"The Islamists would almost certainly win if free and fair elections were held in Egypt'

[oberliner]

Interesting article from The Atlantic, circa 2003:

"Pharaohs-in-Waiting

Who will succeed Egypt's Hosni Mubarak as the ruler of the world's most populous and important Arab country?"

The article looks at three possible answers to that question: The Son, The General, and The Islamists.

Excerpt:

"Many consider Suleiman too old and Gamal too young; neither generates enthusiasm from the Egyptian intellectuals and professionals over whom he might rule. But the profile of each has risen dramatically in the past two and a half years, and the chattering classes are chattering, endlessly: Should Mubarak and his generals promote another soldier from within the regime? Should they join other leaders of the authoritarian Arab world in establishing the incongruous concept of a republican dynasty? Would the military countenance such a thing? Or is now the time to permit a free and fair election, with the probability that an outsider—almost certainly from the Muslim Brotherhood—will win? Should Mubarak anoint a son, a soldier, or a sheikh?"

Later in the article, with respect to "The Islamists", the author writes:

"Everyone to whom I spoke agreed that the Islamists would almost certainly win if free and fair elections were held in Egypt in the coming months or year."

Here is a link to the entire piece:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/10/pharaohs-in-waiting/2811/

Fascinating in light of current events.

[RegieRocker]

1. Egypt is 90 % Islam

so this is news to you?

[oberliner]

2. Lots of countries have Muslim majorities but secular governments

It will be interesting to see how things unfold in Egypt.

[RegieRocker]

5. Ok I understand your intent now.

You're right, it might end up being somewhat secular.

[oberliner]

6. No real intent - just came across the article and thought it was interesting in light of events

Especially the observation with respect to what the Egyptians would choose if they had the choice.

At least in 2003 and according to that one particular observer.

[RegieRocker]

8. My Son who is in his last year of college and will end up

leaving as a triple major is really good friends with a Egyptian and has been spending much time with him to give him support. I have met his friend and have spent some time talking to him and have a fairly good idea of what he wants and hopes for.

[oberliner]

9. How do you think this will end up?

What do you predict for the short and medium term future of Egypt?

[RegieRocker]

12. Predict I don't do. What I hope for is the Egyptian people

get exactly what they want. A fair government willing to govern according to the will of the people.

[L. Coyote]

3. That's like saying an American might be elected president of the US

[oberliner]

4. Not at all

Mubarak is certainly no Isalmist.

And there are numerous secular parties that would also not define themselves that way.

[DCKit]

7. Or the insistance that all U.S. candidates prove their Christian bonafides.

Truly free elections tend to prevent illegitimate governments, whether they be theocratic, fascist, monarchies, kleptocracies or any of the other flavors where a few get rich off the backs of the people.

We are in no position to lecture anyone about Democracy.

[oberliner]

10. "Truly free elections tend to prevent illegitimate governments"

That is true - as long as you keep having them at somewhat regular intervals!

[foxfeet]

11. I would guess that a significant number of Egyptians

are none-too-thrilled about the prospect of an Iranian-style theocracy. After all, many Iranians don't like it, either.

[oberliner]

13. An Islamist-led government would not necessarily be a theocracy

Perhaps a balance of secular and religious laws would be popular.

[eissa]

14. I highly doubt that

as does a close Egyptian colleague who has been in close touch with his family there. Most people give the Brotherhood a generous 30% in any election held. There are quite a few secular opposition groups out there: Ayman Nour's "El-Ghad" party, Mohamed Baradei's "Change" party, and the April 6 Youth Movement (who have thrown their support behind Baradei, and whose founder, Asmaa Mahfouz, you can watch in the political videos section; she's excellent!)

[LLStarks]

15. If Egypt chooses a theocracy through a free and fair election, that's the right/problem. nt

[bemildred]

16. Let's do the experiment and find out.

"Managed democracy" is just disguised tyranny, despotism with a smiley face on it.

[jimmie]

17. The parallels to Iran are obvious

And the same pro-democracy virtues were said about the post shah era.


Well, I'm sure THIS time will be different.

[eissa]

19. It CAN be different

Not sure if it will, but I remain cautiously optimistic. Your average Egyptian is not as isolated and better educated than Iranians were in the late 70s. There are quite a few secular parties that exist in Egypt. Maybe not as organized as their religious counterparts, but they're on the ground there, and they are the ones who organized these protests. The extremists might try to make life miserable post-Mubarak, as they've done in Iraq, but I still feel confident that the Egyptians will come out of this for the better.

[jimmie]

20. I hope you're right ..

I wish I shared your optimism.

[Malikshah]

18. Mary Ann Weaver (aka Charlatan) should read Juan Cole's lates

http://www.juancole.com/ Why Egypt 2011 is not Iran 1979.

The most basic of common sense is needed here, folks. Alas, The Atlantic has problems with that. Their track record with Islam is pretty frickin pathetic. (e.g., Published Bernard Lewis' intellectual flatulence "Roots of Muslim Rage" in 1992 coining the term clash of civilizations... followed by Barbir's "Jihad vs. McWorld")

Weaver's piece and other works appear to be the same pseudo-intellectual journalistic BS

[oberliner]

21. The two articles say basically the same thing

Which is that no one knows who will follow Mubarak as Egypt's leader.

What did she write that Juan Cole would have disagreed with in 2003?

Also, I don't see how it's fair to criticize one writer based on the fact that she was published in a source that published other writers who wrote articles that weren't strong. Most news magazines publish a variety of authors - some better than others.

Pseudo-intellectual journalistic BS? Did you read the article? There was a pretty liberal amount of first-hand interviews and comments from the people in question.

Can you be more specific with respect to what you found to be lacking in the piece?

[Malikshah]

22. Here: False equivalence test fail.

From Weaver:


By this summer it was clear that an unintended consequence of the destruction of Saddam Hussein's secular government was that the way had been paved for the emergence in Iraq of a formidable Shiite clerical bloc—one that could end up dominating politics in the Middle East for years to come.

From Cole:

So to recapitulate. The white collar and labor activists are far more central to the organization of the Egyptian protests than had been their counterparts in the Iranian Revolution. The Egyptian “bazaar” is much less tied to the Muslim clergy than was the case in Iran, and far less likely to fund clerical politicians. Whereas Iran’s bazaar merchants often suffered from Western competition, Egypt’s bazaar depends centrally on Western tourism. Secular parties, if we count the NDP, have an organizational advantage over the religious ones, since they have been freer to meet and act under Mubarak.


Equating the two author's writings on this issue is problematic from the start. One is a journalist, the other an academic. Vastly different experiences, quite clearly, but the former is too focused, a la Thomas Friedman, on anecdotal evidence, while the latter has a better grasp of the larger picture.


Lewis' 1992 screed placed an indelible mark against his credentials as a serious historian. His abuse of history in that article is all the more shameful as he knows better.