Pages

Showing posts with label Muslim Brotherhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim Brotherhood. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2012

Reaction to "Innocence of Muslims" movie : DVDs on Prophet Muhammad in 30 languages


Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo has launched a campaign to introduce Prophet Mohammed to the world by distributing DVD’s in 30 languages, explaining the message of Islam and the life of the Prophet.


At the same time, Dr. Abdul-Rahman Al-Barr, member of the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau, has appealed on Muslim producers to use their artistic talents to create productions of the highest standards of quality, in all languages, to highlight aspects of greatness in the Messenger of God, to introduce him to the peoples of the whole world, and to use those productions to compete at international art festivals of all kinds.


"We must introduce the Prophet in an appropriately positive manner. When defending the Prophet, we must begin by understanding his life and his personality. Those who do not quite appreciate Prophet Mohammed must learn about him first, before talking about him. We should inform people about the Prophet, instead of pushing them away from him, from Islam."
Here

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Biggest winner of the world in 2011 was Islam : Patrick Buchanan



This year, clearly, one of the world's big winner was -- Islam.

From Morocco to Pakistan, a great awakening is occurring. The most dramatic example of Islam rising again came in Egypt, with the fall of the 60-year-old military dictatorship. The West hailed the coming of democracy but democracy delivered a rude shock. In the first round of voting, over 60 percent of ballots were for the Muslim Brotherhood or the radical Islamist Nour Party. In the second round, 75 percent voted Islamist. In Tunis and Tripoli, too, the overthrow of autocrats revealed a silent majority sympathetic to Islamism.

Worldwide, the Muslim population has surpassed Catholicism as the world's largest religion, with 48 members of the U.N. General Assembly now boasting a Muslim plurality or majority.

India, with 150 million Muslims, has more than both Egypt and Iraq. Russia, with 25 million, has more Muslims than Libya and Jordan combined. China has more than Syria. Five percent of Europe is Muslim, and the numbers continue to rise.
If demography is destiny, the future would seem to belong to Islam.
Patrick Buchanan in an article titled "Second Period of Islamic Powrer" in Realclearpolitics. Here

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Egypt: Freedom and Justice Party launched

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s best organised movement, on Saturday announced the formation of a party to contest up to half of parliament’s seats in a September election.

Mohammed Hussein, the group’s secretary general, said at a news conference that the movement’s consultative council decided at a meeting to adopt a decision to form the new Freedom and Justice Party.
“We have adopted the measures taken by the guidance council regarding the Freedom and Justice Party and adopted its programme,” he said.

He said the party, which will be headed by the Brotherhood’s politburo member Mohammed al-Mursi, will be “independent from the Brotherhood but will coordinate with it.”

The party will contest only between 45 and 50 percent of seats in an upcoming election in September, the first since a popular revolt in February ousted president Hosni Mubarak.

A report in World News. More Here

Freedom and Justice Party could emerge as the biggest bloc

Analysts said the group could win about a third of the votes in the September election and emerge as the biggest bloc in parliament.

Headquarters of Freedom and Justice Party
"The Brotherhood will certainly have a decisive influence over the debates of the assembly, its decisions and the formation of a new constitution," political analyst and university professor, Mustapha al-Sayyid said.

"The Islamist group will have more power to block legislation it does not like more than passing new laws if they were largely opposed by other members."
DEEP ROOTS

The Brotherhood is an Islamist group founded in the 1920s and has deep roots in Egypt's conservative Muslim society. Though formally banned under Mubarak, it was tolerated as long as it did not challenge his power.

At a news conference on Saturday, the group's secretary general, Mahmoud Hussein, confirmed that the group would not field a candidate in a presidential election, due after the parliamentary vote.

But Mohamed Mursi, the newly appointed head of the Brotherhood's Justice and Freedom Party, refused to rule out contesting a presidential vote and said it was too early to discuss the party's plans.
"When the brotherhood group says its party is independent it means it," he said.

