How the Muslim Brotherhood Ruined Changes for Egyptian Leadership

Muslim Brotherhood -- Arab Spring in Egypt The Arab Spring of 2010, in which angry citizens in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen took to the streets by the hundreds of thousands to demand changes, did not always result in the positive changes envisioned by the demonstrators. In Egypt, the chaos associated with the revolution that overthrew the dictator, Muhammed Husni Mubarak, did not end in a positive situation for citizens.

In Ellen Lusk's book The Middle East, she points out that notwithstanding the demand for reforms, causing some, including Tunisia President Ben Ali, to quickly depart the country in January 11, 2010, and other leaders to step down, transitions in Libya, Syria and Yemen "deteriorated into civil war" (Lusk, 2016). The flood of refugees fleeing the violence was significant as terrified citizens arrived in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Tunisia, Lusk explains.

In a dramatic shift that has taken place over a few years, this Middle Eastern region that has been associated with "Islam, Israel, oil and authoritarianism" is today seen as being associated with "revolution, civil war, refugees and radical extremism" (Lusk). The chapter "Egypt" points out the country has more than 81 million people, and it represents "practically every social, intellectual, and political movement" in the Arab world (Masoud, 2016).

The author, an associate professor of International Relations at Harvard University, writes that Egypt makes up roughly a fourth of population of the Arab world. Egypt, Masoud explains, was the "first in war" (fighting Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973), and was "first in peace" by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state in 1978. Masoud explains that the Egyptian revolution would likely not have taken place if Tunisia's dictator hadn't been overthrown; that spark lit a fire in Egypt and Mubarak was next to go in the Arab Spring's series of political upheavals.

But five years after the Arab Spring was launched there are still unsolved political problems and unsettled citizens wishing for democratic reforms. In fact, shortly after Mubarak was overthrown, power in Egypt was seized by an "interim government of military generals" (The Supreme Council of Armed Forces) and not long after that Egypt held democratic elections in parliament and in the cities (Masoud, 2016). The exercise in democracy was "doomed" however during those elections in 2011 and 2012 because grabbing power in Egypt was done by " ..

a collection of illiberal, Islamist parties led by a semisecret religious society call the Muslim Brotherhood" (Masoud). Question ONE: Why did many Egyptians turn against the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood (a "semi-secret religious society") was not politically and socially sophisticated enough to provide the leadership that Egypt needed at that time -- and that is perhaps an understatement.

Listening to and watching the video "Egypt after Morsi" it is clear that because the citizens were so upset, violently so in some situations, the army decided to launch a violent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in July, 2013. "Popular discontent" was the reason the army finally stepped in, Masoud explains.

Even though the video features loud noises, voices raised in anger and interviews conducted with an annoying amount of background noise (due to the anger and chaos), the viewer is presented with the anger, fear and resentment of members of the Muslim Brotherhood. "Sectarian tensions were destroying Egypt's economy," the narrator explains. And significant amounts of those sectarian tensions were created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Following the dumping of Mubarak, and after the military stepped aside, and the Muslim Brotherhood's leader Muhammad Morsi was installed in a popular election, there was an expectation of stability and peace in Egypt. But Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood failed to provide the political consensus, and failed to be inclusive in its approach to governing society. Apparently the Muslim Brotherhood angered citizens because it thought it had a popular mandate, and hence it forced changes on people.

Question TWO: Was the military's intervention justified? Why? No, the brutal attacks on demonstrators (mostly of the Muslim Brotherhood) were not justified. The army's shooting into crowds of angry demonstrators looked something like the Chinese government's attacks on students in the Tiananmen Square massacre. When a government's army shoots on unarmed demonstrators (albeit some were throwing rocks) it shows that civil law has been lost and violent desperation has taken over. There are other ways of responding to demonstrations; killing people only exacerbated the political chaos.

Question THREE: Can democracy survive is Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood win elections? Why? Clearly, if a radical group with an agenda that is only about power and control gets in office, democracy is likely to be pushed aside. One of the demonstrators interviewed in the video kept talking about "being free"; but to him "free" means having his own political organization in power, and free means not to be harassed and killed in the streets by the army of the government.

Democracy, in any event, has not flourished in Egypt. Masoud writes: during the "last sixty years," Egypt's politics have been driven by: a) "strong executive authority"; b) the strong role of the military "in politics and economics"; and c) weak institutions "charged with maintaining the rule of law" (Masoud). Question FOUR: Can there be democracy without the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups? Why? Looking at the recent history of Egypt through.