Electoral news update from the Arab Spring:
The final results in Egypt’s first post-Mubarak parliamentary elections confirm an overwhelming victory for Islamist parties.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won the largest number of seats under Egypt’s complex electoral system.
The hardline Salafist Nour party came second.
The liberal New Wafd and the secular Egyptian Bloc coalition are some way behind them.
Jolly for them.
This was inevitable, of course. Just as in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the only vehicle for popular resistance to regime tyranny was the mosque and its extensions. The Islamists and Salafists were more organized than their liberal or secular rivals.
One man, one vote. The real questions is whether these parties can deliver results on the peoples’ aspirations, and if not, whether the vote will have been, “one time.”
If we only knew that “the peoples’ aspirations” really were.
A demonstration against one option does not necessarily equate to unanimity for an option that we outsiders might hope for. Sadly.
Not a chance in hell.
BIG money can be made on the truth of your observation, Yak. BIG MONEY..
August,1939…
Carter allowed Iran to change; Obama is allowing others to change, and none of those changes are for the better as far as the USA’s interests go. And Hillary needs to get some negative credit for this, too, since she seems to be the invisible person when criticisms are aimed at Obama, just so that we don’t have to listen to her shrill voice touting her “achievements” while she runs for President or whatever. God forbid.
Like all the other international relations FAILS! from this group of bozos (you listening to me, QM?) who managed to find themselves in the seats of power, they have no clue who they are supporting, as they promised the Egyptian uprising wasn’t about Islamists, they were but one small voice to be squashed by “the huddled masses.”
Look at Libya, now run by AQ Alumni.
Iranian and Syrian “dissidents” are shot in the street by hard line Islamist (or at least hose hiding behind a shield of 1st Amendment rights of “religion” as they see it for purposes of US Media consumption). Hmmm…..
And I recall the days of being the roomie of the CCDG Intell Officer, the standard line: “The exact opposite of this briefing cannot be discounted” when one meditates on the actions of the White House, and the State Department (and the BATF, DHS, DoE, etc, etc) these days, regarding my first remark in this comment….
He did say he was going to fundamentally change America….had we only listened….and he will have facilitated the fundamental change of the World, to a more dangerous place….
I’d like an Obama supporter to tell me just what “changes” they thought were so necessary for our country…haven’t heard much yet from them. Fundamental change. Geez.
SteveC: Good point, but change….”in His Image” and I ain’t talking the real one who’s image we are created in, but the man-wanna-be-the-ultimate-authority-all-up-in-your-grill judgmental ONE! of which we speak…
Show me a reasonably modern, reasonably successful Arab Muslim Country. Waiting, waiting…..
Kurds do not count as they are not Arabs (and will not remain a viable entity without our help).
Depends on what you mean by reasonably modern and reasonably successful. I think the average Joe would count Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and the UAE in those categories. Yes, all three are oligarchies with limited long term stability, but in the long term we’re all dead.
If we are ever going to win the GWOT this is something that has to happen. The Arab world has to learn, through first-hand experience, what life under Islamist rule is like. If we continue to shield the Muslim world from the Islamists they will continue to be romanticized. I don’t know if now is the best time, and I’m certain the administration isn’t thinking this far ahead (that would require thought, a noted weakness of liberals), but this is the situation. Let’s make the best of it.
Jeff, SA, home of AQ- http://www.meforum.org/999/al-qaedas-saudi-origins. Still Tribal, and economically successful only because of oil. I think women would disagree about the modern part. I suppose that we can still rent their support, as long as SA believes they need us.
Not sure how WE are shielding Muslims from Islamists.
UAE -Essentially founded in 1971,a federation of seven emirates that have a horrendous record of human rights abuse. Approximately 80% of those in the UAE are not citizens. Again, take away the oil and they are just another part of the wind-blown desert. Highest migration rate of any country in the world doesn’t speak too highly of the quality of life there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
Quatar -agree that it may be among the most modern of Muslim countries, but again, take away the oil and it is just sand (at least for now as Q is making strides to not be dependent upon oil). I would argue that any country, such as Q, that uses Sharia law as the basis of its government has some issues.
As I said, it depends on what you mean by “modern”. If you mean “western” then no, there isn’t any part of the Arab world that fits. However, that also means most of the world, including large portions of Europe aren’t modern.
I’m not going to knock Saudi Arabia for giving rise to Al Queda, any more than I would condemn Georgia for giving rise to the modern KKK. And discounting a resource based economy would mean denying the modernity of places like Russia, Sweden, and Canada. You’ve also misread the migration statistics. The UAE has the highest rate of immigrants in the world, reflecting the desire to bring in hired workers. Based on my experience I’d say Dubai has a quality of life that is above average in the non-western world.
Our support of the regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others has allowed the Islamists to make promises they are incapable of fulfilling. The Muslim Brotherhood et al. are similar to Obama in ’08, a tabula rasa that people can project their own goals and desires onto.
I would like to note that I am not criticizing our support for any Arab regime. I think that in most cases we have benefitted. I just think that as long as Islamist rule remains hypothetical it will appear to be an appealing alternative to any reality. We have to show that Islamism, like its forebear fascism, is a worse alternative.
I think Jordan is an example of what arab countries can aspire to become. While not a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy with a relatively free society (for the middle east) and has a economy that is diverse and robust and is not dependent on oil like most arab countries. It also possesses a competent military which is also unusual for arab countries and being a major US ally certainly does not hurt.