Saturday
Apr102010
MENA House: How Big Is El Baradei's Challenge in Egypt?
Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 7:25 
Christina Baghdady looks at hope and reality in the "El Baradei challenge" in Egypt:Since the return of Mohammad El Baradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner and former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to Egyptian soil, he’s become a popular figure in the political arena.
Well...."popular" might not quite be the correct word. He’s certainly attracted much attention in the media. Journals cover El Baradei’s activities on a daily basis. Questions remain, however. Is he simply another Ayman Nour, the political activist and challenger to President Mubarak who was imprisoned for his efforts? Is he favoured by the US Government? What does el Baradei have to offer?
This week, a number of arrests took place, all connected with support for El Baradei. Ahmed Mahanna, the director of Dawin, a publishing house in Egypt, was arrested because he distributed copies of "El Baradei and the dream of a green revolution". (Mahanna was soon released after "questioning".)
Egyptian state broadcaster ESC made what an exceptional effort not to draw any attention to El Baradei’s attendance at the Coptic Orthodox Easter Mass. The camera focused everywhere else but on him.
Yet if people are being put under a microscope for showing signs of support for El Baradei, even as official media looks away, then surely that is self-defeating for the Government. It indirectly and directly proclaims that he poses some kind of legitimate opposition, that he actually stands some chance of becoming the future president of the land of the Pharaohs.
Is El Baradei's impressive CV enough to bring about extensive change in Egypt’s political, economic and social atmosphere? He told an interviewer, "Change will have to come from within the country.....There is no one coming in on a white horse that is going to [do that] for you." El Baradei still has never openly declared he will run for Presidency anytime in the near future but says instead he just wants to encourage reform from below.
In Egypt's political arena, there is little "legitimate" opposition, hence the desperation from certain sectors of the public to show vehement support for El Baradei. Other opposition movements and figures such as Kefaya, Ayman Nour, and the banned Muslim Brotherhood have lacked that extra factor of global influence, respect, and recogntion, accompanying a persona untainted except in the eyes of American neo-conservatives.
However, problems arise from El Baradei's realistic advice to the nation. The former IAEA chief’s Facebook group and his party, the National Association for Change, are accessible to the public. That supports his theory of bringing about change from below, but in Egypt's political culture, that’s a revolution. No wonder then in the less-than-subtle actions of the police and security forces these days.
El Baradei’s call for "fair elections" is all well and good, backed by supra-national entities such as the UN, European Union, and human rights bodies. but there’s no other political party with experience in government to support him. Al Wafd, Tagammu, and the Democratic Front are all part of an opposition coalition movement which has not established a firm base in the electorate.
That brings us back to Square One. El Baradei claims not to run for the Presidency, but when one promotes what the public want to hear and desperately need, then he has to head for the top job, whether he wants to or not. Yet Dr Amr El Shobaki, political analyst at Al Ahram, points out that El-Baradei's manifesto signals that his decision to contest the presidential election of 2011 ris contingent on guarantees for a fair election being in place:
The manifesto makes it clear that El-Baradei is interested in change and sowing the seeds of political reform and democracy rather than in becoming president of Egypt one day. It is also clear that he hopes Egyptians will rally behind him to achieve change.
Even more intriguing, what is the US opinion on El Baradeii’s current movements in Egypt? When push comes to shove, that is what will make the ultimate difference. In the 2005 elections, the Muslim Brotherhood collected 88 seats in Parliament, a fifth of the legislature. Yet the US made little effort to recognise the largest opposition party. If Washington takes the same approach to the former Nobel Peace Prize winner, there is very little chance that he ever receive the award of Egyptian President.
Reader Comments (16)
Christina,
Thanks for this. I tended to think Egyptians look upon him as their "Obama" because of scenes I've seen when he first arrived in Egypt and whenever he makes public appearances (not all these scenes I've seen are recorded through state media). Your post puts it all in a better perspective.
What do you think - what reasons would the US have - the Obama admin in particuler - NOT to support El Baradei?
Catherine,
The US have many reasons actually (well for the moment).
1) President Mubarak fulfills US interests, especially with regards to foreign policy.
2) The US can't support one and the other (in the public eye). It's self-defeating.
