Brookings: Experts - Eid Mohamed

The Muslim Brotherhood: Between Democracy, Ideology, and Distrust

Eid Mohamed — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0500

In Egypt’s parliamentary elections of November 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood won 88 of 454 seats, making it the largest opposition bloc in the country. The Brotherhood’s agenda at the time was characterized by a new emphasis on democratic reform. This agenda included demands widely backed by all strains of pro-democracy activists: changing legislation that allowed the imprisonment of journalists, granting independence to Egypt’s judges and canceling a 25 year-old emergency law.

Now that the Brotherhood has risen to power, the history of its moderation – how it came to be seen as a democratic actor – is being questioned. The Brotherhood must respond by re-affirming its democratic bona fides not just in rhetoric but in actual practice. At this critical stage, it is important that the organization de-emphasize its ideological and organizational advantage and recognize that in a fragile process of democratization, even the perception of authoritarianism – regardless of a popular mandate – can be very damaging indeed.

In the political vacuum created by the Egyptian revolution, individual groups have often approached democracy not simply as an ideal to uphold, but as a means to achieve and sustain their power. Islamists and liberals alike are – naturally – trying to use democratic participation as a means to secure political gains. Detractors of each camp, meanwhile, point to ways in which the other is in fact “undemocratic.” Despite the Brotherhood’s electoral success, some Arab and Western journalists and intellectuals maintain that it is not and can never be a democratic actor. Islamists, on the other hand, argue that their opponents’ failure to respect the group’s repeated successes at the polls proves they are not true democrats. If democracy is to genuinely and successfully take hold in Egypt, both Islamists and their rivals need to go beyond rhetoric formed by ideological confrontation.

To be sure, today’s problems are not caused simply by President Mursi’s actions or by the controversy over the country’s constitution, which was signed into law last month. They are the result of a wider political culture of cynicism and distrust. The extent of distrust often masks the similarities between these factions; Egyptian liberals and Islamists both believe Islam and even Islamic law are compatible with democracy. They both claim to champion and cherish democracy, but not enough to actually practice it. As the two camps become further polarized, an “us versus them” mentality is becoming so ingrained that it has become a serious threat to the social fabric and political life of post-Mubarak Egypt.

Following the latest decrees expanding President Mursi’s powers, some have again started to characterize him and the Brotherhood not just as flawed democrats, but militants, terrorists, and fascists – the old stereotypes of political Islam. Even after canceling the November decree that sparked recent protests, some opposition groups still see all measures taken by Mursi as “illegitimate.” On the other hand, Mursi and the Brotherhood continue to claim that there are any number of conspiracies against them. It has become routine for the group’s officials to insinuate, without a shred of evidence, that an opposition figure has been bought, is biased, or has a foreign agenda.

The Brotherhood has historically acted in a positive manner as a peaceful, non-violent mainstream organization that has worked intensely within the framework of democracy. If it wishes to maintain this image, the group will need to project its honest, peaceful, cooperative impulses. It can do this through four main efforts: engaging in genuine self-criticism and acknowledging recent mistakes, maintaining a record of keeping its protests peaceful, emphasizing the importance of societal dialogue and stating that the Muslim Brotherhood will not impose its interpretation of Islam on society. The process of defining a constitutional democracy is about more than the imposition of one group’s will through securing a slim majority.

The opposition, on the other hand, may need to re-evaluate their preconceived notions of democracy and participation. If Mursi fails to stick to promises he made during his campaign, this can be used to call people not to vote Brotherhood in the future. But at the moment all must abide by the rules of the democratic game. Some argue that no matter how democratic Islamists become, liberals and secularists will always view them as aggressive and totalitarian. Regardless of how these groups view Islamists, they should resist their impulse to reject all cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. As part of this effort the Egyptian opposition should accept the new constitution that was approved by a majority in last month’s referendum. Egyptians have backed a constitution that has managed to deeply polarize the country – there is a need now to seek ways to end that polarization and provide the stability needed to help an extremely fragile Egyptian economy.

As the experience of Egypt’s first revolutionary parliament showed – before it was dissolved last June – politics will force both liberals and Islamists to work with each other on issues of concern to both parties. It may be unclear at this stage whether these efforts at cooperation will diminish current levels of polarization. Both Islamists and liberals should take into consideration, however, that there are new actors such as labor unions, employers’ associations, revolutionary groups and other civil society groups which gained a sense of empowerment after the revolution. Often, it is these groups that are most able to cross ideological lines and truly represent social interests. They constitute the real revolution in Egyptian society, and provide an example that politicians would do well to follow.

Authors

Eid Mohamed

Publication: Asharq Alawsat English

The Role of America in a Changing Arab World

Eid Mohamed — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

The Arab Spring created a mass movement for political reform across the Middle East and North Africa.

