What’s the matter with Egypt’s liberals?

[cali]

The narrative arc of Egypt’s liberal movement, just two years ago a remarkable story of overcoming impossible odds and helping to oust President Hosni Mubarak, has since taken a turn toward tragedy of its most classical form. The hows and whys are complicated, but the movement’s setbacks, at times self-inflicted, have been tougher to ignore since the July 3 coup that removed President Mohamed Morsi. Many of them have so enthusiastically embraced military rule – and, at times, violence against Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood supporters – that observers are wondering whether Egypt’s liberals can still really be considered liberals.

Just today, The Washington Post’s Bill Booth and Sharaf Al-Hourani report from Cairo that Egypt’s liberals are pushing for the military government to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood’s sprawling – and child-filled – protest camp in downtown Cairo. The liberals, including the movement’s political leaders, “make these calls knowing that a crackdown by the military or police against a committed, cohesive, religiously inspired opponent could lead to bloodshed,” Booth and al-Hourani write.

To me, the movement is starting to look less driven by liberalism than by secular nationalism, hardly a force unique to Egypt but one that has a deep history here, including under Mubarak’s reign. Many have pointed to parallels with the rise of Egypt’s first nationalist military leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, in the 1950s. Vendors in liberal-dominated protest areas of Cairo have been selling posters of the new military ruler, General Abdel Fata el-Sissi, alongside posters of Nasser and his successor Anwar Sadat (but not of Sadat’s successor, Mubarak; maybe it’s still too soon). The world has something of an ugly history with nationalist movements that celebrate autocratic military rulers and back state violence against fellow citizens, so people are naturally worried.

The Council on Foreign Relations’s Steven Cook, a passionate and long-time observer of Egypt, has written a forceful and important entreaty to the Egyptian liberal movement, charting its missed opportunities since February 2011. That initially included, he writes, “revolutionary navel-gazing that distracted the civil/secular/alleged liberal groups from doing the kind of political organizing that was necessary” as well as “an ongoing sacralization of the uprising and its many different leaders, which made it beyond the pale to offer any kind of critical analysis of those eighteen days [in early 2011] or its aftermath.”

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/12/whats-the-matter-with-egypts-liberals/

[David__77]

1. Some of the "liberals" are nationalists and patriots.

MB is definitely an anti-patriotic party. They don't favor Egypt but rather the "umma" alone. The "liberal" or nationalist forces are grounded in post-feudal ideology. They don't prefer an autocrat, but they will assuredly pick the nationalist autocracy over the Islamist one, or even over Islamist democracy for that matter. I don't think it's surprising at all.

[SoCalDem]

2. Fanatics with guns often trump everything else

[typeviic]

5. Egypt needs to kick out the West and the...

CIA and Mossad spies, tell the US to keep its bribe money, (foreign aid) allow Gaza residents to freely move in and out of Egypt so it is no longer an open air prison, and ally themselves with Russia. Then they will be free.

[badtoworse]

8. Perhaps, but the top priority should be stopping Islamic Fundamentalism.

[SoCalDem]

17. fundamentalism is all but impossible to "stop".

brain chemistry+religious zealotry+testosterone+chronic joblessness+adrenalin= one deadly and long-lasting toxic cocktail of misery

[The Magistrate]

3. Perhaps, Ma'am, They Understand Their Situation...

And consider balking the most reactionary fundamentalist elements the first necessity.

[eissa]

6. Yep, they know the enemy well

and what is at stake should they ever reclaim power again. Religious tyrannies only hold on to power, they don't relinquish -- elections be damned. And why are there children camped in the square? Oh yes, of course. The same reason Ayatollah Khomeni used children to clear land mines in the no-mans land area near the Iraq-Iran border.

[cali]

7. Perhaps. And perhaps others actually know something and you could expand your

knowledge.

I find it interesting that you never post a link with evidence.

