Islamism has lost its monopoly on dissent | Richard Phelps

The uprisings in the Middle East have shown that viable political opposition is no longer the preserve of Islamists alone The question: Is Islamism dying? It is likely that the political futures of both Tunisia and Egypt will involve Islamist parties participating in formal politics in some capacity. Regimes in both countries have long evoked such a spectre in order to purchase silence and support from overseas in favour of their own continued rule. The current uprisings will not herald the demise of Islamism in the short term, but nor will they usher in an era of theocratic rule. In fact, events have made clear for all to see that there exists an alternative both to the Islamists and to their ruling antagonists: the general will. In the longer term, Islamists of all kinds – militant and electoral – are likely to emerge weakened from the current contestation. For over 80 years, Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood have formed part of the political landscape in the Middle East. Such organisations have served as a long-time opposition to the ruling regimes, and have survived pressures far worse than the end of a particular dictator’s rule. Yet for many supporters of Islamist parties, the parties’ appeal lies precisely in their status in dissenting from the ruling regimes. The culture of brutality that saturated the Mubarak and Ben Ali regimes, the corruption and graft that characterised their rule from the macro to micro level, and the frustration at their failure to provide for their subjects have all served as recruiting sergeants for Islamist parties. That the recent contestation across the Arab world has been over these issues but has not been led by Islamist parties shows that viable opposition is not the preserve of Islamists and Islamism alone. There is clearly another way. Those who are disaffected with the status quo do not have to turn to Islamism as the only viable and credible channel for dissent. Such a perceived monopoly over dissent has ended, but this is not something that has been changed by the recent protests. Rather, it is something that has been proved by them. It is often said that parties oppose in poetry and govern in prose. In Egypt, the Brotherhood – long referred to by the regime simply as “the proscribed organisation” – has now been explicitly named in state media as a party that the regime is talking to. Any future involvement of Islamists in formal politics is likely to bring new challenges for them. It is far easier, from this perspective, for them to criticise the status quo than to implement constructive change. Previous experiences where Islamist parties have been allowed to participate in parliamentary systems, or have seized power, have often proved detrimental to their popularity for they began to share the responsibility for governmental shortcomings. “Who ever liked a government that was ruling them?” the younger brother of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder once asked the author John Bradley. “To survive in power, they would have to make compromises, even with their deepest held principles.” The most important aspect of the recent protests is the sense of empowerment it has given to populations governed by authoritarian regimes. The coercive rule of a “strong man” is not a necessary part of the Arab political landscape, and the demonstrators have shown that they can challenge dictators and shape their own future. Compare the humiliation felt by the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq with the sense of empowerment at the Tunisian people ousting Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. Iraq was a case of a people arriving from overseas to lord it over another, whereas the Tunisian case shows a group of people taking assertive action to determine their own future. The jubilation expressed at one toppling was manufactured; at the other it was genuine. It is a sense of humiliation and powerlessness that so often inspires rejectionist forms of Islamism of the al-Qaida kind, and the recent protests are likely to serve a blow to this. Disaffected subjects need not take to the mountains when they see they can take to the streets. How events play out in either country is yet to be seen. Despite the similarities of the protestors’ demands, for various reasons Tunisia’s chances of a meaningful democracy are far higher than Egypt’s. It is not unreasonable to think that Egypt’s overseas allies consider the regime – not to be confused with its leader– to be “too big to fail”. “Failure”, in this case, would mean the risk of Egypt’s people choosing their own government, which may include Islamists. If one despot replaces another then Islamism could well flourish, since the causes of its popularity as a protest movement would remain profoundly unaddressed. On the other hand, the success of protesters in discarding despotic rulers cannot but highlight the fact that there is an activism and an ideology available to them that is an alternative to Islamism. Islam Religion Tunisia Egypt Iraq Protest Middle East Richard Phelps guardian.co.uk

Posted by on February 17, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry