Throughout New Middle East, Islamists Have Upper Hand
From Algeria to Iraq, the Muslim Brotherhood is well-positioned.
February 28, 2011 - 12:00 am
Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident and current chairman of the Jewish Agency, wrote in his seminal book titled The Case for Democracy about fear societies and free societies. The Arab Middle East has been a collection of largely fear societies. The recent events in Tunisia and Egypt, however, have transformed the psychology of many Arabs, and the political ramifications are soon to follow.
The fear barrier that gripped the people living in the dictatorships throughout the Middle East has been breached. The corrupt dictators in Egypt (Mubarak) and Tunisia (Bin Ali) are now gone, and others like them in the Arab world fear they are next. These dictators deposited billions of dollars in Swiss banks while their people suffered poverty, unemployment, inadequate schooling, and the lack of medical attention. Millions of Arabs who live in poverty-stricken neighborhoods rushed into the capital cities by the tens of thousands, no longer fearing the military, secret police, or the police forces arrayed against them. They proved to their cruel rulers that people’s power matters.
The new Middle East will favor the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Their mosque-based clinics, feeding stations, and petty employment gave the MB many millions of foot soldiers, who occupied Liberation Square in Cairo and other such squares in different capitals in the Arab world from Algiers to Manama, Amman, Tripoli, and Sanaa.
In Egypt, more than half of the population of 84 million dwells in unplanned communities without running water, a sewage system, electricity, and telephone service. These people, unlike the elites who are tied to the regime, have no access to a social and medical infrastructure, and consequently the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has been able to tap into their anger and frustration.
The next chapter in Egypt’s history is yet to be written, but there is little doubt that the MB will be a major influence. Under the worst-case scenario, the MB would force the powers to be to immediately sever their relations with Israel, and perhaps with the U.S. as well. The delivery of gas to Israel would cease, and Egypt would ally itself with Iran. Such a government would also shut down the Suez Canal to Western navigation, causing great damage to the European economy. Domestically, an MB-influenced government would implement Sharia law as the law of the land, forcing the Coptic-Christian minority to flee the country, convert to Islam, or live in even greater misery and fear.
On the other hand, if more moderate forces within the MB should prevail, Egypt would continue to constructively engage with the West and seek foreign investments in order to try to feed, clothe, and house its people. Such an MB-influenced Egyptian government might refrain from assuming an openly anti-American and anti-Western policy, knowing that such policies would end the generous U.S. aid to Egypt. And MB leaders are aware that a militant anti-Israel policy might lead the region towards war, the consequences of which would be a decline in foreign investments and increased poverty. It is more than likely, however, that Egypt under MB influence would downgrade its relations with Israel, including the closure of the embassies in Cairo and Tel Aviv.
In Bahrain, a desperately poor Shiite majority has had to endure a Sunni-Muslim royal family and bureaucracy. In Algeria, where the demonstrations were ostensibly about unemployment, tensions between the northern-urban elites who run the political, economic, and informational machinery of the state, and the southern desert nomadic and semi-nomadic Bedouins, who still live in tribal and traditional Islamic societies and are opposed to western influence, broke out. In addition, there are also the longstanding tensions between the Arabs and Berbers.