By Hasan Abu Nimah

Jordan Times, 23 February 2011

For much of the Western world the view has been that democratisation in the Arab world carried the risk of bringing Muslim extremists to power. Neither in Tunis nor in Egypt has this been the case. It is unlikely that it will be in the countries where regime change looks imminent.

This perception was constantly pressed by many autocratic Arab regimes in order to justify their survival. They offered themselves as better alternatives to what would follow in case the foreign support on which they heavily relied was to be reconsidered.

In its desperate quest to enhance its sagging credibility while its negotiations with Israel and the United States were only reaping failure, the Palestinian Authority constantly warned of the risk of a Hamas takeover if it were to fall. That was clearly reflected in the Palestine Papers published by Al Jazeera late last month. It was in the interest of the PA, therefore, to persistently demonise Hamas and to amplify its danger.

WikiLeaks has shown that Egypt was also warning its American allies of the potent danger of the Muslim Brotherhood, with former intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, in his repeated contacts with US officials, accusing the Brotherhood of  ¢â‚¬Å“spawning armed extremists ¢â‚¬  warning in 2008  ¢â‚¬Å“that if Iran ever backed the banned Islamist group, Tehran would become  ¢â‚¬Å“our enemy ¢â‚¬ . (The Huffington Post, February 20, 2011). Mubarak ¢â‚¬â„¢s obsession with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas was more than evident.

Although the US State Department was sceptical about the magnitude of the danger, according to the leaked documents, apparently Washington was not uncomfortable with foreign warnings that served its own scare tactics at home focusing mainly on the threat of the Islamic extremists.

In a desperate appeal last Sunday to pacify the rage of the Libyan public, president Muammar Qadhafi ¢â‚¬â„¢s son, Seif Al Islam, warned of the rise of Islamic emirates right on the Mediterranean basin.
 ¢â‚¬Å“They now want to transform Libya into a group of (Islamic) emirates, small states and even separatism, ¢â‚¬  and this, he warned, will not be accepted by the Western powers or by NATO.

It is clear that Qadhafi ¢â‚¬â„¢s son wanted his message to address both his people at home and the Western world; either they support his father ¢â‚¬â„¢s regime against foreign agendas bent on destroying the country and threatening the oil flow or end up dealing with another Afghanistan and Somalia. But this has been the same rhetoric used by all the corrupt and despotic regimes that have been so far confronted with their rebellious publics.

This conception has empirically been proven entirely wrong. Neither in Tunisia nor in Egypt, where Muslim parties were legally banned and politically oppressed, did Islamic movements lead the uprising. In both cases they struggled hard for a place on the surging revolutionary bandwagon. The same should safely apply to the many Arab countries where ruling regimes are currently under pressure: Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria and Morocco.

In Egypt, despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had featured for decades as a significant and credible part of the opposition, the role of the group in the almost spontaneous young people ¢â‚¬â„¢s uprising was secondary. While it was the last to join the popular movement calling for the overthrow of the Mubarak regime, the Brotherhood was the first to jump on vice president Omar Suleiman ¢â‚¬â„¢s call for dialogue, probably seeing that as an opportunity for recognition.

Amongst the many currently debated topics in Egypt on the character of the new political structure in post-Mubarak Egypt, constitutional reform features high on the revolutionary agenda. The trend towards secularism in an overwhelmingly Muslim country, with the Turkish model in mind, is significant. Not only are the constitution ¢â‚¬â„¢s articles that were tailored to guarantee Mubarak ¢â‚¬â„¢s lifetime presidency targeted for change, but notably, Article 2 that asserts that Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation seems to be targeted for change too. Until the current constitution was amended in 1980, Islamic jurisprudence was  ¢â‚¬Å“a principal source ¢â‚¬ , not  ¢â‚¬Å“the principal ¢â‚¬  source, of legislation as the text stands now.

Obviously, all Arab countries that have undergone regime change, or are likely to, are predominantly Muslim. Their societies are highly religious, quite traditional and mostly conservative. In normal conditions, none of this however has largely translated into fanaticism, religious extremism, exclusion or discord among fellow citizens who adhere to different faiths. It is not unusual, therefore, to see this religious sentiment reflected in the people ¢â‚¬â„¢s political performance if placed within a proper democratic context. That is the case in every country worldwide. Why should this part of the world be different?
Muslim-Christian tensions that had been escalating in Egypt in the past years instantly disappeared when all Egyptian citizens found themselves united for genuine democracy against oppression and injustice.

Only under bad government do social contradictions and communal discord fester, not under liberal rule, where the dignity and the rights of the citizen are fully respected by the state.

The manner in which the population in Tunisia and Egypt conducted themselves under critical circumstances and in the face of brutal regime retaliation should make every Arab, Christian or Muslim, proud of this nation, its great tradition and culture.

Undeniably there have been shocking blunders committed by Muslims in the name of Islam and the Muslim people over the past few decades, and they fed that hostile propaganda. But they should be put in their proper context. Were they not mostly the irrational response not only to an equally irrational aggression, but to sustained attack and constant interference in the very internal affairs of this region ¢â‚¬â„¢s countries by the  ¢â‚¬Å“civilised ¢â‚¬  West, to help Israel get away with its violence, territorial loot and occupation? It is also the direct result of prolonged dictatorial rule, corruption and chaos; the very dictatorial rule that the Western powers have supported and nourished.

It is also time that the other ingrained myth – that the countries of the region had only two options to choose from, ruthless corrupt dictators or turbanned mullahs – be reconsidered too.

It may still be too early to determine with any amount of certainty what the share of the Muslim parties in the newly emerging Arab democracies is likely to be. What may be assured, however, is that they will be independent, proper and pluralistic democracies, with even representation and clean governance. The equality such democracies guarantee for their people creates the constructive and loyal citizens capable of building their nations free of intolerance and violence.

The Muslim parties will unquestionably occupy portions of the political space in the emerging democracies, commensurate, naturally, with the popular vote they could earn. Most likely they will not lead but if they do, as a result of popular vote, then that should be respected as an inevitable democratic product.

Shalom/Salaam/Pax!                     Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.org.au/