Some thoughts on the Tunisia/Egypt protests and Political Islam

Fear is growing in the international community that Tunisia’s Velvet Revolution and the wave of protests in Egypt will signal the beginnings of post-Iranian Revolution-style Islamic states. An article in the Telegraph echoed many of these fears, “in Egypt, as in many other Arab countries controlled by autocratic governments, Islamic militants are waiting to exploit any opportunity that comes their way”. Italy’s Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, during a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Monday, offered a more positive analysis by stating that "I am sure Egyptians will be in a position to choose democracy and civil rights, not extremism, not radicalism”, but the undercurrent of his argument still remains, one that views the world as being consumed in a battle between the East and the West, with the West representing the ideals of freedom, human rights and democracy and the East by radicalism, theocracy and oppression.

However, these arguments offer no insight in to why Political Islam has gained in significance in the Arab world, particularly since the death of Nasser in 1970, and with him the vision of Pan-Arabism. It is as though Islamism, to these commentators and politicians, is an ever-present part of Arabic society. Fitting in with the perception of the Muslim “other”, of whom, the will to destroy the West is a natural urge, to establish a world-wide Caliphate and impose Sharia law, with the beheadings, stonings and female-oppression that comes with it. It also presumes an essentialist understanding of Muslims, one in which many millions of people can be classified by their religion rather than viewed as a diverse and heterogeneous mix of people - teachers, shopkeepers, oil magnates, Imams, atheists, Shiia, Sunni, rich and poor, conservative and liberal - these are all simply Muslims.

It is with this view, then, that America should protect the “stability” of the region, as Hilary Clinton stated, having a pro-US dictatorship is preferable to a democratic regime that may threaten American cultural, political and economic hegemony, not to mention the all-pervasive idea that Islam poses a threat to the very foundations of Western democracy.

Hardly surprising, then, after decades of living under US funded dictatorships, some of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world turn to Political Islam. With political opposition to Mubarak heavily suppressed, subjugated and susceptible to mass arrests, thus effectively blocking any coherent form of resistance to the regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, with its history of grassroots action, including provision of education (both religious and academic), healthcare, community groups and vast network of social services, has become the dominant opposition. This is mirrored not only by the growth in support for Hamas in the Occupied Territory (providing the same kind of social welfare and offering the alternative to the corruption and nepotism of the Fatah and the Palestinian Authority), but also the activities of left-wing groups operating in Latin America, such as the Zapatistas in Mexico and the MST in Brazil.

The reactions of these groups also stem from the same ideas; opposition to American dominance, not only politically (providing billions of pounds in aid to despotic tyrants and corrupt regimes) but also culturally and economically (the ever-present Hollywood blockbuster and cans of coca-cola spring to mind). It comes from the need for change, to break free from the dominance of America and its cultural imperialism. In Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and rest of the World the elites prosper from the toil of the workers, whether that be the landowners and the landless peasants of the Middle East and Latin America, or the multinational corporations and the alienated workers of the West.

Whilst not wishing to defend the regime in Iran and organisations such as Hamas, one must understand the actions of the popular movements that gave rise to these powers. These are the actions of a people pushed to the edge, left without hope. Many forget that the Revolution that brought Khomeini to power was a mass protest against the American-backed Shah, a movement whose primary ideology was as much the Socialism of Ali Shariati as the Islam of the Ayatollah.

To further the comparison with the Iranian Revolution, Michael Foucault stated at the time that, "the problem of Islam as a political force is an essential one for our time and for the years to come, and we cannot approach it with a modicum of intelligence if we start out from a position of hatred”. By outlawing Islamic parties, propping up autocratic regimes and promoting the view of the Muslim “other”, you are not dealing with the problem of Political Islam, you add fuel to an already well-stoked fire. If the international community does not allow for democracy, then the Egyptian people will once more be forced in to the grip of the radical Islamists. You cannot simply deny the wishes of 80 million Egyptians by calling for a gradual shift to democracy under Mubarak - a tyrannical government with a liberal makeover - you must allow for genuine self-determination - even if that forgoes regional “stability” - universal human rights, not the partial granting of rights under Mubarak, and economic freedom, not US hegemony.

The arrogance of the Western elites is astounding, the presumption is of the primacy of Liberalism and the view of the Muslim “other” - those who cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Just as in Gaza in 2006 with Hamas’s election victory, a victory that neither the US nor the EU would acknowledge despite international observers, including former US president Jimmy Carter, deeming it free and fair, the international community perceives democracy to be a privilege, one that is given when the right candidate is victorious. This issue cannot be broken down in to a fight between autocracy and theocracy, or even democracy and theocracy; it is in fact the struggle between arrogance and self-determination.

John