All their fears come true
10/7/12 17:58![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsPeople who be hatin' on the newly elected Egyptian president Mohamed Mursi are plenty. With his humble background and devout piety he's the typical rep of the Muslim Brotherhood, the supposedly relatively-moderate Islamist party that wants to impose its religious agenda on a largely secular society. Despite all the claims that they represent "all" Egyptians (what? including the Christian Copts and the secular liberals?), their values still seem very distant from what we're used to calling "Western" values. Or maybe that's the mistake here - trying to apply one model on another society. But anyway...
For example, the US is hardly too thrilled with the fact that Mursi devoted part of his struggle on the Tahrir square to an effort to have one of the fundamentalists behind the 911 attacks freed. His position on Israel is also a cause for concern - he used to be part of an anti-Zionist faction within the Muslim Brotherhood, and frequently criticizes some of the points in the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. At least he used to, while he was not president.
That said, Mursi still won the presidential election last month. Undeniable fact. And this guy who used to be an anonymous engineer until very recently (born in a small village, got his education in the US and shortly a political prisoner under Mubarak's regime), now, despite most of his prerogatives being cut down by the military junta, is still at least nominally the leader of the largest Arab country in the world. And his stances and decisions will be affecting the entire Middle East. That's why any attempt from the international community to preemptively punish or isolate the new Egyptian government for "looking too Islamist", without giving them a chance to prove themselves, would be a mistake.
Actually Mursi coming to power might not be such a big deal. Some have even called his victory "a relief", given the fact that his opponent on the election, Ahmed Shafik is a former general and was Mubarak's last prime minister. And he would've probably handed the whole power to the military. So in the context of this apparent power struggle between the military and the Islamists, Mursi's victory is quite emblematic, because when we make a short check, it turns out every single president in Egypt's recent history has come out of the military circles. In practice the generals are ruling the country now more than ever, and they've shown they don't feel like giving up control, despite all their promises for a civil and democratic rule.
Once the election results were clear, Mursi got his congrats from EU and the US. But both hurried to point out that they expect the demands of the Tahrir youth for freedom and democracy to be met, ultimately. Mursi responded by promising that he'd build "a new Egypt" that'd be "a nation state with a modern democratic constitution". And he tried to calm down his opponents and those who were scared of his Islamist background, like the Copts: "Thanks to God and to your will, I became the president of all Egyptians. I will treat everyone equally and I will respect everyone equally". He also silenced Israel's concerns with the statement, "We will respect all international agreements and treaties. We bring a message of peace to the world".
So far Mursi has been flawless in his public statements. He looks like an experienced player. He speaks with measured words, making moderate statements. We've yet to see if he'll remain true to his words, but he sure deserves a chance to prove himself. Granted, he made lots of those promises during the election campaign - about the democratic principles of his future government, and all that. He did his best to portray himself as being on the side of pragmatism rather than extremism. Realistically speaking, he's already the winner of this election, it's a done deal. And no one could do anything on the matter. And of course it's still too early to say anything in particular, what's left is to wait and see. And criticize of course. ;-)
In fact even those who are against Mursi, would tend to acknowledge that the military was the worse option, because they've lived under its rule for the last 60 years. No one knows for sure what the Brotherhood is planning to do, and let's not forget that it's not a homogeneous organization, but consists of many factions - from fundamentalists to liberals. Maybe it'd be better if we look at Mursi impartially for the time being, because there's always a difference between what a politician promises to do, and what they actually do once they're in power. When you're an underground movement, you could say all sorts of radical things, like "We want all women to wear burqas. And we don't want the tourists to use the beaches". But when you're in power, you find out you have to pursue economic goals and you can't afford to destroy your tourism sector, because you'd damage your country this way, and ultimately your rule too.
Most analysts are realistic enough to predict that Mursi's victory won't bring any dramatic change for Egypt. No one will touch the agreement with Israel. It says that if one of the countries wants a point of that agreement reviewed, they should both sit on the table to negotiate it. No one wants war really. And actually, under Mursi chances are that the Copts' situation would improve. Sure, now they're pretty scared because under Mubarak their rights were nominally respected (at least on paper). But in fact under the surface, their rights were being widely abused - their churches burned, and rampant discrimination everywhere. Some of them probably thought this was being done by the fundamentalists, but it was people from within the regime who gave the thumbs-up when we dig a bit deeper. Now it'd be a huge embarrassment for Mursi if he allows the same stuff to keep happening. It'd mean he's not that different from Mubarak, after all.
