I have a question for Michael Totten
Did Egypt actually reject political Islam? Or just the Morsi/Brotherhood brand du jour of political Islam?
And why? Was it because they don’t want an Islamic government at all? Or because this particular Islamic government didn’t solve their economic problems?
I think the Muslim world may have to be disappointed a few times by the reality of political Islam before it completely sours on the idea of Islamic governance. On the other hand, each failure for Islamism *will* bring Muslims closer to an acceptance of secularism. Despite the apparent chaos, things in Egypt are headed in the right direction.
“Experience is the school of mankind; they will learn at no other.” Europe didn’t really accept political secularism until it was sick of religious wars. I’m optimistic enough to believe that Muslims, with the intellectual heritage of the West to draw upon, will progress toward secularism faster if given the chance.
Yes and no, neither and both.
The Muslim Brotherhood was rejected. That’s obvious. But they still have some support, as do the Salafists.
The Brotherhood was rejected for both political reasons and for economic reasons. Some people rejected them for only one reason and some people rejected them for both reasons.
I think it’s going to be a while before we know the new breakdown of public opinion.
Totten’s rationale is a mishmash of multiple assertions and then, a paragraph later an admission or assertion that contradicts his original assertion. Rarely have I read a more cognitively confused and self-contradictory missive.
Egypt’s ‘rejection’ of the Muslim Brotherhood’s governance is the result of the confluence of two factors; The Brotherhood’s inability to solve Egypt’s economic problems, which NO Egyptian government, of any composition could do, given that Egypt has little income and its population far outstrips its resources and the Egyptian military deciding that public unhappiness with their economic plight, with its resulting unhappiness with whomever is in charge… made this a propitious time to conduct a coup. The Brotherhood had been incrementally replacing Army leadership with officers loyal to the Brotherhood and the Army acted before it was too late.
Totten implies that ‘moderate’ Islamists have a shot at power in an Egyptian future. Poppycock, as his own words belie that assertion;
“Egypt is the most Islamicized place I’ve ever been, after all–but I assumed they’d have a hard time breaking fifty percent.
Not only did the Muslim Brotherhood win, a huge percentage of Egyptians who voted against them went for the Salafists, the ideological brethren of Osama bin Laden. Egypt turned out to be even more politically Islamicized than I realized, and I knew it was bad.”
In the election that brought Morsi to power, 18.1% of the Egyptian electorate voted for liberal/secularist parties while 498 of 508 seats to the People’s Assembly of Egypt went to hard core Islamists. 255 seats are needed for a majority, which means that Islamists hold the legislative power for the foreseeable future and, that majority will vote upon any new constitution.
None of this contradicts in any aspect the future portended by the fact that 84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy.
The particular make-up of any future Egyptian government will be dominated by two realities; it will be inherently unstable as long as Egypt lacks the resources needed to sustain itself and it will be an essentially Shariah compliant government.
I would argue that the political selling point of the brotherhood was that as “pious” Muslims they would attack corruption. The conspiracy-fueled environment in most Muslim countries personalizes corruption and supports feelings in the public that simply throwing out corrupt ringleaders will fix everything. The underlying problems the public is worried about are all economic.
So the expectation was that the Brotherhood should have been able to restart the economy rapidly. Since it did not/could not do this, it was rejected.
In theory if the Army can retain an image of relative honesty, suppress the MB and get Saudi subsidies they might have a chance to stabilize things. To fix the economy will require vast changes that may not be possible for anyone to do.
Two points I wish to note:
1) The “political” bit is inseparable from the rest of Islam. Muslims who don’t want shariah law implemented are the equivalent of abortion-supporting Catholics in the view of their respective orthodoxies.
2) I don’t see Islam itself being blamed in the Muslim world, only implementations thereof. This is akin to the Marxist belief that Communism has never really been tried, that all its atrocities have been the result of faulty implementation rather than itself under any form.
As for the crises buffeting Egypt, you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet.
“…itself under any form” should be, for greater clarity, “…itself regardless of form.”
Ziontruth,
outstanding points.
Muslims who don’t want shariah law implemented are the equivalent of abortion-supporting Catholics in the view of their respective orthodoxies.
Great, just great. Brevity is the soul of whit and you have once again demonstrated that truth.
If some form of theological rulership would result in Egyptian prosperity, as opposed say, to looming widespread starvation (against which any thinking Egyptian can be presumed to be in alarm), even we might be induced to calmly accept the Egyptian people’s decision to abide thereby.
But what’s the point of political order if not to establish and maintain some relative prosperity and with it some comfortable stability, even extending to a probably prosperous future?
So we can’t be surprised if the Egyptians, looking about at their own estate, seek to avoid disaster, and not even surprised if they stumble a few times as they go about this search. After all, establishing a new political order isn’t exactly a way of life in which people are ordinarily well practiced. (We Americans too, know, historically speaking, the difficulties — think only of the failed Articles of Confederation — to say nothing of our current crisis.)