A report in reuters. More Here

Friday, March 04, 2011

Political work is an integral part of Islamic work : Ikhwan leader


Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Dr. Rashad al-Bayoumi is the deputy head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. His organization could be set to play a significant role in Egypt's latest political chapter, having recently declared the intention to form a political party. This move has been met with concern in Western circles, with fears that Egypt's domestic and foreign policies could dramatically shift, if it were governed by an Islamist trend.

Dr. Al-Bayoumi, 74, is a long-serving member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and also works as a professor of geology at Cairo University. He has spent a total of 18 years in prison, during the era of the former regime, when the Muslim Brotherhood was a banned organization. His most recent arrest came in 2006, when he along with other Brotherhood members were detained for holding an organized meeting.
Asharq al-Awsat recently spoke with Dr. al-Bayoumi to learn about the Muslim Brotherhood's plans for the coming phase in Egypt. During the interview, he elaborated on his organization's political motives, as well as discussing several controversial aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood manifesto. Dr al-Bayoumi also reflected on the success of the Egyptian revolution, and what needs to be done to build on this. The following is the text from the interview:

Asharq Al-Awsat : Was the Muslim Brotherhood organization waiting for one of its leaders to be chosen [by the Supreme Military Council] as part of the interim Egyptian government, which is now incorporating some political opposition figures?
Al-Bayoumi: Not in the current government, or in any other. We are not asking to be placed in a position of authority, and we do not aim to be in a position of power or have a parliamentary majority, whether in the current phase or in the future.

Asharq Al-Awsat : Some people have expressed their skepticism about a political group making such concessions, why has the Muslim Brotherhood agreed to these political concessions?
Al-Bayoumi: This is because we feel that there are those who want to play the card of warning against the Muslim Brotherhood, and some people have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of wanting to hijack the revolution of the youth, despite the fact that we have lived this revolution from its first day and we have our martyrs. However we only want to be partners of the people, and we have announced that we are of the people and that we do not want to come to power, or form a government, or even put forward [parliamentary] candidates to achieve a parliamentary majority. Our goal is reform.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  However on Egypt's Friday of Victory [18 February 2011] we saw some Muslim Brotherhood figures attempt to promote the role they played in the Egyptian revolution…and Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi's Friday sermon at Tahrir Square also gave the proceedings a Muslim Brotherhood flavor. What is your response to this?
Al-Bayoumi: Firstly, al-Qaradawi is too great a figure to be included in any single category or group, he is the head of the International Union of Islamic Scholars, which means that he enjoys a consensus [of support] from all Muslim scholars, and his presence in Tahrir Square was an expression of his general mantle [as head of the International Union of Islamic Scholars], rather than his personal mantle. It is unreasonable to imagine that everybody in Tahrir Square on the Friday of Victory was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who were present were attended as Egyptian nationalists, so these accusations have no basis. The Copts have embraced al-Qaradawi, his Friday sermon was addressed to all Egyptians, and the revolution belongs to all Egyptians. We are an effective component of [Egyptian] society, and we are keen to engage with members of all faiths, and we do not have any ambition for leadership or rule.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  If the Muslim Brotherhood has no ambitions for power, why isn't this simply an Islamic Dawa [missionary] organization?
Al-Bayoumi: Political work is an integral part of Islamic work, for Islam is a comprehensive religion and politics is part of general Islamic work. It is our duty, with regards to what was happening in the country, to put forward ideas, participate, and offer sacrifices. Those who do not want to understand this perhaps failed to understand what was happening in Egypt, and our experiences are the best evidence [of this]; for at the parliamentary elections our slogan was "participation not combat."

