Although Egypt is facing serious challenges, there are no grounds to overdramatize the situation. The Egyptian authorities should focus on ensuring a pluralistic system at home. Egypt is a large country with huge population and one model is unlikely to work for everyone. A confrontation with the military would seriously jeopardize the new government.
The Arab Republic of Egypt has entered a period of political and social transformation. The nature of the government is changing and a new, predominatly Islamist political elite is emerging. This period cannot be painless or brief. It harbors the risk of aggravating of domestic political struggle and interference by major external players seeking to move events in the desired direction. The situation in Egypt is, of course, far from stable, but we should not overdramatize events. The so-called Arab Spring is a long-term process that could take several decades.
Egypt is the biggest Arab country and a key player in the Middle East. It has been weakened by political developments and all host of external and internal threats, but it is nonetheless showing a core stability, and its domestic situation is not as bad as it may have been in other countries undergoing a similarly sudden political transition.
Today a battle is underway in Egypt for the country’s future. This fight will determine the character of the Egyptian state as well as its political and social system. Its outcome will decide who will rule Egypt in the near term, and possibly longer. Ultimately, this is the struggle for the country’s constitution, which will determine the character of the state and the relations between the key players on the political scene.
Who are these players?
Islamist parties are the clear winners of the Egyptian revolution. There are three main types of Islamists in the Muslim world. First, there is the Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations. Generally, they are moderate and want to join the international mainstream. They are even trying to adopt some Western values, sometimes on a large scale.
Second, there are Salafis and affiliated organizations. They are more conservative and even archaic in their values, and are more committed to the idea of an Islamic state and the supremacy of the sharia law. They have a somewhat different attitude to such Western values as the rights of minorities, women, etc. However, they have adopted Western electoral democracy. Today the Salafist Al-Nour Party is a normal political party acting in a modern political system. As a political phenomenon, it is a political product of the modern world, not that of Islamic tradition, and created not by the views of the righteous caliphs.
Third, there are jihadists that do not recognize any non-Islamic institutions and regard violence a means of achieving political power.
These three Islamist forces have some disagreements. It is hard to predict today whether the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis will act in concert or be locked in political conflict.
The next group is represented by the military. The regime they established in Egypt in 1952 has not been dismantled. The military have largely retained their influence and even economic power. Judging by recent events, the military is remaining neutral. They have adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards the struggle between the liberals and the Islamists, and are not taking part in it. In this respect they are like the smart monkey sitting in the tree and watching the two tigers fight.
Most likely, the Muslim Brotherhood will try to maintain peaceful relations with the military, but their interests are bound to clash in the future. A confrontation with the military now would seriously jeopardize the new government.
The Muslim Brotherhood now is clashing with liberals that represent yet another political group in Egypt. Pro-Western liberals consist primarily of intellectuals’middle strata and people with secular and left-wing views. They do not enjoy large-scale support in Egypt, which is still a country of traditions.
One more force that should be separated out from the politicized actors is civil society. Out of all Arab countries, Egypt has the most well developed civil society institutions, despite the harassment they faced under Egypt’s fourth President Hosni Mubarak. Egypt has all kinds of associations, trade unions and NGOs. They are not necessarily inspired by the West – many have taken root in the country on their own. One reason for such high civic engagement is fear about the future – not an objection to Islamists per se, but a desire to prevent a second dictatorship, the potential for which is seen in the new draft constitution presented by President Mohamed Morsi. Many of the people protesting on Tahrir Square since November 19, 2012, do not want to see Morsi follow the path of Hosni Mubarak.
However, such fears are hardly justified. The Muslim Brotherhood was established to fight for power. It is not a religious/educational organization like Pakistan’s Tablighi Jamaat, whose goal is to spread Islam. This is why the Brotherhood is so eager to win elections now that Egypt is facing such serious domestic, foreign policy and social challenges such as unemployment, poverty and economic problems. They also have to deal with political problems such as the strong position of the military, the confident stance of the liberals, Western pressure, and Israeli demands and interests. The Muslim Brotherhood wants to consolidate their power to give the fifth president of Egypt free reign.
Has Morsi proposed amending the constitution to promote the idea of an Islamic state or to accrue more power? The latter assumption is more logical. Morsi does not need to push for sharia, because the constitution guarantees that it will remain the foundation of the state.
A desire to achieve a greater freedom of action is well grounded. Morsi is worried that if the Brotherhood fails, he will be ousted from the presidency. Moreover, he is also seeking to constrain another political actor – the judiciary. The judiciary, in particular the Constitutional Court is a powerful body with a long history in Egypt.
A number of major opposition figures are asking Morsi whether the Muslim Brotherhood can rule Egypt on its own. It is hard to give an unequivocal answer to this question. Many analysts believe the answer is no. Obviously, the Muslim Brotherhood must understand that they are in charge of a powerful country with highly developed institutions, an active political life and civil society, and a ramified system of government.
If the referendum takes place on December 15, 2012, the new draft of the constitution will likely be approved.
The major success achieved by Morsi as the mediator of the recent conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis had a dramatic effect on the world public. He presented himself as a capable and powerful politician who bolstered Egypt’s prestige. Morsi worked with U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to craft a ceasefire, and managed to maintain the position of his predecessor on the Middle East conflict.
Egypt has acted as the mediator in the past, trying to achieve a settlement between Fath and Hamas and between Israelis and Palestinians. The Egyptian regime actually took part in Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. It was an Israeli-Egyptian blockade. Naturally, the new government had to disassociate itself from this policy.
Therefore, credit for the recent ceasefire goes to President Morsi. The lifting of the blockade of the Gaza Strip did not spark a confrontation with the West and helped Hamas.
Again, although Egypt is facing serious challenges, there are no grounds to overdramatize the situation. Yes, the members of the Constitutional Court have temporarily suspended their work but this doesn’t unleash a civil war. The Egyptian authorities should focus on ensuring a pluralistic system at home. Egypt is a large country with huge population and one model is unlikely to work for everyone. Promoting cooperation and peace between domestic religious and social groups is a difficult but extremely important task – no less important than the task of adjusting Egypt’s posture in the Middle East conflict.
As for relations between Russia and Egypt, they have traditionally been good. Egypt was not on the list of Russia’s economic priorities, but bilateral relations have always been friendly. Egypt has not forgotten Soviet and Russian assistance and support for Arabs and Egyptians in particular at various times of Egypt’s history. This historic memory is strong, though today these relations are undergoing some political strain.
First, we have certain disagreements with Egypt on Syria.
Second, the new forces that have come to power in Egypt do not have a well-developed system of relations with Russia because of the domestic situation in Russia. At one time, Russia regarded part of the Muslim Brotherhood as a political force that was hostile toward it on the matter of Chechnya. Some groups from the Brotherhood sympathized with the separatists from self-proclaimed Ichkeria and supplied them with weapons, money and fighters.
This has now receded into the past, but Russia’s Muslim community worries at times that trends alien to the traditional Russian Hanafi teachings of Sunni Islam might influence Russia’s Muslim community.
I think these apprehensions are hindering to some degree the development of Russia’s relations with the new political players in Egypt that are only just beginning to gain a foothold.
However, we are now seeing energetic efforts to revive Russian-Egyptian relations. Russia has supported the changes in Egypt, and there have been good diplomatic contacts. Egypt is interested in diversifying its foreign ties and will seek to improve relations with Russia. For its part, Russia regards Egypt as the most important Arab country.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.