If, on the other hand, the Egyptians must conclude (from necessity, we may suppose) that their theological hopes for order don’t coincide with their material needs for order, and that therefore they must seek a more secular order, then all to the good for them should their search be satisfied, and insofar as that‘s so, for their imperiled neighbors as well, we can hope.
Meanwhile, Turkey is drifting the wrong way in spite of decades of relative prosperity from a secular government.
sdferr,
If the theological rigidity of Islam were not the overriding factor, I would agree to that possibility.
That is the critical difference between our ancestors response to the failed Articles of Confederation and the situation Egypt faces. Fanaticism is not open to reasoned persuasion or objective consideration of its presumptions, regardless of reality’s constraints.
Morsi received 51.73% of the vote at the time of the election. In office he took measures that were considerably less moderate than he had portrayed himself. Overreach lesson learned, shrewder (more knave-like) politicians may now try to advance Islamism in a less abrupt manner – without suspending the judiciary, etc.
Or perhaps Egypt’s economic decline will outrun the political process, and civil authority will lose its funding. In the ensuing chaos, the Brotherhood’s willingness to massacre their opponents might win the day, allowing Obama to say “I told you so”.
Meanwhile, with Obama at the helm, the US may be on a similar economic track. Unlike Morsi, he is being only audacious enough to – with the aid of the MSM – avoid impeachment and thereby continue his use of executive authority to advance his agenda.
I think of the old Peanuts cartoon: asks one character of another “Why is Charlie Brown banging his head against that tree trunk?” Comes the answer “Because he feels better when he stops.”
I am far, far beyond caring what happens to the Egyptians. Let them starve and kill and eat each other. I have not an ounce of mercy for their plight as long as it stays inside of Egypt. I’m confident the Israelis can take care of themselves.
parker,
Yes the Israeli’s can certainly take care of themselves, at least against conventional Egyptian aggression. However, the real issue is not Egypt itself but Egypt as part of a greater threat. The greater the chaos in Egypt the greater the probability that the most hard line of the jihadists will emerge dominant.
The most hard line of Islamist’s have never concealed their goal, a nuclear armed Caliphate or at least a loose alliance of jihadist states.
Nor is the deciding factor in that potential threat, the logistical resources a nuclear armed jihadist alliance could present. Rather it is in the will to resist that threat wherein the issue lies and, an appeasement minded Obama represents no more an obstacle to a nuclear armed jihadist alliance of nation states, than Chamberlain presented to Hitler.
But this time where is the Churchill waiting in the wings to rally the West? And, is the West even able to respond to that rallying cry, should the need for a Churchill arise?
Would the Brotherhood would be rejected if an election were held today? I’m not sure you can say the Egypt rejected anything, rather the military / elite class used the demonstrations as cover to push them aside. The recent demonstrators might not represent a majority at the ballot box.
“But this time where is the Churchill waiting in the wings to rally the West? And, is the West even able to respond to that rallying cry, should the need for a Churchill arise?”
I wonder as well.
It’s hard to know whether Egypt as a whole has permanently rejected political Islam but this boy certainly has:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QeDm2PrNV1I
One of the smartest kids and one of the most savvy politically I’ve ever seen.
Interesting video, Mitsu. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this brilliant young Egyptian boy fits in ziontruth’s category #1: “The “political” bit is inseparable from the rest of Islam. Muslims who don’t want shariah law implemented are the equivalent of abortion-supporting Catholics in the view of their respective orthodoxies.”
How many of them are there? Polls taken last year showed that 80% of Egyptians favor shariah law. I’m afraid the boy, brilliant and liberal though he may be, is part of a distinct minority.
GB says, “The greater the chaos in Egypt the greater the probability that the most hard line of the jihadists will emerge dominant.”
The emergence of the ‘hard line’ jihadists is a given. They can taste and smell the weakness of the West. The jihadist box was opened 14 centuries ago. At times the lid has been partially closed, such as the Gates of Vienna, but it has never been completely closed and wrapped tight with multiple layers of duct tape and then tossed into the fire to burn.
“One of the smartest kids and one of the most savvy politically I’ve ever seen.”
The boy will be hunted down and raped. Then his throat will be slit and the carcass will be added to the pile. When you believe in things you don’t understand everyone suffers.
Rapist aristocrats out to get little girls aren’t just something the Left likes to cover up on their side. The Middle East also has their aristocratic fetishes they don’t want anyone else to know about.
It’s time to reread Richard Fernandez “The Three Conjectures.” He has an updated version for kindle.
Ultimately, no nation can succeed without the rule of law, respect for individual rights, and a Judeo/Christian view of respect for God and for the Ten Commandments. Including the commandment that says “Thou shalt not covet . . . ” Marxism and socialism, of course, devote their entire philosophy to “coveting.” We know that hasn’t gotten them anywhere.
Finally, from the great American example, we know that free enterprise (i.e. the opposite of statism) is the only system that can increase wealth. Free enterprise depends on the rule of law and property rights.
The Egyptians, whether islamic or military ruled, cannot survive with their meager resources and huge population.
I’ve been thinking of this today: Stalin’s Prosecutor, the profoundly evil Vyshinsky.