Asharq Al-Awsat :  Now your demands have been met and former President Hosni Mubarak has stepped down from power. What's next for the Muslim Brotherhood?
Al-Bayoumi: This is not accurate, for this was not just our demand, but the demand of the entire Egyptian people. Everybody must [also] be aware that there are hands belonging to the remnants of the former regime playing in the shadows, and some figures [of the former regime] are still taking action or trying to regain control, trying to hijack the revolution and overturn it. There are figures of the former regime who still remain on the scene, figures such as former State Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Mufid Shahab, and he – along with former parliamentary speaker Ahmed Fathi Sarour – was a fundamental partner in the destruction of the constitution and laws. Their presence, with others, raises large question marks. In addition to this, questions remain over other demands issued by the Egyptian revolution which have yet to be met, including the state of emergency that we have been living under for more than 30 years, as well as the state security apparatus continuing their operations, particularly as it was this octopus-like organization which devastated the country. In addition to this, [questions marks remain over] detainees in prison, defendants convicted by exceptional courts. However above all else, there is the current government that was formed by the former president and sworn in by him. All of these issues require detailed attention, and the realization that we have a lot of work in front of us in order to preserve the popular revolution.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  Is the Muslim Brotherhood content with Mubarak stepping down from power, or will you seek to bring him to trial, whether this is regarding the sources of his wealth in particular, or the policies of the former regime, in general?
Al-Bayoumi: The trial of the regime is inevitable, the trial of all members of the regime and its policies, and it is enough to recall that there are 365 martyrs [who died in the Egyptian uprising] and we do not know who is responsible for their death by live ammunition. The public demand now is for the officials who are responsible for what happened in the country – from corruption and more – to be handed over [to the courts], and the priority, of course, is for the crime of murder which occurred against the people of this nation. What is strange is that we are trying former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly for corruption, before we bring him to trial for ordering the killing of people in the streets.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  Is the Muslim Brotherhood satisfied with the decisions taken by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, since it took over running the country?
Al-Bayoumi: Until now, we can consider what has happened to be a beginning, but this has not quenched the thirst of the people, for this is not the hope of the people, the issue was not toppling Mubarak, but rather toppling the entire regime; all of its members, pillars, and policies. The issue is not one of figures, but rather of policies pursued by the Mubarak regime devastated Egypt on different levels throughout the decades of his reign.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood has announced that it intends to form a political party, but has yet to clarify what the relationship will be between the political party and the [international] Muslim Brotherhood organization. Can you clarify this relationship?
Al-Bayoumi:The thinking is of a political party that has been present for a long period of time, and there is a decision from the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council to this effect, for political work is part of the Muslim Brotherhood organization's work, as we said before, and the political party's will have a role at a specific level. However the fundamental for us, with regards to political work, is binding this with the moral framework and what unites the Muslim Brotherhood organization with the political party is the ideological framework. As for the political party structure, this will certainly be separate from the Muslim Brotherhood organization, and we are not – within the Muslim Brotherhood's institutions – studying the existing [political] models for this in the neighboring countries.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood's political manifesto for 2008 was the subject of severe criticism, particularly with regards to your organization being against Copts or women standing for the presidency. This raised a lot of concerns, both internally and externally, can you tell us if the Muslim Brotherhood remains committed to this proviso?
Al-Bayoumi: We consider our position with regards to who can potentially assume the presidency [of Egypt] to be part of the freedom of choose an Islamic jurisprudential opinion, and a Muslim has this choice, and we have chosen this [jurisprudential] opinion as it is the opinion of the majority of Islamist scholars and we do not impose this upon anybody, but rather we, for our part, will not put forward a Coptic or woman candidate for the presidency, however other parties will have the right to do so or not.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  If another party chose a woman or a Copt as a presidential candidate, and this candidate won the elections to become president, what would the Muslim Brotherhood's position be?
Al-Bayoumi:So long as it is the [Egyptian] people who chose this figure and voted, we do not mind, however we are facing a world that is open to us [as Muslims], but can a Muslim become president in the US, or France, or Italy? Of course there are no provisions preventing this, however the majority decides, in Egypt the majority is Muslim, therefore why should the Muslim Brotherhood be subject to all of these attacks when we speak about this? The Muslim Brotherhood is looking at this issue due to its responsibilities and tasks, including leading the Muslims. Can a non-Muslim or woman undertake these responsibilities? However even if a woman should win the elections we will not stand against this, and we will accept this choice, however our own position within our party regarding [presidential] nominations is clear, we will not nominate a Copt or woman.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood continually acknowledges following the creed "whenever you must choose between two things, it is better to choose the easier" which is based upon a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad. Why do you therefore stick to this hard-line position with regards to the electoral nomination of a Copt or a woman, particularly when Islamic scholars such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Sheikh Mohamed Salim al-Awa, have said that there is nothing religiously impermissible about a Copt or woman leading a Muslim country?
Al-Bayoumi: We have not taken a hard-line position, this is the opinion of the majority, and there is a prohibition about shifting between one jurisprudential view and another to choose the easiest. However, God said "and the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion." [Surat al-Baqara, Verse 120]. This is clear, whatever we say or do. This issue is being studied and perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood will decide to take a different position.

