Egyptian Politics, Islam and Muslim Brotherhood

This week an Egyptian academic and journalist Atef Said posted a blogpost on Immanent Frame: Secular, Religion and the Public Sphere. The blogpost is about the current impasse in Egyptian politics and Muslim Brotherhood future (See Three Observations on Religion, Politics and the Muslim Brotherhood).

Said made three observations. Commenting on 'Religion and Politics', he argued that religion is not out of Egyptian politics because General Sisi is himself arguing that he is saving moderate Islam from extremism and has tried to woo Salafi Al-Nour party; Sisi has also received religious endorsements; and despite somewhat less than the Constitution approved in 2012, Islam remains part of new constitution. Secondly, Said does not see an explicit participation of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in electoral politics in the near future. Said argues that although MB was banned under Mubarak too, it is different than under general Sisi because of anti-MB hysteria promoted by the current military regime; alienation and (possible) dissatisfaction of MB youth with electoral politics because of recent severe repression; and absence of any negotiations between MB and regime, a contrast to MB's negotiated electoral participation under Mubarak. Finally, Said called for a new theoretical framework to explain the four paradoxes of MB politics. MB is both an organization and a movement; it is both religious and political; it is working for both a democratic state and a Islamic state; and it is dogmatic internally and pragmatic externally.

My comments on the post are reproduced below.

An interesting article that highlights the present paradoxes and contradictions of Egyptian politics but shies away from taking sides, a difficult task in the current polarized atmosphere.

I would, however, like the author to use his detailed knowledge of Egyptian society and wider Muslim world in a more clear way. For example, while talking about religion and politics in the current Egypt, he ignores the similarities of what is happening in Egypt now with what happened under other authoritarian regimes in the past. What Sisi is doing is nothing new. Starting from Reza Shah Pahlevi of Iran (1925-41), authoritarian regimes have often posed as defender of moderate/real Islam against extremism (i.e. Islam of their enemies). They have often gotten endorsements from some religious authorities and Islam has remained part of constitutions/national identities. Other rulers that followed this trend were Afghanistan’s King Amanullah Khan (1919-29), Pakistan’s General Ayub Khan (1958-69), Iran’s Muhammad Reza Pahlevi (1941-79), Qaddafi (1969-2011), General Musharraf of Pakistan (1999-2008) and of course Egypt’s Nasser and Sadat.

Nasser’s absence is particularly conspicuous as author is himself Egyptian and we can learn a lot about what is happening now to MB from what happened to MB under Nasser. Author’s second observation offers three reasons why politics were possible under Mubarak but are not possible under Sisi:

• There is anti-MB hysteria

• MB’s youth are alienated because of repression and may opt for violence instead of electoral politics

• MB’s political participation under Mubarak was negotiated

All three of these elements were present under Nasser in the late 1950s and 1960s. Supporters of General Sisi compare him to Nasser and while Sisi is different from Nasser (due to the absence of vision, ideology and other endearing features), he is a Nasser redux in terms of his relationship with MB. Nasser banned MB; used extreme repression against them; and courts under him sentenced hundreds of MB supporters to death, including Sayyid Qutb.
Author is right to call for a new theoretical framework to analyze MB and its politics. This framework can learn from research on West European Communist parties. These ‘anti-system’ parties faced all the four paradoxes that MB faces today:

• West European Communist parties were both parties and movements as becoming a member had strict requirements and some negative consequences;

• West European Communist parties were both ideological and political. Doctrinal purity regularly clashed with the reality of politics.

• Communist ideology had some anti-democratic features so these parties were both for and against democracy. They were trying to bring a worker’s revolution while running in elections;

• West European Communist parties were internally dogmatic but had a pragmatic behavior externally. Internal debate was not encouraged in these parties but their leaders were ready to form coalitions with other political parties.

In ‘When Victory Is Not an Option: Islamist Movements in Arab Politics’, Nathan J. Brown explores the contradictions in Islamist organizations and compares them with Communist and Green parties.