Actually the big question now is what will Mursi's power really be. The military supreme council changed the constitution recently, giving themselves extra powers while curbing the prerogatives of the presidential institution. They even dissolved the MB-dominated parliament, calling it unconstitutional. That's big...
So in practice, the army still rules the country, and this president would hardly have any capacity to oppose them. But something tells me that this situation is just temporary, because the military must be well aware that they can't hold to power forever. They're only doing all these manoeuvres to ensure protections for themselves within the future constitution, and that they wouldn't be prosecuted for what they've done for the last year and a half. Besides, they want to preserve their economic interests. So this whole situation may be just for a few months. The new decree of the supreme military council cannot stay valid for more than half a year. For that period they'll have to allow new parliamentary elections. Despite all the recent showdown between them, a deal is being cooked between the military and the president to restore his full prerogatives. One of the reasons is that he should be able to be held accountable for the government's policies, rather than washing his hands with the military every time something goes wrong. Mursi can't be allowed to get away with any failures, and attribute them to the military.
I'd say there isn't a real power struggle between the military and the Islamists, although it might seem so from a first sight. There are speculations about the ongoing negotiations between the two sides going pretty smoothly. And a fragile accord brewing in the background.
But even with all his prerogatives restored, the president's task won't be easy at all. He's now head of a collapsing economy, with huge home security problems. A budget deficit well over 10% of its GDP, Egypt is drowning in debt. The government will have to cut the energy subsidies that swallow a quarter of the budget. And the resulting surge of the fuel prices will coincide with the economic pressure on the national currency. So Egypt will have to rely on foreign creditors, including the IMF.
Perhaps now is the moment for the international community to keep its financial and political commitments to Egypt, no matter if the Egyptians have chosen an Islamist like Mursi. If the US stop all aid to Egypt right now, they'd deprive millions of people of vital financial support. And that would only create more animosity towards the West, and would certainly radicalize the Egyptian society beyond anything we've seen.
And for those who might be hoping for another foreign-induced regime change in the Middle East, let's think about it. If, due to external pressure, Mursi somehow fails to deliver, that'd still be no guarantee that the next time the Egyptians would choose a more "suitable" candidate. Mursi came to power as a surprise (at least to the West). And no one could say for sure what he's been up to - fine. But the West should probably be proactive and extend its hand first. If the response they get is disappointing, there'll always be a way to make a step back. But the ball would be in Egypt's court then.
For example, the US is hardly too thrilled with the fact that Mursi devoted part of his struggle on the Tahrir square to an effort to have one of the fundamentalists behind the 911 attacks freed. His position on Israel is also a cause for concern - he used to be part of an anti-Zionist faction within the Muslim Brotherhood, and frequently criticizes some of the points in the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. At least he used to, while he was not president.
That said, Mursi still won the presidential election last month. Undeniable fact. And this guy who used to be an anonymous engineer until very recently (born in a small village, got his education in the US and shortly a political prisoner under Mubarak's regime), now, despite most of his prerogatives being cut down by the military junta, is still at least nominally the leader of the largest Arab country in the world. And his stances and decisions will be affecting the entire Middle East. That's why any attempt from the international community to preemptively punish or isolate the new Egyptian government for "looking too Islamist", without giving them a chance to prove themselves, would be a mistake.
Actually Mursi coming to power might not be such a big deal. Some have even called his victory "a relief", given the fact that his opponent on the election, Ahmed Shafik is a former general and was Mubarak's last prime minister. And he would've probably handed the whole power to the military. So in the context of this apparent power struggle between the military and the Islamists, Mursi's victory is quite emblematic, because when we make a short check, it turns out every single president in Egypt's recent history has come out of the military circles. In practice the generals are ruling the country now more than ever, and they've shown they don't feel like giving up control, despite all their promises for a civil and democratic rule.