Asharq Al-Awsat : Some people fear Egypt's foreign relations will be affected by the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly international agreements that your group may be against. How do you respond to this?
Al-Bayoumi: We respect international agreements and major political issues, whatever they may be, however with regards to an objective and academic look [at this issue], it is the right of either side, or any one side, to review and discuss according to the circumstances and requirements. The Camp David Accords were never put to the people or even to the parliament in the proper manner, but rather these were enforced from above. One of the most important articles of this agreement was the establishment of a Palestinian State, very well, but let us ask: where is this [Palestinian] state? Secondly, where is this comprehensive peace in light of the daily massacres and brutal attacks that the Palestinians are subject to? Who has destroyed this agreement, in light of the genocidal plans against the Palestinian people, and the systematic move to Judaize Jerusalem and destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque? There is also the issue of the secret articles included in this accord, from selling Egyptian natural gas to Israel at a fifteenth of its real price. All of this must be put to the people, and it is the people's right to reconsider thee conventions. Of course, we do not accept the Camp David Accords at all, but re-evaluating and dealing with this must be done according to the law.
 
Asharq Al-Awsat : Some people believe Egypt could be subject to international or even regional isolation should the Muslim Brotherhood come to power, as occurred when Hamas came to power in Palestine. What is your opinion of this?
Al-Bayoumi:  We [the Muslim Brotherhood] are the keenest of all Egyptians for Egypt to return to the Arab and Muslim body, for Egypt's isolation from the Arab and Islamic world only occurred due to the signing of the Camp David Accords, and we want to return to the Arab world, and return it to its status and prestige internationally. We are also calling the most strongly for connecting with the Arab and Islamic societies, and we want to restore Egypt to its place at the fore-front of the Arab world, for Egypt to always lead the way.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The success of the Egyptian revolution has resulted in lifting the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood organization and institutions. How will this effect the organization?
Al-Bayoumi: We ask God this, and we hope to meet and consult with one another in public, and for everybody to know what we say, and what we want for our people and countries, because what we are saying is no secret, for what we want is to raise up the Muslim ummah, and we do not want anybody to think that we are working in the shadows or against anybody's interests.

Asharq Al-Awsat : Don't you think this will anger the West?
Al-Bayoumi: What's this got to do with them? Why should we care about what they say in the outside world?

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood was previously interested in communicating with opposition parties; will you remain committed to this policy after the success of the revolution?
Al-Bayoumi: Certainly…we remain keen to communicate with everybody, as long as this is in the interests of society.

Shaaban Abdul Sattar with Rashad al-Bayoumi in Asharq alawsat. More Here.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain.... : Will it lead to amalgamation of the Middle East into ONE NATION?


Revolutions are often exported; but sometimes imported too. As they know no national or international boundary they travel thick and fast.