3) The US need 'stability' in Egypt. They (Egypt) are key mediators in the region as well as a natural resources provider (gas) in the region. Asking the public from below to stand for change doesn't necessarily spell 'stability'.
The problem isn't with President Mubarak. On numberous occassions he has given wise advice to those in the region and the US regarding regional and international issues, yet so often it goes unheeded.
As for the MB, although they have become more organised and just 'slightly' more politcally diplomatic since Hassan al Banna's time, they could not head government (would not be supported neither internationally or domestically).
So the question still remains-what's going to happen next?
What's your opinion on the issue Catherine?
Nice piece Christina!
Your answers to Catherine above all assume that the choice is between the reform of El-Baradei and the stability of Mubarak. I don't see that as the likely choice at all. From my limited knowledge of the grip that Mubarak has on power, a four square challenge to the government while he rules seems unachievable.
I find a far more tantalizing choice to be between the steady statesmanship of El-Baradei and the chaos and infighting that would accompany the blessing of Gamal Mubarak or a military chief as president following Mubarak's tenure. Given that scenario, Washington may see El-Baradei as the least bad alternative.
I just don't see Mubarak as enjoying the kind of consensus support which would allow him to anoint a successor and then transfer to that person his aura of stability and confidence.
Christina,
You asked me "So the question still remains-what’s going to happen next? What’s your opinion on the issue Catherine?"
I'm sorry. I don't know enough about Egyptian politics to say. That's why I'm so keen on this thread - to learn more! Instinctively I would have thought Obama and the US would be grateful for the prospects of a democratic leader they can probably work with quite well instead of once again supporting another autocratic strongman in the region.
Mubarak's arm seems to be quite long, btw.
Kuwait arrests, deports ElBaradei supporters
Kuwait has deported 17 supporters of pro-reform Egyptian and former UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei, according to reports.
As many as 25 Egyptians were arrested said daily newspaper the Kuwait Times, quoting a Kuwaiti security official. Some were arrested at a pro-ElBaradei gathering in Shaab on Friday, others at their homes.
Full article: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/585672-kuwait-arrests-deports-elbaradei-supporters
I wonder if Iran has the same deal with Kuwait?
Seems the US is encouraging Egyptians to participate in the political process to determine who will be eligible to run in the upcoming elections.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/04/egypt-foreign-ministry-hits-out-at-us-criticism-over-april-6-arressts.html
Christina,
Well done article and frankly a subject not covered enough in the world. Stinks of hypocrisy when the West can chide Iran when Mubarak got "99%" of the vote. However on you point of the opposition the Muslim Brotherhood I think the US ignoring them is based on a bigger reason, its Islamist agenda. While the Brotherhood on the outside has sworn off violence it is a fact their ideology along with Wahhabist influence are largely the basis for many of the wakos running around blowing people up. In addition the Muslim Brotherhood has been caught several times "red handed" in the US with some quite daming documents. "The Project" is probably the worst one which was uncovered as part of the Holy Land Foundation trial. The document was essentially a blueprint for how Brotherhood members were to take over the US. May sound far fetched but once you read it and realize no one has ever questioned its authenticity it is quite believable. Its believable because first and foremost the Brotherhood is an Islamist organization and we all know the goals of politcal Islamism is Sharia spanning the globe. While I want to see Egypt be free I am fearful like the Mullahs in Iran the Brotherhood would only use democracy to come to power only to install tyrannical theocracy. We all know the secular left was wiped out once the Islamists gained power in Iran. Thus it is my belief the US is aware of this and thus largely ignores the opposition in Egypt. From a purely selfish standpoint the US sees Mubarak as the lesser of two evils.
Thx
Bill
Bill,
RE "We all know the secular left was wiped out once the Islamists gained power in Iran. Thus it is my belief the US is aware of this and thus largely ignores the opposition in Egypt. From a purely selfish standpoint the US sees Mubarak as the lesser of two evils."
Unfortunately this is also what the US largely ignores in Egypt (article worth reading to the end - not long): EGYPT: U.N. Slams Abuse of Emergency Law
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50634
I agree with you that the MB is still politically toxic, but if ElBaradei can put together a large enough coalition w/o them, would the US even be willing to support that if they've gone along with the current state of affairs (see article) up until now?
