Early Results in Egypt Show A Mandate for Islamists

[Bakustra]

Why do you say that, perchance?

[Stark]

When people talk about benefits of democracy, they often don't look beyond 'has election' as requirements for western-style democracy. This leads to disappointment, especially with recently authoritarian young democracies. It shouldn't be surprising, because 'democracy' isn't some freedom product - its just a mechanism.

[Col. Crackpot]

You really are a dumb racist douche. You call them barbarians because they elected people you don't like, then accuse me of being a racist? You should be in a padded cell my friend.

Well, you could argue that radical fundamentalist religion and the rejection of science and logic is a form of barbarism, could you not?

[Count Chocula]

From the Wiki entry on Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt:

Political viewpoints

The Brotherhood's self-description as moderate and rejecting violence as created disagreement among observers.[37] A Western author, (Eric Thrager), interviewing 30 current and former members of the Brotherhood in 2011 and found that the Brethren he talked to emphasised "important exceptions" to the position of non-violence, namely conflicts in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, and Palestine.[2] Thrager quotes the former Supreme Guide Mohammed Mahdi Akef as telling him


We believe that Zionism, the United States, and England are gangs that kill children and women and men and destroy houses and fields. .... Zionism is a gang, not a country. So we will resist them until they don't have a country.[2]

And your quote or mine notwithstanding, I quoted the Muslim Brotherhood's credo. How they fulfill that credo remains to be seen.

[Bakustra]

When people talk about benefits of democracy, they often don't look beyond 'has election' as requirements for western-style democracy. This leads to disappointment, especially with recently authoritarian young democracies. It shouldn't be surprising, because 'democracy' isn't some freedom product - its just a mechanism.

Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that the Muslim Brotherhood will establish a "radical theocracy" in Egypt either, which is what people are afraid of. A lot of people presume that it's basically Taliban Light it seems, which is odd in light of what they have and have not supported. They are further to the right of most Western political parties in a lot of social areas, but that doesn't translate to "destroy democracy" either.

You really are a dumb racist douche. You call them barbarians because they elected people you don't like, then accuse me of being a racist? You should be in a padded cell my friend.

Well, you could argue that radical fundamentalist religion and the rejection of science and logic is a form of barbarism, could you not?

Not what the Muslim Brotherhood believes, I'm afraid.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

You really are a dumb racist douche. You call them barbarians because they elected people you don't like, then accuse me of being a racist? You should be in a padded cell my friend.

Well, you could argue that radical fundamentalist religion and the rejection of science and logic is a form of barbarism, could you not?

You could, but you'd be wrong, and I'm not sure what relevance it would have to the recent elections in Egypt.

[Bakustra]

From the Wiki entry on Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt:

Political viewpoints

The Brotherhood's self-description as moderate and rejecting violence as created disagreement among observers.[37] A Western author, (Eric Thrager), interviewing 30 current and former members of the Brotherhood in 2011 and found that the Brethren he talked to emphasised "important exceptions" to the position of non-violence, namely conflicts in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, and Palestine.[2] Thrager quotes the former Supreme Guide Mohammed Mahdi Akef as telling him


We believe that Zionism, the United States, and England are gangs that kill children and women and men and destroy houses and fields. .... Zionism is a gang, not a country. So we will resist them until they don't have a country.[2]

And your quote or mine notwithstanding, I quoted the Muslim Brotherhood's credo. How they fulfill that credo remains to be seen.

The Brotherhood in Egypt is a non-violent organization, and guess what? They've set up the criteria by which they would be willing to stay at peace with Israel, if they were in charge of Egypt (which they will not be, since they would need a coalition government judging by the polls and these pre-runoff results.): "We will respect the peace treaty with Israel as long as Israel shows real progress on improving the lot of the Palestinians." Now, if they actually stuck to this, this would lead to a war in the next year, but that would be because Israel has no interest in improving the lot of the Palestinians. They're not the anti-Semitic douchebags you're presenting them as.

[Col. Crackpot]

You really are a dumb racist douche. You call them barbarians because they elected people you don't like, then accuse me of being a racist? You should be in a padded cell my friend.