The recent upsurge in the Arab world is something very unique. It is both a mixture of export and import. From Tunisia in the west to Bahrain in the east the revolutionary fervor has swept over half a dozen countries, with more coming under its spell. Though it is Tunisia, which took the lead and Egypt apparently imported from the former yet the truth is that it is the latter which is the epicenter of all the great political earthquake in the entire region. Egypt has the oldest, most organized, anti-West and anti-Israel, pro-people party called the Muslim Brotherhood with Islam as its ideology. This party was formed in 1928 and had branches in several countries. Since Egypt is the fountainhead of revolution it is attracting much more global attention.

Europe in late 18th and 19th centuries also witnessed such series of huge changes. The 1789 French Revolution was followed by two more series of big upheavals in 1830-31 and 1848. In those years a number of monarchs were overthrown but many such revolts ended in bloodbath.

Though it is England, which took the first step in the direction of democracy the credit for exporting the idea goes more to France. This notwithstanding the fact that the first French Revolution of 1789 achieved little and it was back to square minus one after 1792-93 when thousands of people were massacred in Reign of Terror. This dance macabre paved the way for the take over of Brigadier General Napoleon in 1798, who later declared himself as Emperor in 1804. As an Emperor he brought about some reforms, but by 1815 it was all over as he lost in the Battle of Waterloo and France was thrown back to history.

A series of revolts in 1831 and 1848 led to the downfall of many tyrants and paved the way for Unification of Germany and Italy. However, the real democracy, which the West boasts about, is only a 20th century phenomenon, when women too got voting rights. Incidentally France, which takes credit for the growth of democratic idea, gave voting right to women in 1945, that is, after the Allied power rescued it from the four year of German occupation on August 26, 1944.

Even the United States gave voting right to all the citizens, including the entire Black population, a few decades back. Yet the West talks too much about exporting this so-called democratic-liberalism even before implementing it in to on itself.

After the liberal democratic idea it was the turn of the Communism to take the world by storm. But a close scrutiny of Communist history would suggest something else. Though it spread far and wide it failed to bring about a series of revolution in the world as it is happening now or in Europe earlier in the history. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 no other country came under its influence. In contrast it led to the birth of anti-Communist Fascist and Nazi regimes in Italy and Germany.

Communism expanded only after the end of World War-II in 1945 when Soviet army occupied several East European countries and thrust its own regime on them. China was the first big country, where Communist Revolution took place on October 1, 1949, that is 32 years after Russia. This was followed a decade later by Cuba while Vietnam and Cambodia fought their way to become Communist countries in 1975. Communist North Korea is actually the result of three years of Korean War (1950-53) in which South got support of the United States and allies while North Korea of China.

The current series of revolts in Arab countries is likely to disturb the West and Israel more than any other countries. Unlike Europe, only one language is spoken in the entire stretch of about 22 countries. They are followers of the same religion, Islam, and almost same sect too. Suddenly the importance of Muslim Brotherhood as one single largest entity has emerged. Except Bahrain, where the majority is Shia and ruler Sunni, all the other Arab countries are predominantly Sunni. Yet these Sunni revolutionaries are getting the moral support from Shia Iran, which is perhaps the most worrying development for the West and Israel. 

Earlier European kingdoms were also predominantly Christian but there was strong sectarian divide. Almost all of them spoke different languages with nationalistic feeling very strong. Colonialism further contributed to its growth. The wave of nationalism led to the two World Wars, which caused the death of between five and six crore people the world over.

So while democratic revolutions in Europe created more differences among the European nations the changes in the Arab world tend to bridge the gap among the population spread over two continents––Africa and Asia. Any such development is likely to have a far-reaching impact on the West, which is now trying its level best to deal with the emerging situation.

A century ago Britain and France started the process of disintegrating the Ottoman Empire, which got completed in 1922. Over a hundred years later the process has started reversing. No western or Israeli intelligence agencies perhaps ever predicted that in matter of weeks things would turn upside down.

