Talk to the Islamists!
Published in die Zeit
(Germany) on 8 July 2011
by Nora Müller (link to original)
(Germany) on 8 July 2011
by Nora Müller (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Drue Fergison.
The West must lose its fear of contact with Islamist parties; they’re among the winners in the Arab Spring.
The West supports democracy and free elections — but if and only if the “right” people are elected. This is the impression of most people who live between Rabat and Riyadh. The “D word” has become a code in Arab countries for western double standards. This started in January 2006 when Hamas emerged victorious in parliamentary elections in the autonomous Palestinian territories only to be quickly boycotted by Europe and the United States. Western demands for democracy in the Middle East have had the bitter taste of two different yardsticks ever since.
But now with the Arab Spring, the West has another opportunity. Since the fall of the dictators and the institution of new systems, Americans and Europeans can now demonstrate that they are really serious about democracy in the Middle East. Implicit in this is recognition of political factions that demonstrate that they are capable of winning elections and adhering to democratic principles of organization — even if these include the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist parties.
In addition, as the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip example shows, a policy of boycotting all too often accomplishes nothing. The ongoing western boycott has been unable to force Hamas to abide by Middle East Quartet criteria, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist, as well as other agreements and abstaining from terror and violence.
The Arab Spring has made one thing quite clear: Western policy must win over public opinion in the nations of North Africa and the Middle East. The question, however, is what is meant by the term public opinion. To equate it with the desires of the Islamist parties would be not only a gross oversimplification, it would also be wrong. The mass demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and in Tunis and other Arab cities that have since become symbolic of the “Arab Street’s” revolt against a repressive status quo did not originate with the Islamist parties but rather with young people who were dissatisfied with their rulers.
But at the same time, it’s also a fact that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its Tunisian counterpart, the En-Nahda movement, saw the potential of protest and used it for their own purposes. Today, they’re among the winners in the Arab Spring. Suppressed and persecuted by the old regime for decades, they have now taken up positions in the starting blocks, ready for parliamentary races in Cairo and Tunis.
And unlike secular parties that grow gradually and must court voters’ approval, the Islamist parties already have tightly organized structures and extensive networks — two trump cards that they will undoubtedly play to their advantage in the coming elections. While it’s certain that the Islamist parties are not identical to public opinion in general in these countries, they will be in a position to use it to reach their goals.
The conclusion is obvious: Whoever wishes to field politically relevant candidates will be unable to do so without a dialogue with Islamist parties. Western nations must set aside their fear of contact with Islamists — a group often thought of in ideologically charged terms. What sounds like naive do-gooder and ivory tower babbling is in reality an offer of Realpolitik that seeks to protect its own influence.
In the dialogue with Islamist parties, western governments must define clear positions and goals, but should not tie their willingness to participate to outside conditions or the talks will end in stalemate before they even begin. If things get to that point, the West’s ability to influence will drop to zero. Then no one’s interests will be served — least of all Israel’s. Whoever truly wants to help Israel — and this should include the Islamists — must strive toward lasting regional peace.
There is absolutely no doubt that such a dialogue, between disparate and sometimes even completely opposing norms and values, could be anything other than difficult. Since dialogues with Islamist parties are extremely controversial, there are even risks for domestic politics. In many respects, it is easier to limit discussion of the need for political reforms to the smarter, often Western-educated, representatives of secular parties who speak perfect English and have polished the rhetoric of macro-governance used by western advisors. But there is a problem with this: These people often represent only a tiny and rapidly disappearing elite minority of their societies.
The elections scheduled for September in Egypt can be a real litmus test for western policy. By then, the “Gretchen Question”* will have arisen: “What do you think about the Islamists?” Regardless, the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice Party” has a good chance of garnering as much as 30 percent of votes cast. Let’s hope that the West has learned a lesson from Hamas’ 2006 electoral victory.
