Reuters is reporting from Cairo that Egypt’s biggest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood says that only 50 or 60 of the thousands of its members who have tried to register as candidates in the April 8 local elections have been allowed to do so.
Reuters reports this:
- Since the middle of February police have detained, usually without charges, more than 300 Brotherhood members who were planning to stand or who were helping with campaigning.
Muslim Brotherhood officials said on Monday that the movement planned to field about 7,000 candidates for the 52,600 seats at stake in the elections on village, town, district and provincial councils across the country.
The Brotherhood seeks an Islamic state through non-violent, democratic means. The government calls it a banned organisation but allows it to operate within limits.
Egypt’s President Husni Mubarak receives considerable financial, military, and “security sector” support from the US and from other western democracies. Now is a time for democrats in western and other countries to stand up. Do we support democracy in other countries only when it brings to power people who agree completely with our own views? Or do we support the participation in it of all parties and movements that agree to abide by the rules of the democratic game, first and foremost among them being an agreement to settle differences through nonviolent means?
Regarding the use of violence and violent intimidation sin the prent confrontation between the Mubarak regime and the opposition political forces in Egypt, look at any of the pictures of what is happening at the candidate-registration places and read any of the accounts of what is happening, and you decide: which side is trying to use violence and intimidation?
Western governments should inform Mubarak that the aid they give him is completely conditional on him allowing these long-planned elections to proceed in a free and fair manner. Otherwise, what kind of “democracy” is it that these governments proclaim?
The US, especially under Bush, seems to be totally confused on the issue of Egypt and how to deal with it (among, of course the rest of their muddled foreign policy). Mubarak, like many of the despots we support, seems to know just how and when to perform a little tap dance to keep the US money flowing. Currently he is mediating the secret talks between Israel and Hamas (and Fatah and the PA ?) over the Gaza violence. Thus, the befuddled Bush regime is again in a quandry about whether to embarass him regarding democracy at such a delicate time or support him in hopes he might be able to accomplish some of what they are incapable of. Until we finally say goodbye to George and Condi, expect no sense in our foreign policy.
President Bush:
“Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe — outposts of oppression in our world. The people in these nations live in captivity, and fear and silence. Yet, these regimes cannot hold back freedom forever — and, one day, from prison camps and prison cells, and from exile, the leaders of new democracies will arrive.
“More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.
“The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom — the freedom we prize — is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.”–President Bush, November 6, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
Reuters is reporting from Cairo that Egypt’s biggest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood says that only 50 or 60 of the thousands of its members who have tried to register as candidates in the April 8 local elections have been allowed to do so.
I suppose they are using Iran as a template.
Truesdell, I wonder what your comment is supposed to mean, in practice? That the MB should not be allowed to contest fairly in free and fair elections, because you (or I) may happen to have disagreements with, or concerns about, parts of their program? That they are all well-known members of the “international Shiite conspiracy”? (ha, ha, ha.)
Why don’t you look at Turkey, for an example of an Islamist movement that (like the Egyptian MB) has a long commitment to nonviolence and democratic rule-obeying, and a solid reputation for fair dealing and honesty, and that has been in power for a while now and has acted in a generally moderate way that has been well-supported by its citizenry?
Can you tell me which of these models the Egyptian MB is more likely to follow: the Turkish or the Iranian? If you can, how do you do so? I would honestly be interested to know.
What I know is that if self-styled democrats in the west are not prepared to stand up for democratic principles at important and possibly challenging times, then (1) we are worse than hypocrites, and (2) that will make it more likely that non-westerners will judge that all our much-vaunted “principles” are falsely proclaimed and will become much less motivated to listen to the west or engage with us in a fair and respectful way. Why should they, if we don’t also accord them some basic respect?
Why don’t you look at Turkey, for an example of an Islamist movement that (like the Egyptian MB) has a long commitment to nonviolence and democratic rule-obeying, and a solid reputation for fair dealing and honesty, and that has been in power for a while now and has acted in a generally moderate way that has been well-supported by its citizenry?
I don’t think that Turkey is a particularly relevant example here. Turkey’s military has a history of being extremely secular and not at all reluctant to step in and remove governments if they feel that the basic principles of the state set out by Ataturk are being violated. This serves, I believe, as a moderating force for any political actors in Turkey. Recep Erdogan and the AKP are well aware of this. I don’t think that the same type of dynamic comes into play in Egypt.
Never mind Turkey, remember the Khmer Rouge: democracy is not a beauty contest but a process.
The Muslim Brotherhood has, in terms of numbers and devoted support gained enormously from the persecution. It is now an absolute certainty that it will come to power. By hobbling its attempts to do so without violence the US/Mubarak axis simply ensures that it will use other means to achieve what millions of Egyptians and, particularly nowadays, young Egyptians want. From a relatively marginal position in the days of Nasser it has become the vehicle of nationalist aspiration. This has happened largely because the government (bought and paid for in the D of C) has insisted on marginalising it. Nothing could have benefitted it more.
