The reflection of the Capitol on a dark, clear night or the colorful festivities of football weekends seize the attention of even the most unsuspecting Madison visitors. Yet where would our town be without the State Street panhandlers, Save The Homeless / Destitute / Illiterate / Conservative / Forests movements or the Zion of UW? Cities are often more cultural because their citizens feel there is more to daily life than comfort and more to politics than voting, truisms that may be tacit to Madison citizens but not to those of Cairo, Egypt.
Cairo may be best known for its august antiquity and strategic location, but its people’s cry for representation elevates Egyptians to a most deserving distinction. With a recent visit from Condoleezza Rice, political pressure and attention are intensifying. As part of the Middle East — addressed often as a country of violence and backwardness — and of critical importance to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Egypt’s fight for independence from autocratic rule mirrors a fight of generations past.
As on much of the African continent, Egypt’s political autonomy and control began with the fight for independence from British colonization. The Muslim Brotherhood was started in 1928 by schoolteacher Hassan al-Bana. This movement recognized the supremacy of the Five Pillars of Islam and sought to bridge the divide between state and religion. The Brotherhood envisioned itself alien to British occupiers and, in response to Westernization, rejected a secular state. The early Muslim Brotherhood was defined by anti-colonial rebellion and stood by Egyptians in their cries for independence.
A mounting opposition group with approximately half a million supporters in 1949, the Brotherhood could seek its own active righteousness. An ideological parallel to our own messy French and Indian Wars, the Brotherhood sent trained battalions to fight alongside the Palestinians in the 1948 Arab-Israeli Wars. The territorial battle became a catalyst for the independence movement. The Muslim Brotherhood remains tantamount to the public demand for Egyptian independence. Our own founding fathers believed the British did not deserve their imperialistic hold on our land. Seventy-five years later, the Egyptian naissance has a common enemy.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s platform is acceptance of Sha’riah Law (Islamic law in an Islamic state) as the judicial code of a presently secular-run Egypt. After the establishment of the “Arab Republic of Egypt,” its leaders have struggled with the West’s demands to maintain secularization. Gamal Abdel Nasser banned the Muslim Brotherhood from legitimate power and fiercely suppressed the movement. Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat, dependent on minimizing the Brotherhood’s violence and majority, consistently supported the Brotherhood’s disavowal.
As for public support of the Muslim Brotherhood, it has always been present and strong. This shows both challenge and ease in the political demographics of Egypt. Approximately 94 percent of the country is Muslim, yet Mubarak has sanctioned Brotherhood activities with mass arrests and torture. In 1984 elections, the Muslim Brotherhood allied with al-Wafd, a legal opposition group, in hopes of establishing seats in the National Parliament. Al-Wafd found its Coptic Christian support had diminished as a result of the alliance, and the Brotherhood grew dissatisfied with the Wafd domination. These political parties are obscure to the American voter, but imagine the union of the Democratic and Green parties — even with a common enemy, voters and members alike would be disturbed by the disharmony of ideas. The Brotherhood and al-Wafd no longer cooperated.
During the elections and under Mubarak’s sanctions, it is a miracle Brotherhood members were allowed to conduct themselves in public. Though still illegal, the party holds the strongest minority presence in Parliament, with 15 of the 454 seats available. Upon the 2005 elections, we see that Mubarak’s grace is limited and subject to personal inclinations of appropriation. The National Democrats, also the party of President Mubarak, hold a firm majority of the seats. There has been an increase in mass arrests of Brotherhood members, and they hold little to no legal role in the democratic initiatives in the upcoming elections for president and Parliament.
The Muslim Brotherhood has a distinct history of extremism, political legitimacy and even democratic initiative, leaving us with the question many Western political scientists and defense strategists are asking themselves upon the elections in many Muslim countries: is Sha’ria Law democratic? It begs the question of whether the Brotherhood, a pro-active Islamic organization, should be a legitimate democratic option in Muslim countries. As Americans, we must face the facts of faith, values and democracy. Did the “values votes” of 2004 reflect a Platonic sense of justice or a Christian sense of righteousness? Will Middle East votes be judged according to a legitimate republic (of majority support regardless of U.S. approval) or micro-managed foreign policy? As Plato once wrote: ” … for when I don’t know what justice is, I’ll hardly know whether it is a kind virtue or not, or whether a person who has it is happy or unhappy.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would do well to remember “The Republic” on her next visit to American University in Cairo.
Suzanne Zoheri is a UW student currently studying at American University in Cairo, Egypt.