[The Magistrate]

20. Nothing In That Article Is New, Ma'am

The most salient point in it is mention of the fact that what for convenience are referred to as 'liberal' elements did not manage any serious organizational work in the wake of Mubarak's departure, something which was obvious even to the most casual observers at the time. Since the Moslem Brotherhood was an organized body, even though it played little part in the agitation against Mubarek, it was well able to secure most of the benefit from his ouster, in terms of political office. And certainly the lack of political organization by 'liberal' elements has left them with little choice but adherence to the military if they wish immediate and effective opposition to be levied against the Moslem Brotherhood. Most of the rest of it simply expressions of wonderment that people in Cairo, faced with the real prospect of fundamentalist rule, do not behave and choose like academic leftists in the United States....

[redgreenandblue]

37. To be clear: So you approve of the slaughter of hundereds of innocents...

...by the military, due to some hypothetical scenario of Muslims being in charge otherwise? That is what I get from you posts at least. Did I understand correctly?

[The Magistrate]

38. I Recognize The Actual Circumstances, Sir

This is one episode in a long conflict. The military rulers of Egypt are not going to allow the Moslem Brotherhood to rule Egypt; they will take whatever measures they feel necessary to achieve this end. Persons who adhere to the Brotherhood know this as well, and understand they are in conflict with an armed power they seek to break, to achieve their goal of an Islamic state in Egypt. I certainly support denying the Moslem Brotherhood rule in Egypt; I oppose, in all cases, rule by adherents to fundamentalist religiosity, which is by far the most retrograde and reactionary, the most illiberal and anti-progressive, form of rule possible. If the Egyptian military succeeds in breaking the Moslem Brotherhood, I will have little complaint over how it was done; if their effort fails, if it proves the trigger of a prolonged civil conflict, then their actions will be demonstrated to have been a mistake.

[Zorra]

39. +1. Well said. nt

[redgreenandblue]

33. lol.

"perhaps others actually know something"

[badtoworse]

4. You don't get to be very liberal in an Islamist state.

If I had to choose between an Islamist state and a military one, I'd take the military.

[cali]

12. Egypt has not been an Islamist state.

It has been a military dictatorship for decades. You might consider informing yourself just a wee bit.

[badtoworse]

26. I don't disagree. The issue is the future.

Give the MB a little time and Egypt would be just as liberal as Iran. I believe the non-Fundamentalists in Egypt understand that very well and that is why they are supporting the military.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Those who speak softly usually have a hard time being heard over the sound of gunfire.

People really have to want to hear them.

[cthulu2016]

10. Is there a liberal value higher than opposition to theocracy?

I am not sure there is.

[PassingFair]

11. +1

[cali]

13. at least equal too- opposition to brutal military dictatorships.

Think Chile, Nazi Germany, East Germany and on and on and on.

[JI7]

24. those were not in the middle east/ Muslim nations

i think things like military rule have not been the worst in some places,especially the muslim nations for some people where they are fighthing religious fundamentalism which was not the case in the places you mention. and unlike nazi germany and the others the military has actually been the more liberal one in muslim nations.

and those other nations were not fighting religious fundamentalism.

i think it's just different and sometimes both can suck so which one sucks less so.

take turkey for example. the military had prevented religious fundamentalism from taking hold for years. now they have a guy who wants more religious influence and the people have been resisting it.

[cali]

16. opposition to the Khmer Rouge. Not a theocracy.

hard to imagine a more brutal regime, isn't it?

[LittleBlue]

25. When that value involves gunning down women and children in the streets

I think it ceases to be liberal. Mao and Stalin were staunchly anti-religion, it didn't make them defenders of liberal values.

[LittleBlue]

14. Yet another group who wants democracy

as long as they win the elections.

If they lose, well then, the military is always preferable.

[JI7]

15. they realized they had more freedom under Mubarak than when the

brotherhood got into power ?

[cali]

19. nope. they most certainly did not. the best take I've read on this is that

they thought that the military would get rid of the MB and then set up democratic elections as they did after deposing Murbarak and this article which has the pov that Egypt's liberals are not liberals as we think of

[arely staircase]

18. Fear of and opposition to Muslim Brotherhood theocracy

the army is the only thing standing between them and that. Which is sad.

[cali]

22. The military is at least as bad and massively corrupt.

[arely staircase]

28. not for women nt

[sufrommich]

21. It seems easy to understand,they saw their country

moving toward theocracy and embraced the military.I suppose they imagine it's easier to work toward a democratic government with the military that it would be with the theocrats. I doubt the pictures of Nasser in people's houses have ever gone away,he's as revered in Egypt as JFK is here.

