Back from Boston. Baseball fans might have noticed that my temporary presence on the Red Sox roster seems to have made a difference. I didn't make it to the mound, but I'd like to think that my steadying veteran presence made a contribution - Curt Schilling, in particular, seemed to appreciate having a fellow blogger around.
On the academic side, I thorougly enjoyed the Crown Center's conference on the Middle East. It was fascinating to see Iran experts Naghmeh Sohrabi and Farideh Farhi mix it up with a former Israeli defense official about Iranian intentions, to see Josh Landis and Itamar Rabinovich debate Syria's attitudes towards peace with Israel, to finally meet the distinguished Israeli historian of Jordan Asher Susser, and more (I won't even mention the challenges posed by the stage setup to the, shall we say, differently gendered when said gender happened to be wearing a skirt). One of the most interesting themes running through the conference - notably by Roger Owen and Jon Alterman - about the increasingly Asian orientation of Gulf economies and societies. That's something to which I haven't given enough thought, and it does raise some provocative questions... for another day.
For me personally, the highlight was the chance to debate the Muslim Brotherhood in public and private with the well-known Egyptian political scientist Abd el-Monem Said (director of the Ahram Center for Strategic Studies, member of the NDP's Policy Bureau, and prolific columnist for al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Ahram, and other newspapers). Said was one of the first and most prominent critics of the MB's draft political party platform, and has been a long-time skeptic of the Brotherhood's democratic credentials. I won't say anything here about our lengthy private discussions, but our public exchanges brought out some very interesting and constructive points of disagreement.
We basically agreed in characterizing the MB as a divided organization which has been struggling to define its goals and its strategies in the face of both internal disagreements and a rapidly changing political environment. But where I am impressed by the potential and performance of the MB's pragmatists over the last few years, Said sees the hard-line, conservative face presented in the draft party document as the majority trend within the MB. Despite the MB's willingness to participate in elections, Said sees the MB as inherently undemocratic in its goals and methods: he described their agenda of social transformation and the creation of new Islamic individuals as totalitarian by nature, and their attempt to evaluate legislation in terms of religious dictates of right and wrong as contrary to the spirit of pragmatic problem solving and bargaining. The devil is in the details, he argued, and even the seemingly liberal documents produced by the Brotherhood over the last few years fail to impress him as genuinely democratic. Finally, he disputed the claim that the Brotherhood is experience significant repression - for an organization of perhaps 100,000 members the arrest of a few dozen or even few hundred leaders isn't that big a deal.
I disagreed about how to read the earlier MB political documents - the 2004 reform document, the 2005 Parliamentary election platform, the 2007 Shura Council election platform, and others. I think that he seriously underestimates the importance of the evolution of the MB's political discourse in the direction of an embrace of democracy and public freedoms. I also think he profoundly understates the repressive turn in Egypt over the last few years, and the corrosive effect on the rule of law of such things as using military courts against Brotherhood leaders and going after opposition journalists on flimsy pretenses. I also didn't think that he had a good answer to my arguments about how the MB had demonstrated its democratic commitments through both words and deeds over the last few years - in electoral participation in 2005 and 2007, in refraining from demonstrations and protests, in its policy documents, and simply in remaining committed to the electoral realm despite all efforts to force it to retreat. Of course the Brotherhood has not become liberal, but it has done pretty much everything it can do to prove its commitment to the democratic process short of running in an election, winning, governing, losing an election, and surrendering power peacefully - none of which is likely to be a realistic possibility any time soon.
At any rate, I'll make this case much more systematically - with footnotes and everything! - in a paper coming out quite soon. These arguments won't be resolved any time soon, and it's great to have them in such a constructive way. I've already benefited from his comments on a previous draft, and since he does read Abu Aardvark, I hope that he'll send me a note if I've mischaracterized his public statements in any way - or if he wants to continue the discussion here!
