One of the dirty little secrets of Egyptian politics is that government squashes secular opponents while allowing Islamist opposition (and leftist groups) freer rein, including privileged access to the media and more scope to campaign for political office when there are carefully controlled national elections.
This may have been true in the 1970s during Sadat’s purges against leftists and Nasserists, when he empowered some Islamists and even, according to Egyptian leftist lore, pretty much created the Gamaa Islamiya from scratch. But it’s a rather hard statement to pull off now, after the most wide-ranging crackdown on Islamist since the Nasser era. It’s also rather disingenuous to claim that Islamists are given preferential treatment in the media when they are not allowed a party, a newspaper, and several of their publications have been shut down. In fact, aside from non-fiction publishing, I don’t see how political Islamists are dominant.
Moreover, liberal and leftists have for decades been given platforms of their own in the media. There is a fairly vibrant, if rather shrill, opposition and independent press in Egypt. State newspapers frequently run op-eds by self-described leftists and liberals. State TV, I would suspect, gives more space to liberals, leftists, Arab nationalists, and various other sundry groups (excluding the far left) than Islamists. It is only a recent phenomenon that members of the Muslim Brotherhood have appeared on state TV, for instance.
The real problem with secularists being under-represened in the political arena has to do with something Dr. Mustafa should be all too aware of: a good number of secularists, notably liberals, are quite happy supporting the NDP or staying in loyal opposition parties like the Wafd. She is in case in point: despite being a vocal critic of the NDP, she has remained a member of its Policies Council. Presumably her hope is to gain influence over policy-making in this way; but then again she has complained (to me and in newspaper columns) that the Policies Council is dominated by a few personalities who don’t listen to the considerable number of mostly secular-liberal experts who are on it. That was the reason Osama al-Ghazali Harb allegedly left.
Let’s face it: the NDP, for all its many flaws, has attracted the cream of secularist, “liberal” Egyptian personalities. It’s not until those NDP members who are not just opportunists (for it is a party of opportunists rather than ideologues) decide to make a fuss, leave and start something new that you will really be able to say there is a politically viable independent liberal-democratic movement in Egypt. Until then, the NDP is the liberal-secularist party by default — the party of liberal autocracy.
More on other aspects of this paper later.
In what sense are you using “liberal” when you qualify the NDP as “liberal-secularist” or “the party of liberal autocracy” – economically and socially liberal? The antonym of “Islamists”? Not sure the NDP’s secularist supporters should be able to get away with being called political liberals when, as you’ve pointed out, they are opportunists who haven’t shown any commitment to real liberal principles.
A fair point — I meant liberal as in economically and societally. But I wouldn’t say that’s a direct antonym of Islamists — Islamists are usually economically liberal and sometimes (but very rarely) societally liberal. But they are not secular. Arguably the NDP isn’t really either, but it is secular enough to have attracted the support of secularists. But I don’t really see any contradiction between being liberal and being undemocratic.
My aim was to say that many people in the political elite who would describe themselves as liberals, such as Mustafa, join the NDP opportunistically — not necessarily for personal advancement, but because they believe membership presents an opportunity for having a liberalizing influence, even politically. Furthermore, Gamal Mubarak and the new guard of the party have presented themselves as liberals, distinguishing themselves from an illiberal old guard and illiberal Islamists. That they use the massive power of the NDP to compromise with illiberal forces they are forced to deal with (security, army, presidency) or even repress political opponents does not, in my view, make them illiberal. I suppose this is a rather old-fashioned understanding of the word liberal, and one dampened by the political realities of Egypt.
Believe it or not, even some ardent opponents of the current regime give the NDP’s new guard the benefit of the doubt for having a plan to introduce partial, long-term political liberalization. Just like the Whigs were opposed to absolute rule but not particularly democratic, or their successors the liberals mostly interested in free trade but not social justice.
“But I don’t really see any contradiction between being liberal and being undemocratic”
Even by the standards of a Fareed Zakaria, who http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html“ rel=”nofollow”> shares the old-fashioned view of liberal culture as a necessary prerequisite of real democracy, the NDP “liberals” don’t seem to measure up – where is their support for judicial independence and the protection of civil liberties?
“That they use the massive power of the NDP to compromise with illiberal forces they are forced to deal with (security, army, presidency) or even repress political opponents does not, in my view, make them illiberal.”
So just what have they done with their top-level access and opportunities to promote political liberalisation, other than use the term as a sort of talisman, or allow the NDP top brass to point to them as a sign of progress?
My guess is that they are biding their time, knowing full well that while they are not influential now and won’t be until the succession issue has resolved itself. In the meantime, they see no other opportunities with the opposition. I think al-Ghazali Harb’s move will probably prove pointless and driven by his considerable ego and the perceived insult of being ignored by Gamal. Other self-described liberals that were once players with the regime and then went into opposition (Ayman Nour, Mona Makram Ebeid) have gone nowhere. In the meantime the non-opportunistic liberals are stuck with Kifaya not so much as a political movement but as a protest movement, or can try to make something out of the Wafd (unlikely IMHO).
“One of the dirty little secrets of Egyptian politics is that government squashes secular opponents”
i do not see anythinf inaccurate in this statment. once a secular politician gets strong or influential enough to be considered an opponenet he is squashed e.g Ayman Nour, sa3d el deen Ibrahim.
“while allowing Islamist opposition (and leftist groups) freer rein, including privileged access to the media and more scope to campaign for political office when there are carefully controlled national elections.”.
this stamment is difficult to asses but it might not be completly wrong.
how many times you heard ref3t el sa3eed and company on the egyptian tv and how many times you heard Osama el ghazli and the people in el ghad party?
It appears we have a MB sympathizer. I agree with Amgad—most secular parties are in debt, lack a following, and depend upon non-governmental organizations for assistance.
Read Maye Kassem’s The Guise of Democracy—this isn’t a new theory of Clientelism and the NDP co-opting secular political parties and other personalities.
The NDP certainly defangs and co-opts the secular parties, but that’s in part because they allow themselves to be co-opted (esp. the “big three” Wafd, Nasseri, Tagammu). The MB faces much more pressure than them and still goes on. You don’t have to be a sympathizer to notice that.
As was proven by the 2005 parliamentary elections, the regime allowed the MB to make unprecedented gains to show the West the disease of democracy upon oppressed peoples.
Why do you think that the Bush administration stopped pressuring the governments of the Middle East to democratize following the debacles of Palestine that ushered in Hamas and the MB gains in Egypt. Issandr, you of all people should know about electoral games.
So you are going to tell me that the MB hasn’t been co-opted? Thats a joke, because every politician regardless of affliation—NDP, independent, MB, Wafd—is accountable to the government not to the people. The government allows them to come to power, and demands something in return.
I thought the whole point of journalism was to be objective, and not favor one group. I’ve always been under the conclusion that Arabism wasn’t religious but secular.