Bill,
I couldnt' agree with you more. Maybe i didn't highlight this enough in the article. For sure they are using the term 'democracy' to gain more politcal power. In addition to the fact that their history hasn't gone untainted.
Thus it is my belief the US is aware of this and thus largely ignores the opposition in Egypt. From a purely selfish standpoint the US sees Mubarak as the lesser of two evils.”-Yes Bill...indeed!
Should the MB ever come to power, the entire secular left would be shifted. This is something that has already happened in certain provinces in Egypt. If that happened on a country level, the tourist industry simply wouldn' exist, along with alot of other things. I wonder how they intend to make money for the country?
Imagine what impact this would also have in the region? The MB would not recognise Sadat's peace deal, thus would not be a mediator in Palestinian/Israeli negotiations. The US would stop funding it's second largest recipient-Egypt. Not very positive thoughts...
Jack: 'I find a far more tantalizing choice to be between the steady statesmanship of El-Baradei and the chaos and infighting that would accompany the blessing of Gamal Mubarak or a military chief as president following Mubarak’s tenure. Given that scenario, Washington may see El-Baradei as the least bad alternative.'
steady statemanship under el-Baradei? highly unlikely! When you look at the history of politics in Egypt in the C19th/C20th(even under the stability of a monarchy up until 1952) 'steady statemanship' could not prevail.
Even under the military leaders (Nasser and Sadat in particular) they could trust no-one within his own party, let alone the rest of parliament.
Catherine,
Sorry for the delay getting back to you. I was a bit busy putting together a 7 page response to Eric Brill over at Race for Iran. Thank you for pointing out the fact Egypt has wiped out it's left before. However I would say it was the religious right they wiped out. Syria as well has done the same thing. Ironically the US was largerly silent in both instances. To the US stability even if its a secular dictator in their minds is better than a theocracy. I tend to agree with them on some levels considering what modern theocratic governments have done around the world. I want to see all voices heard but I just can't see the Muslim Brotherhood being good for the world. To much of their ideology clearly points to them using democracy only as a tool to obtain power. They would then foist their religious piety upon everyone and use it as a crutch to stay in power. The worst part is from a jurisprudence standpoint they have backing in scripture to do so. I know I am a bit jaded on this subject and maybe the Brotherhood would be good for Egypt and the world as well. I guess we can only find out if it happens.
Thx
Bill
Christina,
Thank you for your reply. I forgot to mention what would happen with the peace deal. As you noted it would cease to exist and a new front with Israel would open. This would be quite damaging. On an interesting note it would be quite funny to see Iran and the MB competing for the Palestinian mind share! The MB would win but it would be fun watching Iran lose its proxy!!! As for a secular movement in Egypt I just don't see it happening anytime soon. The nation has shifted to orthodoxy not towards secularism. The only way they are going to shift to a true secular democracy is if they get to experience the pain of a rigid theocracy like Iran has. The only question is how much damage it would cause internally and by extension beyond their borders during that price. All in all the MB in power in Egypt is only going to spell trouble in the near term for any in their way.
Thx
Bill
Hi Bill,
As I said above, the MB is toxic, and I also think El Baradei knows this and will try to put together a coalition without them. Let's wish him luck!
RE "As for a secular movement in Egypt I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. The nation has shifted to orthodoxy not towards secularism. The only way they are going to shift to a true secular democracy is if they get to experience the pain of a rigid theocracy like Iran has."
Are you perhaps conflating the population's move toward increased religiosity with the nature of the government? As far as I know, every government in Egypt since the end of the monarchy has been secular. What we're looking at now is whether it's possible for a *democratic* secular government to take power as opposed to the traditional single strong man authoritarian rule.
PS I've been visiting Race for Iran regularly waiting for your response to Eric to appear and still haven't seen it yet.
Catherine,
The crappy version(grammar errors and all) is actually one of the last two or three posts towards the top of the page. If you want shoot me a email address at wdavit@gmail.com and I will send you the revised addition I sent to Eric along with comments he put into it after we traded some emails. The exchange itself is still ongoing with him insisting on proving fraud and me insisting its fruitless because it was not an election but a selection. All in all it should prove an interesting exchange.