Soroor Ahmed in Newzfirst. More Here

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Real test for Muslim Brotherhood has begun now!

 
The anti-Islamic, self-proclaimed messiahs everywhere argue their non-case, passionately warning that “deluge after us” and if the Ikhwan comes to power, there would be anarchy, chaos and total disorder. To quote from an editorial of The Hindu, Jan. 20/11: “After an absurd attempt to blame the Ikhwanul Muslimeen or Muslim Brotherhood the Mubarak regime turned to violence with the police and semi-official thug militias, using tear gas and rubber coated steel bullets against protesters.”
 
ONEROUS RESPONSIBILITY
Let the prophets of doom come forward to substantiate maligning of the Brotherhood, on whose shoulders however now an onerous responsibility rests. They have to prove how a caliphate proves better than a democracy; how the interest-free banking proliferates welfare in an Islamic state; how the divine-oriented politics creates poise and equilibrium in society; how the dignified gender-norms create conditions in which a lonely woman can all alone travel fearlessly from Lidmorts to Mogadishu, and Mauritania to Sinkiang. If, Heavens forbid, they fail, the upholders and advocates of Islam will lose face for no fault of theirs.
More strength to the elbows of the strugglers!
 
Dr Ausaf Saied Vasfi in Radiance Weekly. More Here.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Egypt fallout: The days of American hegemony are over?


All of a sudden it is Washington, not the Middle East, that appears stagnant. The revolts in Tunisia and Egypt – and the proliferating signs of unrest in the American sphere of influence in the Middle East – have occurred in spite of American power, not because of it, and they have left the US looking confused and isolated. America’s closest ally in the region is an expansionist, increasingly chauvinist Jewish state whose friendship is as much a liability as an asset. If Obama’s assiduous efforts to rebrand the American empire have made little headway, it is in part because they have not been accompanied by any serious rethinking of these strategic priorities: the grandeur of his rhetoric barely masks the poverty of his vision.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the Egyptian revolt is the latest expansion of a new dynamism. A Hizbullah-backed coalition government has come to power in Lebanon by constitutional means, upending Washington’s calculations and deepening Tehran’s influence; Turkey, under an Islamic government, has been pursuing an ambitious foreign policy that ignores the Washington grid. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US can no longer count on the deference of the governments it helped to create.

Despite its uncontested military supremacy in the region, Washington can’t seem to translate its power into real influence, its dominance into lasting hegemony. Its help is rarely even sought in resolving disputes such as the recent tensions over Lebanon’s new government: a distinct preference for regional mediation has emerged.

The best that can be said of Obama’s Middle East policy is that he hasn’t got in the way of this trend as much as his predecessor did. He has been prevented from encouraging it by his own cautious instincts, and by the alliances with Israel that he inherited, the terms of which he is unwilling or unable to revise. The days of American hegemony in the Muslim East are not over, but for the first time in years, from Ankara to Cairo, from Tunis to Beirut, the outlines of a post-American Middle East can be glimpsed.

Adam Shatz in London review of Books. More Here.

Sunday, February 06, 2011

Muslim Brotherhood is not a radical movement


To help explain the thrilling developments in Egypt, Farooq Sulehria interviewed leading Arab scholar-activist Gilbert Achcar on February 4.

Do you think that Mubarak's pledge on February 1st not to contest the next election represented a victory for the movement, or was it just a trick to calm down the masses as on the very next day demonstrators in Al-Tahrir Square were brutally attacked by pro-Mubarak forces?

The Egyptian popular anti-regime uprising reached a first peak on February 1st, prodding Mubarak to announce concessions in the evening. It was an acknowledgement of the force of the popular protest and a clear retreat on the autocrat's part, coming on top of the announcement of the government's willingness to negotiate with the opposition. These were significant concessions indeed coming from such an authoritarian regime, and a testimony to the importance of the popular mobilisation. Mubarak even pledged to speed up ongoing judicial actions against fraud perpetrated during the previous parliamentary elections.