In Palestine the same clever tactics, of pretending that Hamas is not a party within the pale, have vaulted it from obscurity into being dominant, particularly among young, secular minded and intelligent, nationalists. It has taken considerable genius to transform the Islamic parties from conservative relics dominated by old bigots into the bright shining hopes of the best and the brightest. But US foreign policy can perform such miracles: in the Cold War it transformed the weird cult of western positivism, (dull and materialistic soviet Stalinism) into a beacon of hope for communities with one foot in the stone age and a complete ignorance of industrialisation, its pains and problems. This magic was performed in large part by bans and proscriptions which gave a name and a face to that promised thing of which the wretched always dream, the redeemer, mahdi, my enemy’s enemy. Then the name was communist, now it is muslim.
I was not commending Egypt for following the Iranian example.
I find the idea that when the Turkish military– as you put it so daintily– “steps in and removes governments” it is acting as a “moderating force” hilariously funny in the context of any discussion about democracy. Soooo, military coups are now okay if they’re undertaken by thuggish secularists? (Saddam Hussein comes to mind in that regard.)
You may find it “hilariously funny”, but I was refering to your statement that the AKP “has acted in a generally moderate way”. One of the reasons for their moderation may very well be that they know that the army (and likely a very large segement of the poplation) would not tolerate anything else. This is what I meant by a “moderating force”.
You can laugh all you want, but what I was trying to point out is that there is an unusual and very unique situation in Turkey, in that the army, while considering itself the guardian of a secular and democratic Turkey, is willing to step in, but has been very reluctant to actually rule by junta.
And, while we’re discussing democracy, I think that it’s quite reasonable to look at the other side of democracy. That is, not just the rights of the electorate, but their responsibilities as well. Being elected does not automatically transform a reactionary movement with a racist platform into something other than it is, and when the people vote, they assume responsibility for the outcome. The Egyptian people must be willing to accept the responsibility of a Muslim Brotherhood that may very well be willing to abrogate the peace treaty with Israel and take the country to war.
Finally, sometimes democracies do need to protect themselves. I, for one, feel that Israel was wise to ban Meir Kahana and Kach from elections. Given his recent public remarks, I would say that Avigdor Lieberman is approaching that threshold under Israeli law as well. I take it from your remarks, Helena, that you would not agree with me here? And in the worse case – say that Lieberman’s party actually won a plurality of seats in the Knesset and formed the government, would it be fair to say that you would support affording them the same level of recognition and standing that you advocate for Hamas?
JES, I admit that a Yisrael Beitenu plurality would be a hard case. (Hamas, we should note, won not just a plurality but a majority of the seats, though only a plurality of the actual votes.) Personally, I don’t see much distinction between Lieberman and Likud at this point. Your responsibilities in the matter as an Israeliu citizen are different than mine, as an American. But I would say, yes, they should be dealt with by the international community if they’re in power– just like Hamas. The whole point of international diplomacy is not that you talk only to people you already agree with; you should expend particular energy on talking to people with whose actions and positions you strongly DISAGREE, precisely so that you can (1) increase your understanding of them and hopefully also their understanding of you; (2) establish at least a working relationship within which differences can be discussed rather than fought over, and areas of common interest (which always exist) fully explored and expanded; and (3) have a forum in which to de-escalate conflicts, in general.
By the way, of course in the context of a Yisrael Beitenu victory, my tax dollars should not flow to support that Israeli government, and I hope the President would explain to A. Lieberman why that would be. (We could expect the dreadfgul J. Lieberman to stand in the way of that.) But I have almost exactly as strong an objection to my tax dollars going to a Likud government, or indeed this present Kadima government; and that has so far never stopped Congress from shoveling my money into your country’s pocket…
But what would you do, as an Israeli citizen? I hope your answer is not that you’d support the military “stepping in” to remove the elected government? (The IDF has already shown what a terrible job it does at governing, during 40 years of occupation in the OPTs and 22 years in Lebanon.)
What would I do? I might just support your efforts in that case. But I might also support the military stepping in, because I’m not certain that starting a blog and holding silent vigils would really impact someone like Lieberman (or Hamas for that matter). You see, your first paragraph could very much have been written by Neville Chamberlain.
Personally, I’m glad that we have a law that prohibits overt racists from running for Knesset, and that that law has been, I believe, implemented fairly and judiciously. At some point, you have to ask yourself if the proper way to deal with people like Kahana is the way Israel did under our legal system, or the way el Sayyid Nosair did.
After reading over my post above, I realize that what I meant to say was the the preferential way of dealing with Kahana was the way that he was handled under the law, and certainly not the way that Nosair did.
But then, we were talking about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the inaptness of a comparison with the AKP in Turkey, weren’t we?
Some good news:
March 12, 2008
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
“. . .we are concerned by a continuing campaign of arrests in Egypt of individuals who are opponents of the current governing party and are involved in the upcoming local elections. The people of Egypt should be permitted to choose freely among competing candidates. We call on the government of Egypt to cease any actions that would compromise the ability of the Egyptian people to fully exercise their internationally recognized human rights and to participate in a free and fair election.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080312-5.html