West’s bias towards the Brothers reflects a return of orientalism, says Ezzedine Choukri Fishere
or millions of us who live in Egypt, the western bias towards the Muslim Brotherhood is unmistakable. Yes, innocent Islamists have been shot in the streets and the number of casualties is staggering. No one who is here will ever want to relive the bloodshed of the past week. The west needs to be clear about what the Brotherhood is, however.
In the past week, the group and its allies have burnt down churches, killed police and military personnel, attacked police stations with heavy weapons and terrorised residential neighbourhoods – but this is not the impression one gets from the statements from outside the country.
One never hears about how, in 2011, the Brotherhood and its allies, Islamic Jihad and Gamaa Islamiya, used the electoral victory of their candidate, Mohamed Morsi, to hijack the democratic transition. This was achieved through legislating anti-democratic laws, restricting liberties, imposing an autocratic constitution, fostering sectarianism, intimidation, discriminating against women and minorities, and threatening their opponents.
Almost exactly like Hosni Mubarak, the Brotherhood tightened its grip on the political system, making change from within impossible. And, exactly like the former dictator, Mr Morsi was removed by a popular uprising – backed by the intervention of the military. They are, for an Egyptian liberal, two sides of the same coin.
This bias would not have been so upsetting if it were merely the result of the superior media campaigning on the part of the Brotherhood and its allies. But it seems to reflect a deeper and more sinister attitude; a return of orientalism in the name of universal democratic values.
Much western media and many experts fall victim to this vision. It suggests that the Arabs are a “special breed” of people, and an inferior one that cannot speak for itself but has to be spoken for by “those who know the Arabs best” – the good old orientalists populating thinktanks and framing media discourse. In the view of those “experts”, Islamism is the most important political force in the Arab world and will remain so for decades to come. This is because, they say, Islam plays a much greater role in the lives of Arabs. Consequently, the west should support Islamists even if their rule violates the basic values of a pluralistic democracy (such as equality and individual rights).
They recognise that Islamist rule would be an imperfect democracy, maybe even a majority tyranny, but they perceive this imperfection as inevitable, stemming from orientals’ “inherent” characteristics. The alternative to this “oriental democracy” would be an autocratic rule that is harder to support and can no longer work. So Islamists will provide the stability autocrats can no longer guarantee. They will rein in the more extreme Islamic Jihad and Gamaa Islamiya and they might evolve towards more respect of pluralistic values.
Where do I fit in to this analysis? I do not, and it does not matter to the neo-orientalists. They cast me aside as westernised, a minority, misplaced and incapable of rooting and connecting to the “majority” – almost an alien. But what about the 75 per cent of us who voted for Mr Morsi’s non-Islamist rivals in the first round of presidential elections? What about the millions who took to the streets to protest against his dictatorial “Constitutional Declaration” in November? What about the millions who demonstrated this summer? What about the tens of millions who today support the military – many of whom were its sworn enemies but converted out of fear of the Brotherhood? Are we all aliens and misfits? No. We are normal people who want a normal democracy; one that respects human rights, pluralism and the rule of law. We do not want fascistic majority rule delivered in ballot boxes.
However, we are made invisible, and our voice is silenced. Why? Because it is politically useful not to see or hear us. Ignoring us and our voices legitimates western governments’ support for Islamist authoritarian rulers who will give them the benefits of stability offered by dictators, while at the same time looking democratic because they are elected. For these governments, a Morsi is a new and a better Mubarak.
Neo-orientalism is as blind as the old one, however. The majority of Egyptians do want pluralism. Although we are disorganised and leaderless, we are not insignificant: nobody can govern this country without our support. We brought down Mr Mubarak and Mr Morsi – and we will not accept a return to authoritarianism, in the name of either religion or security. We know our struggle is far from over. The
Brotherhood and its allies will not disappear overnight, but they have lost popular support. The military will not give up power easily, but we know we can stop them becoming putschists. The entrenched orientalism will not go away either, but it will not convince us to accept anything less than a truly pluralistic democracy.
Ezzedine Choukri Fishere is an Egyptian novelist and professor of political science.
Link: www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/79bd3912-08e0-11e3-ad07-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2caWHNCMO
No comments:
Post a Comment