Once the election results were clear, Mursi got his congrats from EU and the US. But both hurried to point out that they expect the demands of the Tahrir youth for freedom and democracy to be met, ultimately. Mursi responded by promising that he'd build "a new Egypt" that'd be "a nation state with a modern democratic constitution". And he tried to calm down his opponents and those who were scared of his Islamist background, like the Copts: "Thanks to God and to your will, I became the president of all Egyptians. I will treat everyone equally and I will respect everyone equally". He also silenced Israel's concerns with the statement, "We will respect all international agreements and treaties. We bring a message of peace to the world".
So far Mursi has been flawless in his public statements. He looks like an experienced player. He speaks with measured words, making moderate statements. We've yet to see if he'll remain true to his words, but he sure deserves a chance to prove himself. Granted, he made lots of those promises during the election campaign - about the democratic principles of his future government, and all that. He did his best to portray himself as being on the side of pragmatism rather than extremism. Realistically speaking, he's already the winner of this election, it's a done deal. And no one could do anything on the matter. And of course it's still too early to say anything in particular, what's left is to wait and see. And criticize of course. ;-)
In fact even those who are against Mursi, would tend to acknowledge that the military was the worse option, because they've lived under its rule for the last 60 years. No one knows for sure what the Brotherhood is planning to do, and let's not forget that it's not a homogeneous organization, but consists of many factions - from fundamentalists to liberals. Maybe it'd be better if we look at Mursi impartially for the time being, because there's always a difference between what a politician promises to do, and what they actually do once they're in power. When you're an underground movement, you could say all sorts of radical things, like "We want all women to wear burqas. And we don't want the tourists to use the beaches". But when you're in power, you find out you have to pursue economic goals and you can't afford to destroy your tourism sector, because you'd damage your country this way, and ultimately your rule too.
Most analysts are realistic enough to predict that Mursi's victory won't bring any dramatic change for Egypt. No one will touch the agreement with Israel. It says that if one of the countries wants a point of that agreement reviewed, they should both sit on the table to negotiate it. No one wants war really. And actually, under Mursi chances are that the Copts' situation would improve. Sure, now they're pretty scared because under Mubarak their rights were nominally respected (at least on paper). But in fact under the surface, their rights were being widely abused - their churches burned, and rampant discrimination everywhere. Some of them probably thought this was being done by the fundamentalists, but it was people from within the regime who gave the thumbs-up when we dig a bit deeper. Now it'd be a huge embarrassment for Mursi if he allows the same stuff to keep happening. It'd mean he's not that different from Mubarak, after all.
Actually the big question now is what will Mursi's power really be. The military supreme council changed the constitution recently, giving themselves extra powers while curbing the prerogatives of the presidential institution. They even dissolved the MB-dominated parliament, calling it unconstitutional. That's big...
So in practice, the army still rules the country, and this president would hardly have any capacity to oppose them. But something tells me that this situation is just temporary, because the military must be well aware that they can't hold to power forever. They're only doing all these manoeuvres to ensure protections for themselves within the future constitution, and that they wouldn't be prosecuted for what they've done for the last year and a half. Besides, they want to preserve their economic interests. So this whole situation may be just for a few months. The new decree of the supreme military council cannot stay valid for more than half a year. For that period they'll have to allow new parliamentary elections. Despite all the recent showdown between them, a deal is being cooked between the military and the president to restore his full prerogatives. One of the reasons is that he should be able to be held accountable for the government's policies, rather than washing his hands with the military every time something goes wrong. Mursi can't be allowed to get away with any failures, and attribute them to the military.
I'd say there isn't a real power struggle between the military and the Islamists, although it might seem so from a first sight. There are speculations about the ongoing negotiations between the two sides going pretty smoothly. And a fragile accord brewing in the background.
But even with all his prerogatives restored, the president's task won't be easy at all. He's now head of a collapsing economy, with huge home security problems. A budget deficit well over 10% of its GDP, Egypt is drowning in debt. The government will have to cut the energy subsidies that swallow a quarter of the budget. And the resulting surge of the fuel prices will coincide with the economic pressure on the national currency. So Egypt will have to rely on foreign creditors, including the IMF.
