Egypt awakes as the West questions its future

As Egypt begins a new phase of governance after Mubarak’s departure, attention turns to the country’s prospects for democratization in. The events in Tahir Square seem to suggest that long awaited democracy is possible. The coming together of Coptic Christians and Muslim protestors along with those young and old serves to remind us that this is a revolution driven by the grievances of all sections of society.

But the Western media adopted a somewhat different focus: the main cause of Western fear, which is the Muslim Brotherhood, and their inevitable role in the ‘new’ Egypt. Though fears amongst those viewing the movement first hand show how dumbfounded these claims are, the protests have exposed a spirit of nationalism, pride and benevolence rather than Islamism. This has been long muffled by successive autocratic regimes and the absence of political expressionism. It is again a profound lack of understanding of the Middle East’s political structures that has bred fear into the heart of the West.

Arguably the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved politically. A younger generation of influences on the party seeks to eliminate the hierarchical element. Although their recent history shows they can produce extremism (Ayman al-Zawahiri, former Muslim Brother, is now Osama bin Laden’s number two), they have shown more flexibility, and non-intrusive ethics. It fights alongside the Egyptian people to see the ouster of Mubarak and for democracy not for Islamic rule.

The preconceptions we are bombarded with in the West largely revolve around the fragile relationship between Egypt and Israel and how a threat to their peace could affect the position of the US. The West more generally has been put in this awkward situation where their official values have clashed with their private interests: while overtly supporting democracy, they have befriended authoritarian and dictatorial rules in northern Africa to ensure stable economic and political ties with secular regimes. With the revolution, they could not publicly support Arab dictators, which would have been hypocritical towards democratic values of freedom, but could not completely support the protestors either. If they had done so, other key ‘satellite allies’ such as Saudi Arabia would have interpreted that stance as offensive towards the Middle-East. Who is still unaware that the West, and the US more particularly, do not want to gamble with that?

It is time though to question whether the interests of the West should stand in the way of what the people of Egypt want. We cannot stand for true democracy if we do not recognize the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The US fears that the influence of the Brotherhood will lead to the dominance of Islam in Egypt. However, their fear is not for the people of Egypt, but that the new regime would no longer be subjective to the West, as Iran for example.

This fear is rational but not necessary. There has been a distinct lack of anti-Western feeling during the revolution on the part of the protestors. It is pro-Mubarak forces that have beaten and taken away journalists. Perhaps Turkey will become the role model for the recreating of Egypt. Hamid Said, a journalist for the Guardian, describes the Brotherhood as ‘so pragmatic, it gives pragmatism a bad name’. Whatever the true desires of the Muslim Brotherhood are, it is only their actions that matter. Democratic institutions serve to suppress radical action against the general will. An Islamic state will certainly not arise from this revolution but it is essential that we recognize the importance of Islam as a fundamental component of Egyptian society. The Muslim Brotherhood therefore should not be discounted from the democratic process.

Mubarak said he would step down in the next elections, which are due in more than 200 days. If this can appear to be a promising future, Egyptians are apparently ready to shed more blood in order to see Mubarak leave the country earlier than he expects to.

The West has shown its growing weaknesses and hidden interests throughout this crisis. The best it can do now is to forget about the stable authoritarian regimes it used to support as the ‘least bad’ option and hope for a democratic Egypt.