Well, you could argue that radical fundamentalist religion and the rejection of science and logic is a form of barbarism, could you not?

You could, but you'd be wrong, and I'm not sure what relevance it would have to the recent elections in Egypt.

Conceded. That was a distraction and an aside.

[Duckie]

A side note for context- guess who just won a plurality in Morocco after the King had to call early elections due to protests? Why, it would be Islamists, in particular a turkish influenced islamist party.

They ran the most successful spate of women candidates ever, including the first elected non-veiled women in the country. Those monsters. The Turkish Islamists, by the way, have done about three significant things- one, allow women to optionally wear the veil in public colleges (eh), apologise for the massacre of the Alevis (the first apology for turkish state violence against minorities I can remember at least), and condemn the bloody repression going on in Syria. Oh, and the Syrian rebels are Turkish-style Islamists too. I hate to say you have to pick one or the other, but are the 'lol arab israeli war' people now pro-Assad?

Anyone hyperventilating about Islamic Democracy because of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban (neither are democratic organizations, note) when not hyperventilating about Christian Democratic parties in Europe because of the US South and Nigeria is a hypocrite. The Middle East is larger than New Jersey and has significant diversity of opinion on what 'islamism' means, just as christian-influenced parties vary. And yes, ChD is pretty much secular nowadays, but you'll note that the extremism of the religious parties and their problems tends to correlate well with economic status. More on that later.

There is naturally room for improvement in some aspects of their society from a western perspective, but the 'civilisedness' of people is a function of economy and expecting Elections to be some magic talisman that transmutes third into first world is so stupid I was under the impression even the right wing had abandoned the idea after Iraq failed to become a sandy Belgium despite liberation.

Womens rights, literacy, genital mutilation, etc. are a problem of culture that can be far more easily overcome by societal evolution on the inside and economic development than by the US pointing guns at it until it pretends to stop (under Mubarrak, the FGM rate barely fell at all). Witness the recent anti-FGM campaigns in western africa, which were successful primarily because they built on a native cultural platform, with the help of animists and (yes) islamists, and refused to be represented by white people looking down their noses and calling FGM practitioners 'barbarians'. Because even if it's true, the best way to get someone to keep doing something even when they might have reconsidered is to call them barbaric or evil for it.

[Shroom Man 777]

For example, how well does democracy work when the average voter thinks his religion is oppressed by the fact that he can't freely go beat up members of a different religion? How well does democracy work if people vote into office a corrupt thug who sees no reason to hold another election? Will not these people soon find their government, this demon of oppression they voluntarily made, turning upon them and tearing them up, just as it turned on the minorities they despise?

And I think that's less than they, as human beings, deserve. People should not be tricked into supporting a government that will ruin them. Although the majority who voted for bad things are not entirely free of moral responsibility when those bad things happen. Just as if I vote for destroying the rights of brown people, I cannot complain if some of that destruction splashes on me and my own rights are in jeopardy. Such criticisms of my behavior would only be fair.

Of course no one would like to see them, or anyone really, suffer because they did a dumb thing and voted some asshole or a set of assholes or a triperfecta of assholes with asshole ideologies into power. As the years go by, they'll probably end up getting pissed off at the very same people they placed into power and start protesting en masse and getting stomped down, again (like those guys in Iran).

But, who else should make that call? If they never do this, if all these decisions on running their country are made for them by dictators or by military juntas that coup the democratic government, then what? How will the people living there progress when all those decisions are made by power brokers who are doing their own thing? It's either they'll always be under the juntas and dictators who'll do the thinking for them, or they'll have to do it themselves and go down the long (and probably bloody) road of democratically fucking themselves over and over and over until maybe hopefully eventually sometimes perhaps possibly figuring out what's what and establishing something semi-workable. It's not like the world's longest and most functional democracies are free of issues and terrible mistakes, and this is after centuries of experience and such.

Well, let us ask a theoretical question, one inspired by what is happening in Egypt but not totally relevant to the case of Egypt.

Suppose you have an institution like 20th century Turkey, where there is a constitution and an elected parliament, but where the army has a tradition of staging a coup whenever the elected government tries to change the constitution and give itself powers that would undermine the limits on its power. Or to reduce religious freedom, or things like that.

What do we say about this? Is it undemocratic, and therefore bad? Or is it pro-freedom, and therefore good? Can there even be such a thing as undemocratic forces that promote people's rights, or a right that trumps democracy?

Or to take another one, should people in a democracy be able to vote away their freedom of religion, their freedom of speech, or suchlike? Should this be easy? Hard? Impossible? I do not know. I would like to hear what people think.

It'd be stupid of them and terrible. But who else can impose rules on them? Outside nations? We've seen how well that worked Who else can change them for the better (or worse)? I think it has to come from within. If everything was done by a military junta or a dictator, then those people will never learn for themselves and they'll never figure things out and they'll always be a military junta or a dictatorship.

Some people might prefer that. Would it be better if they were always a military junta or a dictatorship? Or should the dictatorships and juntas be changed or replaced by a messy democracy as the people take the very risky route of self-governance? Should people deride and degrade entire nations and peoples and pretend to know what's good for them more than the people actually living in that place? Well, you're hearing what I think.

Anyway, we just saw what they did to their juntas and dictatorships. And we've already seen how foreign interventions go and the eventual results on that. So, those haven't worked. So maybe this will. Or maybe this won't. But like it or not, I think it's not them who'll have to eat dictatorship (which is what they only deserve! according to some), maybe they've had their fill of that and gone on to fill their plates at the next buffet table (though who knows, maybe they'll eventually go back to the table serving delectable dictatorships delight). I think it will be all of us, the whole world, who'll have to eat Arab and potentially Islamist, democracy, whether we like it or not. We'll have to find out just how tasty the servings of that particular buffet table is.



Thank you Duckie for hitting us with some knowledge. Girl Islamists? No, the Al-cooties! No girl islamists allowed on my secret treehouse club in Bakalakadaka Street! ALLAH!

[MKSheppard]

Thank you Duckie for hitting us with some knowledge. Girl Islamists? No, the Al-cooties! No girl islamists allowed on my secret treehouse club in Bakalakadaka Street! ALLAH!

Heh.

Link to NY SLIMES COMMIENIST SLIMEBALL PAPER article

Egyptian election laws required the Salafi parties to put at least one woman on their electoral roster for each district, but they put the women last on their lists to ensure they would not be elected, and some appear with pictures of flowers in place of their faces on campaign posters.

Can you feel the luv

[Guardsman Bass]

Duckie was mostly talking about Islamist parties in other Arab countries, not Egypt (and probably not about the Salafists, who are a bunch of extremists who make the MB look very moderate and oppose any representation of women in public life). Good thing nobody wants to form a coalition with them in the new Egyptian government, not even the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Vaporous]

When people talk about benefits of democracy, they often don't look beyond 'has election' as requirements for western-style democracy. This leads to disappointment, especially with recently authoritarian young democracies. It shouldn't be surprising, because 'democracy' isn't some freedom product - its just a mechanism.

True. And aside from this, the government these elections are supposed to choose doesn't exist yet. What happens in a few months when the Army decides they'd like to keep running the country?

[Duckie]

When people talk about benefits of democracy, they often don't look beyond 'has election' as requirements for western-style democracy. This leads to disappointment, especially with recently authoritarian young democracies. It shouldn't be surprising, because 'democracy' isn't some freedom product - its just a mechanism.

True. And aside from this, the government these elections are supposed to choose doesn't exist yet. What happens in a few months when the Army decides they'd like to keep running the country?

A few months from now? That's kind of been ongoing since the military took power.

Also, naturally I'm referring to turkish style Islamic Democrats, not Salafists (although Salafi-ism is not well understood in the west, and usually seems to be a substitution for 'Saudi' or 'Jihadist' when it's not really, any more than Quranic Literalism means 'Jihad' when actually a lot of very liberal devout muslims are literalists as well). Like I said, there's a diversity of opinion in the middle east even among Islamists on what Islamism means, just as you can find secular christians in the US who think "Christian Government" would be making sure the secular government remembers to take care of the poor, and maybe hold some national prayers or something just as you can find Dominionists who think it means "World Conquest for Jesus and return to stoning adulterers."

I am entirely convinced any difference in the 'civilisedness' of religions and their people is a result of their economic development. I think you can explain ways in which you'd rather live in a european country to a middle eastern country entirely by reference to economics, without any silliness like 'their culture/religion is inherently inferior and they'd be savages even at a per capita GDP of 50,000 with their capital city transmuted into tokyo'. Because nobody in Tokyo is western or christian (well, almost nobody), and Japan is pretty much any other first world country with similar structures, good points, and problems despite a vastly different culture and religion.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I am entirely convinced any difference in the 'civilisedness' of religions and their people is a result of their economic development. I think you can explain ways in which you'd rather live in a european country to a middle eastern country entirely by reference to economics, without any silliness like 'their culture/religion is inherently inferior and they'd be savages even at a per capita GDP of 50,000 with their capital city transmuted into tokyo'. Because nobody in Tokyo is western or christian (well, almost nobody), and Japan is pretty much any other first world country with similar structures, good points, and problems despite a vastly different culture and religion.

Saudi Arabia is composed of various principalities that have first world GDPPP, (in many cases, higher than that of the USA).

[K. A. Pital]

If Saudi Arabia had no underclass of slaves rightless workers, that could've been a point. On the other hand, the USA also has an underclass of rightless migrants.

[The Grim Squeaker]

If Saudi Arabia had no underclass of slaves rightless workers, that could've been a point. On the other hand, the USA also has an underclass of rightless migrants.

How is that relevant?
His point was a link between economic development, and human rights/"cultural" (by Western ideals) development.

I am entirely convinced any difference in the 'civilisedness' of religions and their people is a result of their economic development.

EDIT: Rקשגגקג /וםאק כםר קצפישדןדץ

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah. But economic development is also something which occurs over time. A sudden influx of oil money isn't "economic development", it is just petrodollars flooding everything.

[Duckie]

Economic development is more complicated than 'have a lot of money floating around'. Being someone else's resource extraction region might be lucrative, but it isn't actually what I was referring to.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Yeah. But economic development is also something which occurs over time. A sudden influx of oil money isn't "economic development", it is just petrodollars flooding everything.

tRUE.
Still, most regard economic development as a matter of GDP per capita, rather than being attributable to specific economic activity (industry, high tech, etc'). After all, some countries have first world GDP with a high level of agricultural activity (ISrael for example), while some nations have tons of heavy industry and manufacturing and miserable ecoonmic development.

The Arab nations (the ones with oil that is) have had lots of cash for a long time, and some have erected economic zones of worldwide repute (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, etc').
That hasn't stopped them from having the collective average development that would make a 9th century Caliphate blanch.

Resources are something of a cheat, (Africa being a good example), but the African nations with lots of resources have nowhere near the GDP (Per Capita ) of the Arab nations, so I don't think they're a valid counter to my point.

An alternative is IRan - one of the most advanced economies in the ME (they actually have an industry apart from Gas, petroleum and Oil) - and they're as crazy and regressive as Saudi Arabia. (Worse in some respects)

[K. A. Pital]

while some nations have tons of heavy industry and manufacturing and miserable ecoonmic development

Even so they're usually more progressive, culture-wise, than the Taliban. So I wouldn't mind if the concept of "economic development" was changed from "simple GDP-capita".

Resources are something of a cheat, (Africa being a good example), but the African nations with lots of resources have nowhere near the GDP (Per Capita ) of the Arab nations, so I don't think they're a valid counter to my point.

Gabon.

and they're as crazy and regressive as Saudi Arabia. (Worse in some respects)

Wouldn't say so. They're more or less typical for ME.

[The Grim Squeaker]

while some nations have tons of heavy industry and manufacturing and miserable ecoonmic development

Even so they're usually more progressive, culture-wise, than the Taliban. So I wouldn't mind if the concept of "economic development" was changed from "simple GDP-capita".

Resources are something of a cheat, (Africa being a good example), but the African nations with lots of resources have nowhere near the GDP (Per Capita ) of the Arab nations, so I don't think they're a valid counter to my point.