Here he is in action in one of the infamous Moscow Show Trials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFB9G1HINXI
(Roland Freisler, Hitler’s Executioner judge, actually learned his sadistic style from watching Vyshinsky: Freisler was a Communist first.0
Morsi’s 52% victory (mentioned by several posters) doesn’t include the 25% or so of the voters who voted for MORE fanatical Salafists. The notion that there is some vast well of anti-Islamist sentiment in Egypt is simply wishful thinking by liberals in the West.
Keep in mind that most (not all, but most) visitors to Egypt rarely go outside of Cairo and the few tourist enclaves, and thus have a very limited view of the population. It is as if you base your entire view of the American political climate by visiting NYC, LA and a capital core of DC. I don’t doubt that Totten has many friends and contacts in Egypt who are intelligent and reject the Islamist poison, but they are a tiny minority in a vast sea of peasants and villagers who mechanically embrace this dark faith…
It isn’t going to end well
“Political Islam” is a redundant expression, truly.
Islam is NOT a faith in any manner that a Westerner understands the term.
It doesn’t even involve all that much faith, per se.
Instead, it’s larded to the gills with rituals, musts and don’ts.
It’s ‘prayers’ fundamentally consist of almost magical thinking, in the psychological sense, as the congregation utters damnations upon all infidels countless times a day.
Such Islamic ‘prayers’ are utterly alien to the Judeo-Christian notion of what a prayer is.
But such ritualized damnations ARE what consumes the muslims FIVE TIMES A DAY.
The remainder of the ritual consists of affirming that allah is calling ALL the shots. Consequently, muslims are bleakly fatalistic, in sh’allah.
The combination of extreme fatalism and xenophobia makes it impossible for any Westerner to commit, successfully, any dogooderisms.
The current travails of Somalia and Egypt are DIRECTLY consequential to NGO efforts to address suffering… making things worse in a substantial way… across the board.
We know from King Lear that some folks can only be instructed by their own mistakes — and sufferings.
Which brings us back to the American, dependent, voter. Obama will be the castor oil to their end.
They’re probably just like we are when it comes to a choice between similar candidates. The majority break it down to the lesser of two evils according to their political bent, while only a lesser percentage at either political spectrum have strong reasons to choose one or the other.
Apparently the perceived similarities disappeared shortly after the MBros came to power, and they weren’t subtle enough, or patient enough, or ruthless enough to hold on.
>Morsi’s 52% victory (mentioned by several posters) doesn’t include the 25% or so of the voters who voted for MORE fanatical Salafists.
That’s actually not true: you’re mixing up the vote in the presidential and the assembly election. In the presidential runoff, there were only two candidates: Morsi (MB) and Shafiq (former Mubarak crony). The vote ended up 52-48, Morsi wins. If the vote were held today it’s unlikely Morsi would win.
Mitsu,
That is true. However hopefully you are not implying that Shafiq was a supporter of democracy. During his campaign, Shafiq famously remarked that he considered former president Hosni Mubarak to be a “role model” confirming for many that he was a holdover from the Mubarak regime. In the main, those who voted for him voted for business as usual.
If I were Pharaoh I would summon the top graduates from Texas A&M and set them to reforming the farming system. I would choose Aggies because of the innate resistance of farmers to change, for it is written “You can always tell an Aggie, but you can’t tell them much.” And I would decree that anyone damaging the tourist trade be summarily shot. No exceptions – this means you.
Shafiq was definitely not a supporter of democracy. I’m just saying that Morsi squeaked out a win against a very unpopular Mubarak crony. If the election were held again he’d probably lose to nearly any candidate that was somewhat centrist.
Mitsu, it was definitely a hard choice for the Egyptian electorate: Muslim Brotherhood or Mubarak crony. I am surprised that Shafiq/Mubarak crony got as much as 48%. Looks to me like the classic Rock and a Hard Place choice. It shows there was a lot of fear of the Muslim Brotherhood.
I am reminded of the 1988 Yes/No referendum in Chile, 15 years after the coup, where a No vote would result in Presidential elections the following year, while a Yes vote would result in Pinochet remaining in office for 8 more years. The No vote won 56-44, which meant that Pinochet had to step down. What surprised me about the vote was that Pinochet got as much as 44%- which was more than the 36.3% Allende got in winning the 1970 election. A very substantial part of the Chilean electorate had such bad memories of the Allende years that 15 years after the coup, Pinochet was considered the lesser of two evils.
[Three weeks before the 1973 coup, the Chamber of Deputies passed a Resolution by an 81-47 vote, a strong 63% majority, which Allende correctly called an invitation to a coup. Patrico Alywin, who was the leader of the No vote contingent in the 1988 referendum, and who was later elected President, was the primary author of the Resolution. That is,the coup had substantial support. Since I brought up Chile, I thought that others might like more information on Chile.]
Egypt has had authoritarian governments for 5,000 years. That is a difficult trend to break. Nor does it appear that the current government will reverse the trend. Nor would Morsi’s government have done so. Rock,meet hard place. It also shows that the Chile comparison goes just so far.