Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
The West now fears that the democratic gains of February are in danger. There are concerns that a smooth transition to democracy will be replaced by a theocratic and Islamic state.
The rise of Muslim Brotherhood after years of repression and its transformation into both the largest and most popular Islamist group in the nation has demonstrated its real chances of electoral success. It was long considered the only viable alternative to the Mubarak regime. It remains so, as the new and liberal parties struggle with obscurity and a lack of foundation among the population.
The problem is that it is considered a ‘radical Islamist’ movement by the West and an advocate of political violence and terrorism. Washington and other states associate the Brotherhood as part of a criminal monolith, alongside other radical Islamist groups, such as al-Qaeda.
But, what are these fears and are they exaggerated? There are several points of contention here that should be examined more closely.
The Muslim Brotherhood has started a recent campaign to address the misconceptions of the international community. Its English-speaking website, ikhwanweb.com goes out of its way to reject “catchy and effective terms and phrases”, such as “fundamentalist” and “political Islam”, as “labels of a Western media that aims to pigeonhole the group.” This is quite a public and international relations effort.
The West continues to question the Brotherhood as a potential friend or foe in a rapidly changing Middle-East.
The Brotherhood has also produced a document entitled the ’15 principles for an Egyptian National Charter’, which include ones such as the, “freedom of conviction, opinion…forming political parties…public assemblies…free and fair elections and religious equality.” These declared statements seem to be in tune with their actions in the two-day parliamentary elections of 28 and 29 November. Brotherhood organisers have stood separate from last week’s protests while calling for, “the elections to go forward”. This is despite the large measure of support and reputation they hold among the population.
Contrary to what some believe, the Brotherhood is considered in Egypt a moderate Islamist party. It is true that the Muslim Brotherhood has come under attack from other Islamist elements, both in Egypt and elsewhere across the globe. Osama bin Laden, himself, accused it of betraying armed jihad and the ideals of Sayid Qutb, an influential brother. According to Foreign Affairs, “Jihadists loathe the Brotherhood for rejecting jihad and embracing democracy”.
The West may fear its ideological subscriptions, but its Egyptian civil political unit, the Freedom and Justice Party, have shown that they are willing to uphold democratic principles and participate in elections rather than resort to violence. The Egyptian branch condemned the generalisation that “describing Muslims as violent is a product of blaming the September 11 incident on al-Qaeda.” Its self-description as a non-violent movement that has officially renounced violence from the scarred memories of decades of repression has testified to these claims.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was often the victim of repression and violence. The recently ousted Hosni Mubarak resented the continued influence it had among the population. The reasons for this are numerous.
The Muslim Brotherhood operates 21 hospitals throughout Egypt, providing modern medical care at subsidised prices. It offers job training programs, has schools in every governorate in the country and programs to support widows and orphans. It has been estimated that the Brotherhood runs around 1,000 out of the total 5,000 non-governmental organisations in the nation.
The Mubarak government was subject to political embarassment when the Brotherhood was able to mobilise more effective humanitarian relief for the victims of the 1992 Earthquake. It is telling that a series of repressive measures were brought down upon them in the same year.
However, the real concern is over their ideological convictions and their criticism of the foreign policies of Western governments. Their commitment to the “democratic program” has been questioned. It is widely understood that its founding father, Hassan al-Banna, claimed that the “Quaran and Sunnah constitute a perfect way of life.” This often provokes fear of a theocratic state with a deep seated resentment toward the West. It is the ideological hatred of Western colonialism and interests that are of the highest concern. Their role in the overthrow of British imperial rule in 1952 and the terrorism employed in the British Mandate of Palestine is well know. It is inevitable that the Brotherhood would be less sympathetic to Western interests in the region than Mubarak had been.
Their hatred of Zionism and their inflammatory rhetoric on Western interests have raised doubts on their commitment to co-operation and non-violence. A Western author, Eric Thrager, has interviewed 30 current and former members of the Brotherhood in 2011 and found that most of these pointed to “important exceptions to violence.” These were the campaigns of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq and Palestine. Some analysts have argued that violence is an instrument to them that is employed when felt necessary.
The attempted assasination of President Nasser in 1952 was a direct response to the growing secularity of the state. Interestingly, they started an armed insurrection against Mubarak in the 1990s, even when they had renounced violence in the 1970s. Some cite this as evidence for their violent nature.
Thrager quotes the former Supreme Guide of the Egyptian Brotherhood, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, as telling him that, “Zionism, the U.S and England are gangs that kill children and women and men and destroy houses and fields…Zionism is a gang, not a country…so we will resist them until they don’t have a country.” Their continued anti-Zionist and anti-U.S rhetoric has been pointed to as evidence of the Brotherhood’s intentions on gaining power.
The Brotherhood has even resisted the option of putting a candidate up for presidency, because of concerns on the power it could wield and for fears of invasion by regimes that remain hostile to it.
However, this “pragmatic restraint”presents an opportunity for the group to be engaged with dialogue and negotiation. The West should overcome its ideological fears and recognise that the Egyptian Brotherhood is willing to head first to the ballot box rather than the armoury. Today, the first post-Mubarak elections have demonstrated their ability to do this.
You must log in to submit a comment.