*Translator's Note: The “Gretchen Question” refers to the scene in Goethe’s Faust where Gretchen is trying to determine Faust’s real motives and asks him, almost as an afterthought during their conversation, “[a]nd what do you think about religion?” Faust is secretly in league with the devil.
The West supports democracy and free elections — but if and only if the “right” people are elected. This is the impression of most people who live between Rabat and Riyadh. The “D word” has become a code in Arab countries for western double standards. This started in January 2006 when Hamas emerged victorious in parliamentary elections in the autonomous Palestinian territories only to be quickly boycotted by Europe and the United States. Western demands for democracy in the Middle East have had the bitter taste of two different yardsticks ever since.
But now with the Arab Spring, the West has another opportunity. Since the fall of the dictators and the institution of new systems, Americans and Europeans can now demonstrate that they are really serious about democracy in the Middle East. Implicit in this is recognition of political factions that demonstrate that they are capable of winning elections and adhering to democratic principles of organization — even if these include the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist parties.
In addition, as the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip example shows, a policy of boycotting all too often accomplishes nothing. The ongoing western boycott has been unable to force Hamas to abide by Middle East Quartet criteria, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist, as well as other agreements and abstaining from terror and violence.
The Arab Spring has made one thing quite clear: Western policy must win over public opinion in the nations of North Africa and the Middle East. The question, however, is what is meant by the term public opinion. To equate it with the desires of the Islamist parties would be not only a gross oversimplification, it would also be wrong. The mass demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and in Tunis and other Arab cities that have since become symbolic of the “Arab Street’s” revolt against a repressive status quo did not originate with the Islamist parties but rather with young people who were dissatisfied with their rulers.
But at the same time, it’s also a fact that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its Tunisian counterpart, the En-Nahda movement, saw the potential of protest and used it for their own purposes. Today, they’re among the winners in the Arab Spring. Suppressed and persecuted by the old regime for decades, they have now taken up positions in the starting blocks, ready for parliamentary races in Cairo and Tunis.
And unlike secular parties that grow gradually and must court voters’ approval, the Islamist parties already have tightly organized structures and extensive networks — two trump cards that they will undoubtedly play to their advantage in the coming elections. While it’s certain that the Islamist parties are not identical to public opinion in general in these countries, they will be in a position to use it to reach their goals.
The conclusion is obvious: Whoever wishes to field politically relevant candidates will be unable to do so without a dialogue with Islamist parties. Western nations must set aside their fear of contact with Islamists — a group often thought of in ideologically charged terms. What sounds like naive do-gooder and ivory tower babbling is in reality an offer of Realpolitik that seeks to protect its own influence.
In the dialogue with Islamist parties, western governments must define clear positions and goals, but should not tie their willingness to participate to outside conditions or the talks will end in stalemate before they even begin. If things get to that point, the West’s ability to influence will drop to zero. Then no one’s interests will be served — least of all Israel’s. Whoever truly wants to help Israel — and this should include the Islamists — must strive toward lasting regional peace.
There is absolutely no doubt that such a dialogue, between disparate and sometimes even completely opposing norms and values, could be anything other than difficult. Since dialogues with Islamist parties are extremely controversial, there are even risks for domestic politics. In many respects, it is easier to limit discussion of the need for political reforms to the smarter, often Western-educated, representatives of secular parties who speak perfect English and have polished the rhetoric of macro-governance used by western advisors. But there is a problem with this: These people often represent only a tiny and rapidly disappearing elite minority of their societies.
The elections scheduled for September in Egypt can be a real litmus test for western policy. By then, the “Gretchen Question”* will have arisen: “What do you think about the Islamists?” Regardless, the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice Party” has a good chance of garnering as much as 30 percent of votes cast. Let’s hope that the West has learned a lesson from Hamas’ 2006 electoral victory.
*Translator's Note: The “Gretchen Question” refers to the scene in Goethe’s Faust where Gretchen is trying to determine Faust’s real motives and asks him, almost as an afterthought during their conversation, “[a]nd what do you think about religion?” Faust is secretly in league with the devil.