Gabon.

Never heard of it.
Also, Botswana!

and they're as crazy and regressive as Saudi Arabia. (Worse in some respects)

Wouldn't say so. They're more or less typical for ME.

Sadly, I'd say that they're actually the above average. (Compared to the Arab countries that lack Oil, with an exception or two such as Jordan).
EDIT: By "They" I mean SA, (and by extension IRan).

[hongi]

Er, didn't the article say that the Islamists won because of their superior organisation? These were people who had been under the gun (literally) of Mubarak for decades, of course they'd spring back in quick order. It's the liberal side's fault for not taking the initiative.

[Simon_Jester]

On the economic issue, the way the "resource curse" impacts national economies is well-documented and well-known. If much of a country's GDP comes from resource exports controlled by a single cartel or a handful of oligarchs, then those oligarchs can pretty much set themselves up as god-kings as far as the local political system is concerned.

So you'd expect a huge, obvious distorting effect for resources. For that matter, Duckie's original point was that poverty gives rise to political violence and religious extremism; a high per capita GDP that is really only enjoyed by, say, 20% of the population doesn't necessarily say anything about whether the rest live in poverty.

[Shroom Man 777]

CAIRO (Reuters) - The Muslim Brotherhood's party will seek to extend a lead over hardline Islamists in run-offs in Egypt's parliamentary vote Monday, with liberal parties struggling to hold their ground in a political landscape redrawn by the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak.

The Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party is set to take most seats in Egypt's first democratic parliament in six decades, strengthening their hand in a struggle for influence over the Arab world's most populous country.

Banned from formal politics until a popular uprising ended Mubarak's three-decade rule in February, the movement emerged as the main winner from last week's first-round vote and called on its rivals to "accept the will of the people."

The phased election runs over six weeks, ending in January.

Opponents accuse the Brotherhood's slick campaign machine of flouting a ban on canvassing near polling stations and say it handed out food and medicine to secure votes, but monitors said polling seemed fair overall.

"You cannot have democracy and then amend or reject the results," Amr Moussa, a front-runner for Egypt's presidency, told Reuters, adding that the shape of parliament would not be clear until the voting was over.

The Brotherhood, Egypt's best-organized political group and popular with the poor for its charity work, wants to shape a new constitution to be drawn up next year.

That could be the focus of a power struggle with the ruling military council, which wants to keep a presidential system, rather than the parliamentary one favored by the Brotherhood.

Egyptians return to the polls Monday for 52 run-off votes for individual candidates, who will occupy a third of the 498 elected seats in the lower house once two more rounds of the complicated voting process end in January.

ISRAELI CONCERN

The run-offs will pit 24 members of the ultra-conservative Islamist al-Nour party against Brotherhood candidates.

Two-thirds of the seats in the assembly are allocated proportionately to party lists.

Figures released by the election commission and published by state media show a list led by the Brotherhood's FJP securing 36.6 percent of valid party-list votes, followed by the Salafi al-Nour Party with 24.4 percent, and the liberal Egyptian Bloc with 13.4 percent.

The result has unnerved Israel, concerned about the fate of its 1979 peace treaty with Egypt. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Egypt's future rulers to preserve the deal.

"We hope any future government in Egypt will recognize the importance of keeping the peace treaty with Israel in its own right and as a basis for regional security and economic stability," Netanyahu said Sunday.

The fate of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel is a concern for its sponsor, the United States, which has backed it with billions of dollars in military aid for both countries.

The rise of the Salafis has also sparked fear among many ordinary Egyptians because of the group's uncompromising views.

Analysts say the Brotherhood, which topped the first-stage vote, has a pragmatic streak that makes it an unlikely ally for Salafis who only recently ventured from preaching into politics and whose strict ideology suggests little scope for compromise.

The leader of Salafi party al-Nour Emad Abdel Ghaffour made it clear he would not play second fiddle to the Brotherhood.

"We hate being followers," Ghaffour told Reuters in an interview. "They always say we take positions according to the Brotherhood but we have our own vision... There might be a consensus but ... we will remain independent."

So the MusBros are actually the more moderaters of the bunch at least relatively?