On Egypt I think you might be missing my point that secularism is a stretch in the Islamic world especially so in a country that houses the Muslim Brotherhood. As I am sure your aware futher compounding the problem is Islam itself does not seperate religion or state but posits they must be one. When taking that into context and the increased piety being exhibited in Egypt the only conclusion for free elections is the Brotherhood gaining power. I could be wrong though. An interesting side bar to note is the Prime Minister of Turkey's statement awhile back about democracy in which he said "democracy is a rail car--you get off when you want." The point is that Islamists only look at democracy as a tool and something that ultimately must be under the Sharia. It may be a democracy to them but in the Western sense its a theocracy because the will of the people is subordinate to the will of Allah. Ironically this is why the West has always stumbled trying to introduce democracy in the Middle East--we never seem to get it that by in large the ideologues of the Islamic world won't touch our democracy with a ten foot pole.
Thx
Bill
Bill,
RE: "When taking that into context and the increased piety being exhibited in Egypt the only conclusion for free elections is the Brotherhood gaining power."
OK - that's much clearer. Now I see what you're getting at.
I agree Bill. After having been in the middle east on and off since the late 80's, including Turkey, I think it's willful folly to think western style liberal and pluralistic democracy could be a result rather than the tool by which theocratic entities gain power. When voters in Gaza got fed up with their corrupt, secular regime they voted in Hamas. I strongly believe that if free and fair elections open to all parties were held in Egypt today an Islamicist party would win-hands down. To many rural and poor Egyptians the contest between Al-Baradei and the Mubaraks looks nothing more like infighting between a westernized, educated elite, neither of whom represent their values, nor do or would be likely to address their woeful living standards.
It is a worrying thought to think that the Ikhwan would come into power should a free and fair election take place. Many areas such as Post Said, Port Foud, Domiat and certain regions in upper Egypt are stronglholds for the Ikhwan. You simply have to hit the streets to physically see it-no need for academic statistics and so on...
HOWEVER having said that, many of those who did support Ikhwan then left the party did so primarily on the basis that they found alot of their political agenda was to benefit certain individuals rather than a collective and thus did not trust them-yet more contradictions in their manfesto and actions.
In the 1980s the Ikhwan (supported by Gama't) began to endorse Islamic banks (something the Egyptian soap 'El Dali' touches largley upon). It was a failed scheme all in all: they promised very high interest returns to those who had accounts with them. Turns out, they ended up stealing people's money and escaping the country leaving many high and dry. The only difference today is they are much more organised.
As for the statement: 'To many rural and poor Egyptians the contest between Al-Baradei and the Mubaraks looks nothing more like infighting between a westernized, educated elite, neither of whom represent their values, nor do or would be likely to address their woeful living standards.' Interesting point!
Last week el baradeii has been visiting industrial cities such as Tanta-genuinely welcomed by many of its inhabitants-al hayat al youm, 10 masa'an, 90 minutes,...all the evening chat shows commented on this (private TV stations). The visit did reflect one particular point: people are desperate for change-the manner in which they welcomes him is a statement in itself.
Alot of people understand the problem does not lie so much with the head of state. Mubarak is indeed a great patriot-but when those in key positions do not do what they are supposed to and you have 80million to deal with, his role isn't so easy-and quite frankly no '1' person could do anything different. Al baradeii himself said change can only come from below-from the streets.
Too many of the well educated, secular Egyptians continue to ignore the Ikhwan's attempts to gain their support. However there is a growing number of people who just want to put food on the table (not just the peasants...) and are finding that the Ikhwan are providing this through their civil society activities.
If those same people who vote for them undertood and foresaw the long term result, would they still vote for them?
IN HINDSIGHT IF those who supported Hamas at the elections foresaw their current living conditions and situation, would they have still voted voted for them?
Christina,
RE "If those same people who vote for them undertood and foresaw the long term result, would they still vote for them?
IN HINDSIGHT IF those who supported Hamas at the elections foresaw their current living conditions and situation, would they have still voted voted for them?"
Which of course brings us to the difficult question: should holding free and fair elections depend on what certain quarters deem to be the "desired outcome"?
I've been thinking 'remember what happened in Gaza in 2006' in the background of all our discussions of the next Egyptian elections and the political factions that might be in play.
PS I have no idea who/what the Ikhwan and Gama’t are. I assume from the context they are Islamist parties or organisations?