He made it clear, however, that he was not willing to go beyond that. With the army firmly on his side, he was trying to appease the mass movement, as well as the Western powers that were urging him to reform the political system. Short of resignation, he granted some of the key demands that the Egyptian protest movement had formulated initially, when it launched its campaign on January 25. However, the movement has radicalized since that day to a point where anything short of Mubarak's resignation won't be enough to satisfy it, with many in the movement even demanding that he gets tried in court.

Moreover, all the regime's key institutions are now denounced by the movement as illegitimate––the executive as well as the legislative, i.e. the parliament. As a result, part of the opposition is demanding that the head of the constitutional court be appointed as interim president, to preside over the election of a constituent assembly. Others even want a national committee of opposition forces to supervise the transition. Of course, these demands constitute a radical democratic perspective. In order to impose such a thorough change, the mass movement would need to break or destabilise the regime's backbone, that is the Egyptian army.

Do you mean that the Egyptian army is backing Mubarak?

Egypt––even more than comparable countries such as Pakistan or Turkey––is in essence a military dictatorship with a civilian façade that is itself stuffed with men originating in the military. The problem is that most of the Egyptian opposition, starting with the Muslim Brotherhood, have been sowing illusions about the army and its purported "neutrality," if not "benevolence." They have been depicting the army as an honest broker, while the truth is that the army as an institution is not "neutral" at all. If it has not been used yet to repress the movement, it is only because Mubarak and the general staff did not see it appropriate to resort to such a move, probably because they fear that the soldiers would be reluctant to carry out a repression. That is why the regime resorted instead to orchestrating counter-demonstrations and attacks by thugs on the protest movement. The regime tried to set up a semblance of civil strife, showing Egypt as torn apart between two camps, thus creating a justification for the army's intervention as the "arbiter" of the situation.

If the regime managed to mobilise a significant counter-movement and provoke clashes on a larger scale, the army could step in, saying: "Game over, everybody must go home now," while promising that the pledges made by Mubarak would be implemented. Like many observers, I feared these last two days that this stratagem might succeed in weakening the protest movement, but the huge mobilization of today's "day of departure" is reassuring. The army will need to make further and more significant concessions to the popular uprising.

When you talk of the opposition, what forces does it include? Of course, we hear about the Muslim Brotherhood and El Baradei. Are there are other players too like left wing forces, trade unions, etc?

The Egyptian opposition includes a vast array of forces. There are parties like the Wafd, which are legal parties and constitute what may be called the liberal opposition. Then there is a grey zone occupied by the Muslim Brotherhood. It does not have a legal status but is tolerated by the regime. Its whole structure is visible; it is not an underground force. The Muslim Brotherhood is certainly, and by far, the largest force in the opposition. When Mubarak's regime, under US pressure, granted some space to the opposition in the 2005 parliamentary elections, the Muslim Brotherhood––running as "independents"––managed to get 88 MPs, i.e. 20 percent of the parliamentary seats, despite all obstacles. In the last elections held last November and December, after the Mubarak regime had decided to close down the limited space that it had opened in 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood almost vanished from parliament, losing all its seats but one.

Among the forces on the left, the largest is the Tagammu party, which enjoys a legal status and has 5 MPs. It refers to the Nasserite legacy. Communists have been prominent within its ranks. It is basically a reformist left party, which is not considered a threat to the regime. On the contrary, it has been quite compliant with it on several occasions. There are also leftwing Nasserite and radical left groups in Egypt––small but vibrant, and very much involved in the mass movement.