Abd el-Monem Said also made one other very interesting remark during the open session worth highlighting here. I asked him about what he thought, as a political scientist and as a member of the NDP's Policy Committee, about what would happen when Hosni Mubarak left the scene. His response: absolutely, categorically, 100% definitively, Gamal Mubarak will not become President. He said that the succession issue had been driven by the political opposition and by the foreign media, but had little to do with reality. If Mubarak lasted until the next election, then there would be an open competition for the NDP nomination, in which Gamal would have a chance but would not be likely to muster a majority from among the various barons and cadres of the NDP. If Mubarak passed on before the next scheduled election, the likely next President would be neither Gamal nor someone from the military. It would be the Secretary-General of the NDP - Safwat al-Sharif. I thought that was kind of an interesting analysis; Egypt-watchers, have at it.
UPDATE: Abd el-Monem Said offers his thoughts in his al-Sharq al-Awsat column today, here. He says that it is a rare bit of good news that the MB has announced that it will review the draft party proposal, but that he does not expect it to be a real change because the problems with Brotherhood ideology run too deep.
UPDATE 2: And a full response here, elevated from comments:
I think you have misrepresented my comments. There was no defense of the government repression of the Brothers. I did denounce it in public in newspapers articles the military courts and other forms of extra legal treatment of the Brothers. Yet, I did not see that as repressive as Nasser did, nor as Assad did in Hama. There is was never a massive assualt on the Brothers to arrest the supreme guide or to arrest their members of Parliament. That does not make the repression nice or commendable. It is just to put the analysis in perspective; and more important to make it a justfication for the totalitarian views of the Brothers. I have pointed in clear terms their record in Parliament regarding the Bahais, the converted Muslims to christianity, the Higab issue, and their programs from 2004 onward which speaks for the creation of the " faithful man" through a process of indoctronation customary of totalitarian parties. Their socio-economic very interventionist program and their national security perspective is typical of parties which are ready to whip their population for a frenzy of hatred of the others. Abdel Monem Said Aly
"If Mubarak lasted until the next election, then there would be an open competition for the NDP nomination..."
Really? Has the NDP suddenly embraced open competition? Wow. When did that happen?
Posted by: Al-Zarwani | October 23, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I think you have misrepresented my comments. There was no defense of the government repression of the Brothers. I did denounce it in public in newspapers articles the military courts and other forms of extra legal treatment of the Brothers. Yet, I did not see that as repressive as Nasser did, nor as Assad did in Hama. There is was never a massive assualt on the Brothers to arrest the supreme guide or to arrest their members of Parliament. That does not make the repression nice or commendable. It is just to put the analysis in perspective; and more important to make it a justfication for the totalitarian views of the Brothers. I have pointed in clear terms their record in Parliament regarding the Bahais, the converted Muslims to christianity, the Higab issue, and their programs from 2004 onward which speaks for the creation of the " faithful man" through a process of indoctronation customary of totalitarian parties. Their socio-economic very interventionist program and their national security perspective is typical of parties which are ready to whip their population for a frenzy of hatred of the others. Abdel Monem Said Aly
Posted by: Abdel Monem Said Aly | October 24, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Thanks, and apologies if I misrepresented what you meant to say - I'll elevate your comment to the front page so that everyone can see it. Thanks again -Marc
Posted by: aardvark | October 24, 2007 at 08:08 PM
The ongoing debate about the MB political platform by its opponents and supporters is clear evidence that releasing the draft version to prominent political thinkers and intellectuals did achieve its intended goals by stimulating a healthy discussion about the MB political agenda. Therefore, I hope that the final version will be different and it will be a reflection of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “true face”.
However, Marc Lynch and Abdel Monem Said Aly’s characterization that “the MB a divided organization struggling to define its goals and its strategies in the face of both internal disagreements” is misleading. When members of the MB speak their minds and publicly express their different views; it should not be interpreted as division but rather freedom of expression in action within the MB, which, in contrast, reflects the group’s internal strength. The main threat the MB is facing is not its internal disagreements but It is the injustice, oppression and corruption sanctioned and practiced by the Egyptian regime which is damaging the country, hampering its capabilities as well as breeding extremism and violence in the region.
Dr. Abdel Monem Said Aly’s skepticism of the MB is without any merit. The Brothers’ actions speak louder than their words. For many years, they were elected to students’ unions, professional syndicates, and even parliament, but when the government of the National Democratic Party-of which Dr. Aly is a member-forcefully and unjustly removed them through fraudulent elections or in some cases no elections at all, yet the Brothers peacefully relinquished control in these places without clinging to power and never in a single incident had any member of the MB been engaged in any act of violence
As much as the MB is capable of shaking the ground beneath the regime, nonetheless the Brothers always put the country’s interests first and refrained from any actions that would threaten the country’s security and stability.
Dr. Aly speaks of the MB performance in Parliament as an example of their totalitarianism citing examples of Baha’is, Muslims converted to Christianity and Higab. I am not sure exactly what he was referring to, but I would like to remind him that the ruling party which he represents has one the worst records of religious freedom as documented by the US State department. It is Egyptian interior ministry, not the MB, which refuses to provide legal status for converts from Islam to Christianity and refuses to amend their civil records to reflect their new religion status. The MB believes that people are free to practice the religion of their choice as the Quran teaches us. It is also the Egyptian government which does not recognize the Baha’i faith causing tremendous hardships for these citizens. In April of 2006, the Egyptian government opposed an administrative court ruling which would have allowed Baha’i’s citizens to receive ID cards and birth certificates with religion noted on the documents.
It is also the Egyptian government, not the MB, which continues to prosecute the Shiite Muslims in Egypt and arrest their leaders as in the case of Ramadan Hussein el Derini who was arrested and repeatedly tortured in prison by the powerful State Security Investigators (SSI). The MB would not prosecute Shiite Muslims and would not prohibit them from practicing their rituals.
On the issue of Hegab, I believe Dr. Aly is referring to the incident when Minister of Culture Farouk Hosny was condemned in parliament for his insinuating remarks describing Hegab (Islamic head scarf for women) a step backward. At that time, many prominent members of the ruling NDP including Speaker Fathi Soror, in addition to several of MPs from the MB, criticized Mr. Farouk Hosny and some even called for his resignation. The MPs were expressing the views of many angry citizens in their constituencies who were offended by Mr. Hosny’s remarks. Therefore, I am not clear as what the source of criticism for the MB in this case really is.
It is also absurd that Dr. Aly tries to downplay the government’s fierce assault on the MB and its economic infrastructure arguing that it is not as massive as it was during the Nasserite era where several of MB leaders were executed, or in the magnitude of the 1982 massacre in Hama in which Syrian president Hafez al Assad slaughtered 10-25 thousands of the Muslim Brothers! I am not exactly sure what to make of this argument or what kind of message it is sending, but I guess the MB should feel lucky that it is only 40 of its members were sent to military tribunals and several hundred others are in jail. It is not a “big deal” that dozens of companies were shut down, millions of dollars in assets were either frozen or stolen by government agents during the raids, and hundreds of families were suddenly left without support, income and their loved ones. Above all, they should be grateful they are alive!
Dr. Aly’s numerous unsubstantiated statements about the MB makes me wonder if his political affiliation with the ruling NDP as member of its well connected Policies Committee is undermining his ability to be an impartial academician and objective researcher. In this regard, I would like to ask him to provide us with the evidence so far, not just his views, that the MB is not genuinely democratic and incites hatred of others, as he claims.
I believe that the MB has behaved remarkably under extreme oppression by the regime and unjust emergency laws which have been crippling the country for over 26 years and depriving citizens from their very basic human rights. The burden of proof should not be the MB to prove its democratic credentials but instead is on opponents to prove otherwise.
www.ikhwanweb.com
Posted by: Khaled Salam | October 25, 2007 at 07:12 PM
Probably you have seen the very interesting report (linked to by Joshua Landis) on a conference in London attended by Ali al-Bayanouni and Rachid Ghanouchi inter alia, in which Bayanouni strongly criticized the rejection of female or Christian presidential candidates and the proposed committee of experts. But if not here is the article Joshua Landis links to:
http://www.thisissyria.net/2007/10/29/syriatoday/02.html
Posted by: Paul | October 30, 2007 at 06:09 PM