It was no surprise that “Islamists” with
roots in the Muslim Brotherhood obtained 38 percent of the vote in Tunisia
(represented by al-Nahda), and 36
percent in Egypt, where the movement was born (represented by the Freedom and
Justice party).
The Brotherhood have always been a political
and popular force, and had been banned or excluded by most Arab regimes for
decades, which gave them the ability to claim being the only viable
alternative. They contested the first free election after the changes in
Tunisia and Egypt, arriving as “outsiders”, radically different from the dominant
regimes and the weak (unbanned) oppositions. This gave them a type of “innocence”
untainted by the past, making them in the eyes of many voters “beyond criticism
of the bygone period.” And of course, they possessed an organization motivated
by intense feelings of persecution, with extensive material resources,
mobilization capabilities, and easy slogans, all of which supported their
competitiveness.
As for Morocco, the Brothers did not pass
the threshold of 26 percent of votes (represented by the Justice and
Development party - JDP), though they were the largest single bloc. This is so for
a number of reasons, which also correspond to what happened to their counterparts
in Jordan two decades ago. They are well known, they were not victimized, and
their political-religious identity is neither a representation of an
exceptionality nor a conflicting one with the identity stemming from the throne
of their king “the commander of the faithful” (another commonality with the
Jordanian, the “descendent of the Hashemites”). Among these reasons likewise is
the presence of secular radical opposition groups, attracting voters for
political, and economic reasons far from the JDP agenda.
The surprise, by contrast, is the
percentage of votes obtained by the Salafists in Egypt (led by the Party
An-Nour), which was a full quarter of voters—surprising, because previous estimates did not give them
more than 10 to 15 percent. But by scrutinizing their path, it is possible to
explain aspects of their rapid rise, for they had not engaged in direct or
electoral politics previously, and they benefited from many years of expanded
activity and financing (coming in large part from the Gulf countries), experienced
thriving growth in mosques and religious institutions, and gained public
exposure via the media with campaigns for the hajj and for the veiling of women. Additionally, the authorities
considered them an attractive element in the religious field, allowing them to
retain a connection to Islamic social advocacy detached from politics, while
restricting the ability of the Brotherhood to expand socially, and hence
politically.
If this is therefore their first participation,
it seems that they are the second force in the country, with rhetoric that
differs radically from the rhetoric of the other forces, in terms of its
relationship to a religious reference as the basis of politics. It will be very
important to see how they will adapt to their new profile and reality.
However, more important than all that is the
fact that the Brothers and Salafists in all cases have arrived to legislative
power today, and might form the executive authority (or participate in it)
tomorrow, on the basis of an electoral mandate according to democratic and
alternation of power principles. In this, they are governed by political and
legal constraints, with the possibility of accountability through the press, as
well as through protests, forums, and then, coming elections.
Therefore, if they want to repeat their
victories, they must translate their promises into solutions to unemployment
and the problems facing fiscal, operational, tax, health, judicial, urban
development, and productivity policies. Furthermore, they must develop pragmatic
approaches to regional and international relations, among other State affairs. All
these missions cannot be helped through morning prayers nor through Friday
sermons!
In conclusion, it can be said that 2012 would
be filled with political, ideological, and social confrontations in many Arab countries.
As long as those confrontations remain peaceful and civil, only balances of
power within societies will determin their outcomes. And this by itself, and
regardless of some temporary conditions, will confirm one important matter: the Arab Spring of 2011 is irreversible.
Translated from Arabic by Jeff Reger
