What makes me uneasy about Egypt?
Because all along, I’ve suspected that that this was the case:
The Brotherhood’s strength was on display in the pitched battles in Wednesday and Thursday against government supporters who attacked the protesters’ camp in Cairo’s central Tahrir Square before they were driven from the square by the pro-democracy forces.
Brothers — distinguishable by their close-cropped beards — dominated the front lines, often lining up to pray for “victory or martyrdom,” before throwing themselves into the fray, hurling stones, sticks and firebombs at the attackers while shouting “God is great.”
Amr Said, a 41-year-old chemist who said he is a Brotherhood supporter, told The Associated Press in Tahrir Square Friday morning that “our instructions are not to assume a role that is too visible at the moment, and to get along with all other groups including and leftist and liberals.
“We also refrain from making our typically brotherhood chants and when one of us does, we quickly shut him up,” he said.
The Brotherhood is closely linked with Hamas, and its ideological scions include Ayman al-Zawahiri (who later moved on to even more extremist groups). Some sources say that in its early pre-World War II years, the Brotherhood partnered with the notorious Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who went on to become a a Nazi collaborator, active Waffen SS recruiter, and suspected war criminal for wartime massacres in Yugoslavia and Greece. After the war, the Mufti took refuge in Egypt. One commenter alleges that the Brotherhood’s founder “was a devout admirer of Adolph (sic) Hitler and wrote to him frequently.” I wonder how attenuated those origins have become with the passage of time.
The Brotherhood also has a highly developed, influential, and resilient clandestine social welfare organization of the same sort that I’ve advocated building in North Korea to feed those the regime won’t feed. So if the Brotherhood has the support of an absolute majority, is it unprincipled to say that the Brotherhood shouldn’t rule? No. The example of Gaza shows us that despite its benign pretenses, the Brotherhood’s model is one man, one vote, one time, and then oppression, aggression, and misery. But democracy has never been synonymous with the tyranny of the majority. If it was, then it would be undemocratic for a society to protect the rights of its religious, political, and ethnic minorities. Today, most of us agree that a democracy can’t endure unless it uses the rule of law to protect tolerance and pluralism. Without these things, there can be no discussions, campaigns, debates, or free choices of candidates, and the system’s losers are divested of any means to achieve their objectives peacefully.
If Egypt is prepared to vote the Muslim Brotherhood into power — and I’m not persuaded that they are — then it’s not ready for self-government, and it won’t succeed as a free society without more time to develop its educational system and economy while its society evolves (which isn’t to suggest that this is still a possibility, or something we can or should impose). It’s questionable whether that evolution advanced much during Mubarak’s rule. After all, it was always in Mubarak’s interest to present the Brotherhood as the only alternative to himself. Let’s all hope this won’t become a self-fulfilling manipulation.