certainly is a possibility. Yes, coddling dictators forever is an act guaranteed to breed instability over the long term. But how those dictators are dealt with in the short term can also yield many other unforseen problems. This is why the West must support a transition that is likely too slow to appease the demostrators (and Western ideological preferences), yet also a real transition rather than a theatrical production dedicated to ensconcing the current entrenched political structure.
Slow and deliberate. That is the best thing to be. Less is a betrayal of our ideals. More is to invite chaos, which is the parent of instability and extreme violence.