Have The Revolutions Failed The
Islamists Test? An End To The Cycle Of [Political]
Exclusion?
09 Feb 2012By Osman Mirghani
When one says that he supports democracy, but
rejects the results of free elections because he did
not like the outcome, then this person does not want
true democracy, but rather autocracy dressed up as
democracy. In reality, we are still in the early
stages of the path towards democracy, and the road
ahead is long, and we must therefore be patient and
persevere if the new [democratic] experience is to
bear fruit, and if the Arab revolutions are to succeed
in meeting the aspirations of the people with regards
to freedom, justice, and the peaceful and democratic
transition of power.
Everybody wants a form of democracy that suits
themselves, and this represents the biggest challenge
in the transitional phase and moving towards a stage
where power is transferred via the ballot box. This is
because people lived long decades under the education
of an authoritarian regime which contained no room for
freedom of expression and the right for the people to
freely choose their leaders via the ballot box. This
also resulted in a loss of confidence in the election
process itself, as the only elections that took place
were rife with fraud and vote rigging. Perhaps this is
why the one year anniversary of the Arab revolutions
ended in tears. Those who are sympathetic towards
these revolutions believe that they have been hijacked
from their original course, whilst revolutionary youth
groups feel frustrated and believe that the Islamists
have ridden the revolutionary wave and are now
enjoying the fruits of their labour. On the other
hand, some critics of the revolutions are using the
results of the Egyptian and Tunisian elections as
evidence of the revolution's failure, saying this was
not the course that the original revolutionaries
wanted the revolution to tread. These revolutionary
critics are claiming that regardless of what led to
the elections taking place, whether this was
revolution in the case of Egypt and Tunisia, or reform
in the case of Morocco; this has only resulted in
bringing Islamist parties to power.
Those who promote this argument are acting as if there
is nothing good in the revolutions, and there is no
use in reform, under the pretext that this only serves
to bring Islamist parties to power; however this is
the same logic that was used by the despotic regimes
that until only very recently were still in power.
Using this logic, we must ask: in this case, should
the Yemenis have aborted their revolution because of
the Al Qaeda bogeyman that is trying to gain a
foothold in the country"? Should the Syrians stop
their revolt for fear that change will lead to
elections that will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to
power?
Who said that the Arab revolutions expressed a
particular ideology or [political] orientation, or
that successful governance would see the defeat of the
Islamists or the victory of the liberals? The
revolutions took place to demand dignity, freedom,
justice, democratic change, transparency, and an end
to corruption and tyranny. This resulted in cohesion
between different sections of [Arab] society; between
Muslims and Copts; between the left-wing and the
right-wing; between religious figures and the youth;
between men and women; between those living in the
city and those living in the country. It is therefore
unjust to judge these revolutions as having failed
simply because Islamist parties came to power via the
ballot box; it would also be a grave mistake if these
same Islamist parties believed that their electoral
victory means that they will autocratically remain in
power and that this is a mandate for them to
monopolize rule and prevent others from challenging
them.
Many people voted for the Islamist parties because the
spirit of religion is dominant in our society, and
this allowed these parties' slogans to gain a
sympathetic ear amongst the general public. In
addition to this, the former regimes previously
focused on inciting fears of the Islamists in their
media statements, which has resulted in these parties
being viewed as amongst the greatest victims of these
despotic regimes. This is a state of affairs that
later served these same parties, allowing them to gain
credibility and sympathy in the eyes of many of the
electorate who wanted to express their protest of the
past and an end to former practices [by voting for the
Islamist parties]. In addition to this, the
organization and discipline of such Islamist
organizations helped them to quickly spread their
message to the electorate, taking advantage of and
expanding their previous presence in charitable
organizations and humanitarian work across the
country. At the same time, the majority of liberal
parties in the past were confined to utilizing
newspapers, coffee-house [talk], and partisan
political operations. The liberal parties have no
choice but to acknowledge their failure to market
their message and political programs; they failed to
keep pace with the Islamist parties in communicating
with the public and expanding their base.
Some might say that the Islamist parties used their
superior funds, as well as mosques, for political
propaganda. This is true, but this does not excuse the
fact that the liberal parties did not try to
counteract this by working at the grass-roots level or
by utilizing new media to reach the electorate.
Perhaps they should have learnt and benefitted from
the youth of the revolution who succeeded in utilizing
the internet and new media to mobilize the street and
inform the general public about specific issues that
concern them and touch upon their aspirations.
The Islamists succeeded, thanks to their cunning and
organization, in reaping the greatest rewards from the
revolutions, but at the same time they are now facing
a difficult test, namely they will inherit an
extremely difficult political and economic state of
affairs, and face a public whose ceiling of demands
has been raised by the revolution and who are
expecting quick changes and achievements that will
directly reflect on their daily lives. Perhaps this is
the reason why the Islamist parties – again utilizing
their political cunning – chose to engage with the
other political forces and foster responsibility
sharing in coalition governments.
There are undeniable fears regarding the Islamist
parties and the extent of their commitment to
democracy and the peaceful transfer of power via the
ballot box. There is a commonly held belief that these
parties are not democratic, and there are dozens of
statements issued by members of these parties that
fuel fears in this regard. Whilst the Sudanese
experience [1989 military coup] also raises real fears
regarding the possibility of these parties betraying
democracy. Therefore, the changes that have emerged
following the Arab Spring also represent a test to the
Islamist parties and their commitment to democracy. If
they pass this test this will undoubtedly foster trust
that will perhaps allow them to win a landslide
election, in the same manner as the Turkish Justice
and Development Party. The Justice and Development
Party confirmed its ability to coexist with democracy
and even achieved an economic boom that granted it
high levels of popularity [in Turkey].
The revolutions brought about change, and if we are
choosing democracy, then it is the ballot box that
will decide the parties or figures that will rule. In
any case, the mandate of rule is temporary and only
lasts until the next elections. By this standard, the
revolution succeeded and achieved the conditions for
transition to free and fair elections; the Islamists
parties are now facing the test, and it is up to them
to prove their commitment to democracy and the
peaceful transition of power. It is in the interest of
all parties for the democratic experience to succeed
and for there to be an end to the cycle of [political]
exclusion, violence, and autocratic rule, for the sake
of national stability and in order to build a better
future for the generation that launched these
revolutions.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments