Calling on the Muslim Brotherhood to Share in Political Power:
Will Democracy Survive? (Part 2 of 2) By Magdi Khalil
The previous article offered a brief review of the mission and activities of Egypt’s
Muslim Brotherhood during the last couple of decades, without delving into their past
history. The Islamic movements in the Arab countries are variations of the Muslim
Brotherhood, and would probably follow its example.
So, what can we expect if the Islamists, by way of legitimate democratic means, take part
in ruling their countries? It is quite possible that they will proceed, unhindered, in
carrying out their proclaimed objectives at the expense of civil society and democracy.
This bleak prospect can still be avoided if there are predetermined safeguards to shield
the democratic system, and effectively curb this wild fascist agenda to make it, in
essence, a civil project carrying an Islamic name, much similar to the Christian parties
in Europe.
If there is such a thing as a “recipe for democracy”, would the Turkish
experience be a viable recipe for the Arab world? The answer is negative; Turkey’s
democratic achievements are the product of a unique set of circumstances, and the result
of the development and preservation of its civil society for the last 75 years; a strong
focus on secular values and a close interaction with its European neighbors. The secular
nature of Turkish society is safeguarded by its armed forces, laws, constitution, and a
long history of democratic practices.
The lesson learned from the Turkish experience is that the development of a secular
society is a necessary prelude to democratization. In a book published last year and
entitled <The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad>, Mr. Fareed
Zakaria discussed the theme of democracy, freedoms and civil society. He stated that the
much desired democracy is not about the transfer of power from the hands of militaries to
the hands of a religious rabble hiding behind fake religious masks; but rather the
transfer of power into the hands of a sound civil society capable of choosing leaders who
believe in power circulation, freedom, and the value of human life.
Evidently, democracy – in the true sense of the word – can never be attained
without granting freedoms first. It is seriously misleading to define democracy as nothing
more than ballots and polls. Democracy has a large set of fundamental values and practices
that include strong institutions, political awareness, respect of individual choices, the
practice of citizenship and political rights, a total separation of the three branches of
government, and an effective reinforcement of the rule of the law.
The Muslim Brotherhood loudly advocate free elections; but a free democratic society is
based on a lot more than elections. Honest and free elections are considered just one
pillar, among a set of pillars that uphold the foundations of a democratic state:
- A complete separation between state and religion, all constitutional articles that
indicate the state’s official religion or refer to the Islamic Shari’a should,
therefore, be annulled.
- Religious freedom, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has
the right to freedom of religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, (or to have none) and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance. Religious freedom should be protected by constitution and laws.
- Political rights, including citizenship rights for non-Muslims and women. These rights
should neither be based on, nor restricted by, religious creed; they should be based on
the constitution and civil laws that opt for complete equality between men and women,
Muslims and non-Muslims. The international treaties and agreements that support these
rights should be accepted without reservations. A conditional acceptance based on the
compatibility with “Shari’a” is against the essence of these rights, as it
promotes discrimination and denies equality.
- To grant and respect personal freedom. A person is not required to give account of his
individual choices or actions unless they prove harmful to others. From a religious
perspective, he will be required to give account of his actions on judgment day, and that
matter is strictly a personal matter that concerns no one but the individual and God
Almighty.
- A national identity for the state as opposed to a religious identity. In that context,
the focus on Islamic unity or Islamic Khilafa is not acceptable as it goes against the
notion of a national state, and carries the dire prospect of a religious fascist rule.
- Freedom of expression in all its forms, including the right to publish newspapers and
establish broadcasting media facilities, with no restrictions other than the ones that are
applied in other democratic states.
- To abide by the international agreements and treaties approved by Egypt in the past,
including the Peace treaty with Israel without religious or non-religious reservations,
and to uphold the commitment to the peace process.
- To accept and respect the values of modernity which are adopted by the Western
societies: individuality, privacy, private property, free economy, creative interaction
with other societies, and the complete separation between the branches of government.