Then there are "civil society" movements, like Kefaya, a coalition of activists from various opposition forces initiated in solidarity with the Second Palestinian Intifada in 2000. It opposed the invasion of Iraq later on, and became famous afterwards as a democratic campaign movement against Mubarak's regime. From 2006 to 2009, Egypt saw the unfolding of a wave of industrial actions, including a few impressively massive workers strikes. There are no independent workers unions in Egypt, with one or two very recent exceptions born as a result of the social radicalisation. The bulk of the working class does not have the benefit of autonomous representation and organization. An attempt at convening a general strike on April 6, 2008 in solidarity with the workers led to the creation of the April 6 Youth Movement. Associations like this one and Kefaya are campaign-focused groups, not political parties, and they include people of different political affiliations along with unaffiliated activists.

When Mohamed El Baradei returned to Egypt in 2009 after his third term at the head of the IAEA, his personal prestige enhanced by the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize, a liberal and left coalition gathered around him, with the Muslim Brotherhood adopting a lukewarm reserved position. Many in the opposition saw El Baradei as a powerful candidate enjoying international reputation and connections, and constituting therefore a credible presidential candidate against Mubarak or his son. El Baradei thus became a rallying figure for a large section of the opposition, regrouping political forces as well as personalities. They formed the National Association for Change.

This whole array of forces is very much involved in the present uprising. However, the overwhelming majority of the people on the streets are without any sort of political affiliation. It is a huge mass outpouring of resentment at living under a despotic regime, fed by worsening economic conditions, as prices of basic necessities, like food, fuel, and electricity, have been sharply on the rise amid staggering joblessness. This is the case not only in Egypt but in most of the region as well, and that is why the fire of revolt that started in Tunisia spread so quickly to many Arab countries.

Is El Baradei genuinely popular, or is he in some way the Mir-Hossein Mousavi of the Egyptian movement, trying to change some faces while preserving the regime?

I would disagree with this characterisation of Mousavi in the first place. To be sure, Mir-Hossein Mousavi did not want to "change the regime" if one mean by that a social revolution. But there was definitely a clash between authoritarian social forces, spearheaded by the Pasdaran and represented by Ahmedinejad, and others coalesced around a liberal reformist perspective represented by Mousavi. It was indeed a clash about the kind of "regime" in the sense of the pattern of political rule.

Mohamed El Baradei is a genuine liberal who wishes his country to move from the present dictatorship to a liberal democratic regime, with free elections and political freedoms. If such a vast array of political forces is willing to cooperate with him, it is because they see in him the most credible liberal alternative to the existing regime, a man who does not command an organised constituency of his own, and is therefore an appropriate figurehead for a democratic change.

Going back to your analogy, you can't compare him with Mousavi who was a member of the Iranian regime, one of the men who led the 1979 Islamic revolution. Mousavi had his own followers in Iran, before he emerged as the leader of the 2009 mass protest movement. In Egypt, El Baradei cannot play, and does not pretend to play a similar role. He is supported by a vast array of forces, but none of them see him as its leader.

The Muslim Brotherhood's initial reserved attitude towards El Baradei is partly related to the fact that he does not have a religious bent and is too secular for their taste. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood had cultivated an ambiguous relationship with the regime over the years. Had they fully backed El Baradei, they would have narrowed their margin of negotiation with the Mubarak regime, with which they have been bargaining for quite a long time. The regime conceded a lot to them in the socio-cultural sphere, increasing  Islamic censorship in the cultural field being but one example. That was the easiest thing the regime could do to appease the Brotherhood. As a result, Egypt made huge steps backward from the secularisation that was consolidated under Gamal Abdul-Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Muslim Brotherhood's goal is to secure a democratic change that would grant them the possibility to take part in free elections, both parliamentary and presidential. The model they aspire to reproduce in Egypt is that of Turkey, where the democratisation process was controlled by the military with the army remaining a key pillar of the political system. This process nonetheless created a space which allowed the AKP, an Islamic conservative party, to win elections. They are not bent on overthrowing the state, hence their courting of the military and their care to avoid any gesture that could antagonize the army. They adhere to a strategy of gradual conquest of power: they are gradualists, not radicals.

From Gilbert Achcar's Zspace page. More Here

Translate

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...