Islamists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia not democratic
Joel BrinkleySan Francisco Chronicle April 15, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Ever since Islamists took office in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, they have
been trying to convince us that they are advocates of moderation, democracy,
women's rights and individual freedoms. And most people in the West, after
jubilantly watching the Arab Spring's amazing revolutions last year, wanted
to believe them.
But now we can see that these Islamic groups are taking us for fools.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood promised that it would not field a
candidate for president. But this month it went back on its word and put
Khairat
al-Shater, a wealthy businessman, on the ballot.
Defending that broken promise, one Muslim Brotherhood leader after another
explained that they changed their mind to save Egypt's budding democracy,
in jeopardy now because of the military's reluctance to step aside.
If that is so, how do you explain the speech Shater gave in Alexandria last
year in which he disparaged the whole idea of Western democracy and its
social conventions, calling them the enemy of Islam - including the concept
of elections, even though he is now running in one. Voting for your leader,
he said, is un-Islamic.
After Egypt adopted a Western _education_
(http://www.sfgate.com/education-guide/) system, courts and a capitalist
economy, Shater complained, "the
various aspects of our lives are no longer based on Islam." He would
institute Shariah law and ensure that "every aspect of life is to be
Islamized."
So are we to believe that Shater, if elected, would abandon the life
philosophy he espoused last year and follow Western examples that he abhors?
Today, Shater is not advertising his actual views. But another candidate,
an ultraconservative with a large following, Hazem Abu Ismail, is less
reticent. He advocates stoning adulterous women and cutting off the hands of
thieves. Ismail also called for canceling the peace treaty with Israel and
curtailing relations with the United States. But in a deliciously ironic
twist, he appears to be disqualified from running - because his mother was
American.
Think for a moment about what has actually happened. Youths with modern
ideas, resulting in part from what they've learned online, were the engines of
the revolts that threw the dictators out of office. But when elections
came, most people voted for what they knew. That's not democracy; none of
those states have any significant history of that or exposure to it from their
neighbors. For Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, the haven from brutal
dictatorship has been religion. So, not surprisingly, they elected religious
leaders.
But now all of these countries are in one way or another beholden to the
West. Egypt gets at least $1.3 billion in American aid each year. The United
States and NATO fought to help Libyans overthrow Moammar Khadafy. Tunisia
has strong trade relations with the West and receives significant aid from
Washington. So it's no wonder these candidates and leaders are talking out
of both sides of their mouths.
Imagine if an American politician - a mayor, a governor, a congressman -
was thrust suddenly into a leadership position in a deeply Islamic state. The
American would find he had to talk the talk. But in his heart, would he
ever be able to abandon the democratic ideals that have served as the
foundations of his life? Certainly not.
As Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Libya's interim leader, took office last fall, he
thanked NATO and then let slip that he believed Libya should legalize
polygamy, an element of Shariah law.
That set off a furor. Nonetheless, a short time later he said his views are
"moderate" but then added: "As a Muslim country, we have adopted the
Islamic Shariah as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that
contradicts
Islamic principles with the Islamic Shariah is ineffective legally."
In Tunisia, Sayyed al-Firjani, a senior member of the Islamic party that
dominates the government, told Al Arabiya television a few days ago: "We want
to solve people's problems and build a democracy." All of it will be based
on "values we cherish, including Islam."
His interviewer asked him whether those comments were simply "a means to
evade using the word 'Shariah.' "
"I disagree with this insistence on sticking to specific words," he
retorted.
Since Hosni Mubarak fell from power in Egypt last year, the Muslim
Brotherhood has repeatedly promised moderation and vowed not to "monopolize
political institutions in the new Egypt." But right now a committee is forming
to
write a new Constitution. The "moderate" Brotherhood controls the
parliament and tried to stack the committee's membership so that it held a
controlling majority. On Tuesday, however, a court blocked the effort.
We should never have believed them.
© 2012 Joel Brinkley Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford
University, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former foreign correspondent for
the New York Times
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