These values stand against the submissive “flock behavior” and similar crippling
social phenomena that crush individual vision and expression.
- To adopt the language of a civil state as opposed to the religious fascist terminology
that reinforces tyranny and regression. The modern concept of democracy is, for example,
conspicuously different from the religious concept of “Shura” (consultative
decision making). The following expressions are frequently used: “major
governance”, “minor governance”, “the nation’s constants”,
“the nation’s identity”, “the nation’s enemies”, “they
(e.g. the Christians) have the same rights and duties as we do”, “land of
war” and “land of peace”, the “unbelievers” or the
“infidels”, “Jihad” (holy war), “cultural invasion”,
“hesba” (informal police neighborhood). Some of these expressions are offensive
and reflect a high level of intolerance and bigotry, and all of them are incompatible with
the spirit of democracy and the foundations of a modern state.
- To endorse the elements of the civil society in the different aspects of life, and curb
the religious tone, speech and expressions that presently color the media, culture and
laws.
If we opt for the reformist religious movements to become part of the democratic process,
they should first proclaim their full acceptance and abidance with the terms of civil
society. Additionally, effective local and international safeguards should be set in place
in order to protect the society against a violation of these rights.
A most effective local safeguard would be the formulation of a new social contract that
endorses the values of coexistence, civil society, democracy, and a constitution that is
consistent with those values. Such a contract cannot be in effect unless it is approved by
the entire society, including political powers from the right and left wings, civil
society organizations, political parties, religious leaders and prominent public figures.
The High Constitutional Court would act as a supervisor to deal with possible violations,
and under its guidance, the police and armed forces would act as guardians and protectors
of the contract. The entire political process, including the elections, should be under
the authority of an empowered and totally independent judiciary; without the interference
of the executive authority or religious institutions.
The involvement of the international community in monitoring this social contract would
additionally safeguard the democratic system. International foundations and civil society
organizations should be involved in monitoring elections, the status of women and
minorities, and democratic development.
In fact, the international community should keep a close watch on the local situation if
the Islamists are allowed to take part in ruling their countries. If our worst fears come
true, a request for international interference - in a military or non-military capacity
– should not be deemed illegitimate.
It seems that the Western world, as eager as it is to reduce violence in the Islamic
states, has opted for the Islamists to take part in ruling their countries. However, the
citizens of these countries have no desire to suffer, unduly, for the sake of a
‘trial and error’ experiment; because in that case the error would prove fatal!
To conclude, this whole scenario is based on two far-fetched assumptions:
1. It is almost impossible to assume that Islamist parties would accept the values of a
democratic and liberal society, since those are, in fact, in total contradiction with
their proclaimed values. That would be like joining two opposite values, or claiming that
there is such a thing as “a legal murder” or a “wise fool”. This
erroneous assumption could best be described as an oxymoron, because the Islamists cannot
possibly adopt those values and retain their identity as Islamists; they would otherwise
become civil society advocators.
2. Equally unlikely is the assumption that the Egyptian armed forces would be amenable to
the role of guardians of civil society, democracy and secularism - as is the case in
Turkey. As a matter of fact, the armed forces believe they have “inherited”
Egypt since the revolution of 1952; and act as legitimate owners rather than guardians.
They have no quarrel with the Islamists – quite the opposite in some cases - however
this is a power conflict and not an ideological one. The armed forces will not concede
power, and would wage war on any potential competitors.
Obviously, such a serious - and potentially lethal - issue merits careful consideration;
hopefully these couple of articles will encourage further discussions on this matter.
Magdi Khalil is a political analyst, researcher, and author. Executive Editor of the
Egyptian weekly Watani International. Columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, London.
Free- Lance writer for several Arabic language newspapers. Frequent contributor for Middle
East broadcast news TV. Published three books and written numerous research papers on
citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East.
Part One Click Here |