The revolution continues to transform the region’s politics and has been showing some signs of creating social reform. There was a lack of a central leader in the Arab Spring; however, the absence of one leader pushed each individual to lead. With each individual taking ownership of his participation, the Arabs’ revolution became bigger than many expected. The purpose of this nonviolent protest was for Arab citizens to raise their voices against the oppression and injustice they had dealt with for decades under pro-US regimes. These regimes’ extreme corruption and injustice made it harder for people to respect those rulers.

The issue was not that corruption was the people’s only problem with the regimes; rather, the problem was the pervasiveness of the corruption in everyday life. From cases of fraud to instances of individuals gaming the system -- even by doing something as simple as using their connections to cut in line -- this aspect of those regimes was and still is a major issue for the Arab Spring states.

The United States of America has historically aided immigrants to the US who are fleeing hardship in their homelands. In more recent times, though, the United States has taken this approach outside its borders and applied it on the international level. Americans have quickly earned an unflattering reputation for going into countries suffering from conflict and thinking that their presence will make all the difference.

The United States is no stranger to rocky relationships with Arab nations, and, with the onset of the Arab Spring, the future of these relationships became even more fragile. In a country such as Egypt, where Mubarak and his regime had held political control for decades, it was reassuring for US officials to know that the leadership they were dealing with was stable, even if they did not necessarily agree with that leadership’s policies. Now that this head of state is gone, America no longer knows where they stand with Egypt. Instead of letting Egypt’s issues play themselves out, though, America is trying to push money and ideas on Arabs for American gain.

The United States should instead use the Arab Spring as an opportunity to rebuild its image as a superpower and do away with negative perceptions of the US in the Arab world. America did not reach its current state overnight; Americans have to realize that it will take time for Arab Spring nations to get back on their feet and create new identities for themselves. The citizens of these countries are, in the end, people seeking freedom just as America’s founding fathers did. Americans think about the Middle East and associate it with oil, as well as the threat of terrorism. They need to allow the Arab Spring states to develop into nations that will benefit themselves as well as the United States. Someday, they can be America’s democratic partners on the world stage -- on their own terms.

Authors

Eid Mohamed

Publication: Today's Zaman

Image Source: © Jason Reed / Reuters

With Us or a Terrorist: Bush and Bashar’s Holy Wars Against Terrorism

Eid Mohamed — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

In a speech about the “War on Terror,” former American President George W. Bush referred to the “crusades” to describe his war against terrorism, recalling the wars waged by the Christian West against Arabs and Muslims in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.

The connotation of “crusade” in English is still fairly positive in spite of recent Western scholarly reassessments of these wars, while in the East the term still has strong negative associations.

Moreover, Bush’s “axis of evil” speech strengthened this view since two-thirds of the axis (Iran and Iraq) he condemned were Muslim, and the organizations he classified as “terrorist” during the speech were all Muslim. Bush’s legacy of failure in Iraq, including the loss of the “common will” of Americans, paved the way to a new spirit and direction for US foreign policy, buoyed by the first African-American presidency in the US. The spirit of “change” born in post Bush-era America found its way to the Arab world, which has since then seen more calls for democracy and “change” domestically and internationally.

On the other side, in many of his speeches, Bashar al-Assad asserts that “the issue is terrorism. We are facing a real war waged from the outside.” Al-Assad’s regime insists on attributing the armed opposition in Syria to terrorist groups, which they claim come from the US, Turkey and Gulf nations. Terrorism in Bashar and Bush’s speeches is used to justify violence against civilians and to deceive the public through skewed use of language.

In both cases, citizen journalists succeed in uncovering state terrorism. In Iraq, we all remember the transformative role of Citizen Media and web video in the coverage of the war in Iraq. In April 2004, photos of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were broadcast, causing revulsion and anger throughout the world. The Bush administration had claimed the invasion of Iraq was to liberate Iraqis from tyranny, but the photos of torture and abuse suggested America was not living up to its espoused principles.

Nowadays Syria is attempting to get free and rid of the current regime by connecting citizen journalists who are also activists on the ground in Syria. In addition, they are not only documenting and trying to connect with as many activists as possible; they’re creating and providing possible solutions, specifically pushing for a no fly zone, along with other solutions to resolve this terrible conflict and to ultimately bring the senseless killing to an end as quickly as possible.

Armed conflict in the country is only escalating, and the opposition’s new tactics could be seen as terrorist in their nature but never so when placed in the appropriate context of guerrilla warfare. The nature of the conflicts in Syria, just like the one in Iraq after the American invasion, made the line between opposition and terrorist hard to draw, especially for Westerners, demarcating little more than differences in the ultimate goal for Syrian regime change. The perceptions of the West -- and its silence over the bloodshed -- in the dogmas of various opposing forces in Syria today could prove to be a major point of contention that will bear sour fruit in the months and years to come, whether or not Bashar al-Assad successfully asserts his authority in the short term.

Authors

Eid Mohamed

Publication: Today's Zaman