Perhaps now is the moment for the international community to keep its financial and political commitments to Egypt, no matter if the Egyptians have chosen an Islamist like Mursi. If the US stop all aid to Egypt right now, they'd deprive millions of people of vital financial support. And that would only create more animosity towards the West, and would certainly radicalize the Egyptian society beyond anything we've seen.
And for those who might be hoping for another foreign-induced regime change in the Middle East, let's think about it. If, due to external pressure, Mursi somehow fails to deliver, that'd still be no guarantee that the next time the Egyptians would choose a more "suitable" candidate. Mursi came to power as a surprise (at least to the West). And no one could say for sure what he's been up to - fine. But the West should probably be proactive and extend its hand first. If the response they get is disappointing, there'll always be a way to make a step back. But the ball would be in Egypt's court then.
(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 15:33 (UTC)- The Muslim Brotherhood has a reputation for recruiting within the military. They are just as well connected militarily as is Shafik. Let us not forget that the Muslim Brothers who assassinated Sadat were members of the military.
- Israel may not be too comforted by talk of peace. They prefer to stir up antagonism between Arab principalities in order to deter a united front that would not favor their own dominant position.
- Establishing positive relations with the US could be kind of tricky since it was American influence that kept Mubarak in power and filled torture chambers with dissidents. Egyptians will not forget the leaked communiques.
(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 15:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 15:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 20:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/7/12 01:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/7/12 10:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/7/12 15:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 15:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 16:10 (UTC)Consider how difficult it would be to separate the United States from the Protestant Christian influence on it's culture.
(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 16:20 (UTC)I don't think we even know what Al Queda even is, everything we know about it we learn from our government.
(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 16:42 (UTC)But anyways, what is Al Queda? That question was started to bug me lately, the common American citizen here doesn't know anything about our enemy except "They're Muslim and they're bad people!" And as for Islam itself, we criticize it from top to bottom and set ourselves up as better then them, forgetting of course we've been quite violent against them over the past decade.
And by "we" I mean the people over here, the civilian that's never served a day overseas. There is just so much we just don't know man...
(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 17:12 (UTC)Americans are also a society of dirty cowards who only fight strong enemies when someone else is doing 96% of the heavy lifting if it comes to how we really fight wars. We also prefer the method of fighting wars that is picking on women and children and butchering them with impunity and slapping the label progress on it and ultimately making movies to commemorate our heroism.
(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 17:19 (UTC)The US way of war is primarily to fight idiots who are obviously far weaker than we are, and then to distort and mythologize this into Heaven defeating Mordor, and to do so in a manner whose resemblances with the truth, if resemblances there are at all, are purely coincidental. We fight wars, yes, but we've generally avoided doing anything in the way of fighting a serious enemy. Which to be fair may have more than a little to do with why we're the hyperpower and nobody else is a military or political rival to us......and why the Soviet Union has no longer existed for going on 21 years.
(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 17:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 16:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 16:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/12 20:57 (UTC)"Jihad Is Our Path, Death for the Sake of Allah Is Our Most Lofty Aspiration, the Sharia Is Our Constitution!"
Indeed, he sounds pretty "moderate".
(no subject)
Date: 11/7/12 06:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/7/12 04:10 (UTC)http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/07/plan-to-dismantle-egypts-great-pyramids.html
http://www.aina.org/news/2012071094423.htm
Salt should be taken with this I think, still, given what happened in Afghanistan and what is happening in Mali, it gives one pause.
(no subject)
Date: 11/7/12 13:38 (UTC)Accordingly, while many Egyptians—Muslims and non-Muslims alike—see themselves as Egyptians, Islamists have no national identity, identifying only with Islam’s “culture,” based on the “sunna” of the prophet and Islam’s language, Arabic. This sentiment was clearly reflected when the former Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Akef, declared “the hell with Egypt,” indicating that the interests of his country are secondary to Islam’s.
See, when Christians burn books and butcher teenagers as witches, that's progressive modernization. When Muslims do it it's part of the Muhammadan Hivemind.
(no subject)
Date: 11/7/12 14:00 (UTC)Who says this? Seriously. And your imputation of an imaginary "hivemind belief" on the part of the author is refuted within the very text you quoted, since it distinguishes between ordinary Muslims and extremists.