Last week, I had the opportunity to hear a former ambassador from the United States to Egypt speak at the American University of Cairo. After addressing his views on a few of the regional conflicts and how the strong alliance between Egypt and the United States can further peace in the region, he was asked a series of questions from the audience. One professor bluntly asked the former ambassador to be honest with the audience as he wasn't in the Foreign Service anymore. Then the professor proceeded to state: "It seems that the United States is using the democracy card when it comes to foreign policy in this region. Yet, at the same time, the US is not in favor of all parties participating in the democratic process, and in fact, supports those who wish to suppress them. How can the US explain this double standard? What is the US really interested in—democracy or promotion of its own interests in the region?"
The former ambassador seemed a bit taken off guard, as the question was posed to him in an accusatory manner. Of course, from my experience, the professor was merely expressing what a vast majority of Egyptians and Arabs in the region feel. The ambassador said a few words, attempting to avoid the issue at hand and trying to make general clichéd statements regarding US policy in the region.
The professor was referring to the events of this past March, when Egypt held a constitutional referendum. The referendum was supported by the government, but seen by opponents as an attempt to give more power to Hosni Mubarak's ruling party. They passed, but not amidst controversy over allegations of fraud. The allegations came mainly from the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's strongest opposition force. The amendments will severely curtail their activities, as there is a prohibition on political activity based on religion. This means that the party will not be legally recognized as a legitimate political party.
It is evident that the US government sees it in their best interest to not allow political Islam to take root in this region, especially as it fears the result that this will have on the makeup of its allies. By allowing Islamist parties to take part in the democratic process, the autocratic governments in this region, who are often allied with the United States, will be challenged.
The ambassador made it clear that the United States does not want to see "radical, extremist groups" take control in this region. I marvel at how the policymakers in the United States still fail to understand that by alienating and marginalizing these political groups, they will create instability in the region. The opposite is true. These groups do not have legitimate means of expression within the government apparatus; thus, they are forced to resort to extreme means. Suppressing political Islam has not worked since the Cold War and has had catastrophic results. The Islamist parties are not necessarily going to turn over the entire system, force Islamic law on the people, and declare jihad against the United States and its allies. In fact, being within the electoral system may moderate their stances.
Not all Egyptians support Islamist parties, although some do. I think their inclusion in the system is a healthy alternative to absolute rule by the Mubarak government. It would be in the United States best interest to ensure that the political constituency in the Arab world, but especially in Egypt, is not alienated. I have heard the poison of political apathy too often in this part of the world.
The professor was referring to the events of this past March, when Egypt held a constitutional referendum. The referendum was supported by the government, but seen by opponents as an attempt to give more power to Hosni Mubarak's ruling party. They passed, but not amidst controversy over allegations of fraud. The allegations came mainly from the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's strongest opposition force. The amendments will severely curtail their activities, as there is a prohibition on political activity based on religion. This means that the party will not be legally recognized as a legitimate political party.
It is evident that the US government sees it in their best interest to not allow political Islam to take root in this region, especially as it fears the result that this will have on the makeup of its allies. By allowing Islamist parties to take part in the democratic process, the autocratic governments in this region, who are often allied with the United States, will be challenged.
The ambassador made it clear that the United States does not want to see "radical, extremist groups" take control in this region. I marvel at how the policymakers in the United States still fail to understand that by alienating and marginalizing these political groups, they will create instability in the region. The opposite is true. These groups do not have legitimate means of expression within the government apparatus; thus, they are forced to resort to extreme means. Suppressing political Islam has not worked since the Cold War and has had catastrophic results. The Islamist parties are not necessarily going to turn over the entire system, force Islamic law on the people, and declare jihad against the United States and its allies. In fact, being within the electoral system may moderate their stances.
Not all Egyptians support Islamist parties, although some do. I think their inclusion in the system is a healthy alternative to absolute rule by the Mubarak government. It would be in the United States best interest to ensure that the political constituency in the Arab world, but especially in Egypt, is not alienated. I have heard the poison of political apathy too often in this part of the world.
About the Author
Opens in a new window