Unmasking Egypt's Islamists?

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has some explaining to do.

Banned since 1952, the group is nonetheless probably the best organized and effective political group in the country. Even in a system tightly controlled by Mubarak's military-backed regime, Brotherhood members running openly as such but technically registered as independents won a fifth of the seats in Egypt's parliament in 2005. In its bid to further advance its political evolution and become a legal political party, the Brotherhood has spent the last couple years devising a political platform, a process that has sought and developed input from the grassroots. Various drafts have leaked into Cairo newspapers and encouraged the view of a Brotherhood as a moderate, democratic party along the lines of secular Turkey's governing Justice and Development party. That is, a view of a party promoting a civil rather than religious state, in which Muslims and Coptic Christians are equal citizens. This is a far cry from the Brotherhood I first encountered in the 1980s, when the group ran independents for parliament on the simplistic slogan, "Islam is the Solution." The State Department, despite a technical ban on talking to the Brotherhood, seems to be undertaking a sly effort to do just that by meeting with Brotherhood MPs.

But the latest draft of the Brotherhood platform in circulation is causing shock and alarm. The draft pointedly excludes Christians and women from assuming the post of Egyptian president. Given the unlikelihood of that ever happening in a deeply traditional and overwhelmingly Muslim society, these exclusions signal a dangerous tendency toward Islamist supremacy and intolerance. The most worrying part was a proposal for a Council of Islamic Scholars to oversee the government. This is precisely the mechanism that exists in Iran and stifles democracy and accountability in that country. In Iran, ultimate authority is invested in a single individual called the Supreme Leader, along with a Guardian Council; in Egypt, perhaps it would be invested in this group of Islamic scholars. Dogged Egypt-watcher Marc Lynch, who has covered the issue on his Abu Aaardvark blog, was so taken aback that he postponed publication of an article on the Brotherhood and democracy until he could probe the latest draft more closely. As Mohamed Elmenshawy of the World Security Institute in Washington notes, "This undemocratically selected body could have the power vested by the state to veto any and all legislation passed by the Egyptian parliament and approved by the president that is not compatible with Islamic sharia law."

The Muslim Brotherhood's message is clear: we'll allow a semblance of democracy, but ultimate authority will rest with Islamic rulers. But, as in Iran, its not about Islam, its about power.

Mohammed Habib, Brotherhood deputy chairman, has already begun to clarify the group's position. He claimed that a "mistake" in the wording in Paragraph I of the proposed party platform suggested that rulings of the Council of Islamic Scholars would be binding whereas the Brotherhood meant to say they would be advisory. "We never said that this committee has any control, domination or authority," he says in a report on the Brotherhood's website. "We see that the People"s Assembly is the only body that has the right in legislation and in enacting laws."

Clearly, however, there are differences of opinion within the Brotherhood. At this stage of the game, the group, founded nearly 80 years ago, is long past the point where it should have gotten its act together. Because the Brotherhood, like Egypt itself, has often shown itself to be a leader in trends throughout the Arab world, it is of paramount importance that the Brotherhood gets it right. If it fails to demonstrate a clear vision of a future Egypt that is unambigiously democratic, inclusive and tolerant, that constructively builds on Egypt's long constitutional history, the Brotherhood will have little answer for critics who accuse the group of seeking power through the mechanism of one man, one vote, one time. Judging from the region's recent history, that route is guaranteed to bring Egypt little but political turmoil, economic hardship, social strife and perhaps bloodshed.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo