Islamist Democracy or Military Controlled Theocracy?
| by Mathews George Chunakara
( June 25, 2012, Geneva, Sri Lanka Guardian) With the announcement that Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood is the winner of the Presidential election in Egypt, Morsi becomes the first Islamist elected to be head of an Arab State. Fifteen months after the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, who ruled the country for thirty years, Morsi’s victory is now seen as “an ambiguous milestone in Egypt’s promised transition to democracy”. The Muslim Brotherhood, mostly considered as an outlawed secret society for more than eight decades relentlessly struggling to establish its existence as a legitimate body, is now given the opportunity to fulfil its long awaited dream of building a unique political system of “Islamist democracy”. But the emerging political scenario points to several questions about the future of Egypt’s new political system. What would ultimately prevail in Egypt in the new era of political reforms in the largest country of the Arab world?
“Egyptian Renaissance with an Islamic foundation".
Ever since the revolution started, the Muslim Brotherhood promised that they will not field a presidential candidate, and will not contest in a majority of seats in parliament. But, both promises were abandoned. During the campaign, Mursi has promoted the idea of an "Egyptian renaissance with an Islamic foundation". He promised a moderate, modern Islamist agenda to steer Egypt into a new democratic era. A vast number of Egyptians fear that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood rule will end up slowly to "Islamise" Egypt.
 |
| Egyptians watch fireworks in Cairo’s Tahrir Square as they celebrate the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, Mohamed Morsi, in Egypt's presidential elections on June 24, 2012. - Getty Images |
During the presidential election campaign both candidates promised a stable liberal democracy in Egypt, if elected. Morsi denied the charges that he will turn Egypt into a theocracy and Shafiq denied the charges that he will turn the country again into a military dictatorship. One may argue that there are various versions of interpretations to define democracy and democratic reforms. An election every five years in a multiparty political system alone is the prerequisite to define democracy. At least there are certain basic requirements needed for a truly democratic state based on secular characteristics. Larry Diamond, a Stanford University scholar has described an essential list of these characteristics, including: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, respect and protection for minorities, on-going free and open elections, rule of law, and an independent judiciary. If these essential factors are absent, then the claim for democracy is not relevant. A few hours after the result was announced, Mursi resigned from his positions within the Muslim Brotherhood including his role as chairman of its Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). If the Muslim Brotherhood establishes an Islamist based democratic system in which minorities suffer and freedom of religion is denied, then it won’t be a democracy. In such an atmosphere of fear -psychosis, the military might come on the scene again as the saviour and protector of the interests of the persecuted and suffocated minorities.
Now everyone is looking at the emerging scene to see how the renaissance ideology based manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood will be performed.
Role of the Military in the new political system
The role of the military in Egypt’s politics has been a pervasive phenomenon for six decades. The military became the single most dominant institution in Egypt since a group of young military officers seized power in a 1952 coup and later overthrew the monarchy. It has been a known fact that the Egyptian military operates like a state within the state. The business empire of the military has been accountable for up to 40 per cent of Egypt's Gross National Product. The influence of the military has been expanded beyond its own institutions through its engagements in civil and political affairs of the country. Most regional governors of the country are retired army officers. A large number of the main civilian institutions and public sector corporations are headed by former generals which includes the country's rural and urban land-developing authorities and tourism.
The people on the streets who spearheaded the uprising and protest against President Hosni Mubarak early last year left the military in charge of political transition. Millions of Egyptians who dreamed for a new political dispensation in the country did not want another political system in which the military still continues to exert its power. Precisely this reason that brought together Egypt’s Islamists and liberals who were suspecting the move by the military and the prolonged announcement of the results of the presidential election. At least for a while, they put aside their ideological differences and raised voices against the military which showed the signs of asserting its grip on power and expanding its hold on the new political system.
During the past two weeks since the first elections took place, the country has witnessed the promulgation of a series of new laws under the interim military rulers. Martial law was restored, dismissal of the Muslim Brotherhood dominated parliament, veto control for the army over the financial and security arms of the government, restricting the powers of the incoming president, vesting the authority of drafting the new constitution of the country with the military. The decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) of the country to dissolve the parliament invoked hardly any anger from the public. However, the fear of all those who have been longing for a new political era in the country is that whether the military will continue to exert its influence in the new political system ?.
