Analysis on the Egyptian Uprising

Submitted by Imad Al-Sukkari (Canada), Feb 2, 2011 at 11:30

I find your analysis is missing key elements. I will say I do agree with your prediction that the 'military' institution will remain in power, however the idea that Egyptian people are prone to allow the Islamists to rise to power is unfounded given that

a) The Protests were primarily led by secularist parties namely the April 6th Movement and Kifeya Movement led by Ayman Nour, the Muslim Brotherhood does hold some clout within the Egyptian street but not the same extent the Right exaggerates to be. All the Islamists were doing is tacitly join the opposition parties in hopes of putting an end to the kleptocracy that has presided over Egypt for the past 30+ years. As we have seen in the past Presidential election, Ayman Nour's party garnered more support than the Muslim Brotherhood, the mere fact that the Mubarak regime allowed room for the members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be elected in the Egyptian Parliament is proof that their power is limited and harmless in comparison to the other parties.

b)Most of the slogan and messages spread by the opposition mention the use of ideas such as 'equality' , 'representation', 'economic reform' , 'ending corruption', 'democracy' ideas that are not necessarily promoted by Islamists, who tend to run under the main idea of creating a political system under the banner of 'sharia' regardless of the social and political implications.

On other note, is that the Right's cry for democratic reform in the Middle-East is no where to be seen in any publications or media press, instead they keeping harping on the 'fear' that 'Islamists' may rise to power and often make comparisons to the Islamic Revolution in 1979 which had different circumstances and different political actors involved. Add to that those who adopt a pro-Israel position who have stated their dismay for reform, take for example current Israeli President Shimon Perez who stated that he would rather have a dictatorship than a democracy, which a rather double-standard proposition where on the one hand you champion the desire for people to change their own political circumstances by instilling democracy while on the other fawn upon it if it doesn't fit your interests politically and strategically. If the Left were to take a similar stance, the Right would probably be chewing them to pieces and labeling them as 'traitors' or selling out but if it was a right-minded administration working with autocratic regimes it would be 'strategic'. I say the right has to have its priorities right, if you advocate democratic principles stick to them.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".