[cali]

23. Not nearly that easy.

There are some excellent pieces, including this one by some of the foremost experts on Egypt. None of them as in ZERO take that simplistic pov.

[sufrommich]

30. I didn't say it was easy,nor am I being simplistic and

yes I read the article. It's not at all unimaginable to believe liberals in Egypt prefer the military over theocrats as they are capable of remembering life under Gamal Nasser,who was very nationalistic and very liberal.I could very well be that they are remembering their past and hoping for a replay.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. Just a guess here...

but I'd say they probably didn't see an Islamist goverment as the ideal successor to the Mubarak regime. Especially an Islamist government of dubious legitimacy. (The election of Morsi? Questionable and possibly rigged; same thing with constitutional referendum.)

See here for instance:

CAIRO (AP) — Egyptian rights groups called Sunday for a repeat of the first round of the constitutional referendum, alleging the vote was marred by widespread violations. Islamists who back the disputed charter claimed they were in the lead with a majority of “yes” votes, though official results have not been announced.

Representatives of seven rights groups charged that there was insufficient supervision by judges in Saturday’s vote in 10 of Egypt’s 27 provinces and independent monitors were prevented from witnessing vote counts.

The representatives told a news conference that they had reports of individuals falsely identifying themselves as judges, of women prevented from voting and that members of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood were allowed inside polling stations. They also complained that some polling centers closed earlier than scheduled and that Christians were denied entry to polling stations.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/16/claims_of_vote_rigging_in_egypt/

Or here:

There is a fox in Tahrir Square. Bushy tailed and thickly furred, he claims to hear everything. And this is what he says: that 50.7 per cent of Egyptian voters cast their ballot for Mubarak's former Prime Minister, Ahmed Shafiq, in last month's elections; that only 49.3 per cent voted for Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party; but that the military were so fearful of the hundreds of thousands of Brotherhood supporters who would gather in Tahrir Square they gave the victory to Morsi.

Now foxes can be deceitful. But this is a well-connected fox and he claims that Morsi actually met four leading members of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf) in Egypt four days before the election results were proclaimed and that he agreed to accept his presidency before the constitutional court rather than the newly dissolved parliament – which is exactly what he did on Saturday. He says there will be another election in a year's time, although I have my doubts.

Now behind this piece of Reynard-gossip is a further piece of information – shattering if true – that the Egyptian army's intelligence service is outraged by the behaviour of some members of the Scaf (in particular, the four who supposedly met Morsi) and wants a mini-revolution to get rid of officers whom it believes to be corrupt. These young soldiers call themselves the New Liberal Officers – a different version of the Free Officers Movement which overthrew the corrupt King Farouk way back in 1952.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/robert-fisk-president-morsi-a-rigged-ballot-and-a-foxs-tale-that-has-all-of-cairo-abuzz-7902952.html

[cali]

29. It seems like posters in this thread didn't read the article posted

which brings up some very interesting points.

[The Magistrate]

31. Or Simply, Ma'am, Had A Different 'Take-Away' From It Than You

People will form their own opinions, you know, and bring to the doing their own knowledge of and interests in the matter at hand....

[cali]

32. pretty clear from some of the comments that people didn't read the

full article. You do realize that's very common here, I'm sure.

[The Magistrate]

36. Have You Got Any Proof Of That, Ma'am?

A link substantiating your claim, perhaps?

[redgreenandblue]

34. Wow. People all over this thread advocating military rule.

[leftynyc]

35. Using the American definition of liberal

is really quite pointless. Just as the Tory party in the UK is not nearly as "conservative" as the right in this country. But the people who want a secular democracy need to get off their duff and organize, get candidates to step up and run for office. The Muslim Brotherhood were the only ones organized after the revolution in 2011 and could be the sole reason they won the election.

[The Magistrate]

40. True, Sir

Though matters have got a bit past that, now. One small caveat is that the Brotherhood maintained a solid organization before Mubarak's ouster, and so had a leg up on the secularists and liberals, who had to start from scratch.

[leftynyc]

41. I'm a woman

The brotherhood has been trying to get power in Egypt for decades.