The latest declaration of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) that it will significantly curtail the president's executive powers until a new parliament is elected and a constitution is written is an indication of further militarisation in Egyptian politics. The new constitutional addendum announced also gives the SCAF authority to convene the constituent assembly vested with the responsibility of drafting the new constitution of Egypt. This is also an indication that the SCAF has now positioned itself to play a major role in the country's legislative, constitutional, and executive affairs for at least some more time. The argument of the SCAF leaders is that the new constitutional addendum was necessary to balance the powers between the executive branch and the now vacant legislative branch of government.
The move of the military prior to the announcement of the election results is widely seen as the latest move by the military to continue to exert its grip over the new political system. The move to retain its power sharpens the possibility of confrontation between the newly elected president and the SCAF which will lead to further turmoil in the country. In such a chaotic and turbulent situation, who will have the authority to control the situation? The new president, according to the document, will not even have power to order troops out onto the streets in case of domestic unrest without the prior consent of the military. The president will also have no say in the affairs of the military, but the top military brass will have the exclusive authority and right to appoint military commanders and also to extend their services. The title "Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces” has already been removed from the incoming president. This newly introduced rule is contrary to the tradition that all four former presidents of Egypt since the overthrow of the monarchy 60 years ago were holding this power.
Egypt’s Political Future?
As it was announced earlier, the military generals have to hand over power to the new president by 30 June. The new president will have only very few options to negotiate with the SCAF to define his immediate role. However, the challenges awaiting the new president are innumerable. The new president will have to take office without the oversight of a sitting legislature as it was already dissolved. The president will have to struggle without any provisions to define his powers or duties as there is no permanent constitution. His immediate priority should be focussed on addressing many daunting domestic problems including chronic poverty and unemployment. In a country where about 60 to 70 per cent of the people are poor, they expect urgent actions by the new ruler to address their pending issues. The reason for the beginning of the revolution itself was due to social problems caused by economic backwardness. If efforts are not initiated with urgent priority for establishing economic development and social stability within a realistic time frame, sooner than later the country will have to face further chaos. In such a situation, the military will continue to perform a dominant role in politics and society. The question for now is whether the military will continue to perform its tasks directly or indirectly It is also a matter of time to see when and how the Brotherhood will align with the military for their own mutual benefits and interests.
The revolutionaries of Egypt’s Arab spring who toppled Mubarak within less than three weeks of struggle are now in disarray or splintered. There is a growing tension between the conservative Islamists and the liberal secular revolutionaries who are now at the opposite poles. The Muslim Brotherhood known for its reputation of wheeling and dealing behind the curtain is now being suspected by the revolutionary secular opposition groups. The connivance between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood has even been suspected at an earlier stage, as early as February 2011. When the military initiated the setting-up of a committee of legal scholars to draft constitutional amendments, the committee was filled up with Muslim Brotherhood supporters and the revolutionaries were sidelined. The revolutionaries think that the Brotherhood made a secret deal with the military for its political ambitions and Islamist agenda. When a question was discussed whether a new constitution should be first or the election first, the Brotherhood supported the military’s position to hold the election first and then draft the constitution. The revolutionaries wanted to draft a constitution first, and to design the rules of electoral process. But, the revolutionaries were opposed. The military has been successful in its mission of ensuring more disintegration within the opposition camps. As the country was heading into the first part of the presidential elections, the divisiveness within the opposition camp was more evident. As the rift within the opposition camp is increasingly evident now, it is natural that the Muslim Brotherhood will have to strike a deal with the military to accommodate the military or embrace the military’s agenda as its game of political survival with the support of the military.
In a deeply polarised Egypt, a new president with curtailed powers will not be able to control the situation without the support of the military. The sudden departure of the SCAF might leave a security vacuum in the country which will only generate more social unrest and political chaos. With most powers of a President curtailed and still the military exerting its control, what kind of a political system that will emerge in Egypt is yet to be seen.
What would be the outcome of negotiations between the Muslim Brotherhood and the SCAF?. Will it become an Islamist State or a theocratic military controlled State?
Dr. Mathews George Chunakara, a political scientist, is Director of the International Affairs of the World Council of Churches in Geneva, Switzerland
 With the ...){kind=link}
Post a Comment