The Arab Spring was supposed spell the
end of decades of autocratic rule and the
birth of a democratic political scene. It
doesn't take much to realize that there are
those who are propagating liberal ideologies
and others who were trying to uphold
religious values and traditions. These are
normal constituents of a political left and
right. But is that really the case?
"Liberal"
politicians
are
those who were
fighting to retain
the secular nature
of Egypt. They
tend to be quite
westernized, being
fluent in at least
one
European
language
and
receiving foreign
education. On the
surface they may
look quite different
from the Rightwinged Islamists;
it seemed only
logical to place
them on the left
wing
of
the
political scene. But
are they really that
different from their
right
wing
counterparts?
Since those "revolutions" were sparked by
very similar reasons (regardless of whether
the respective head of state was removed or
not), it wasn't really surprising to see the
political scenes of most Arab countries being
somewhat similar to each other. Egypt is a
very good example to look at since it
captured a lot more media spotlight than the
others.
The main beneficiaries of the Arab Spring
were the Islamists, with the region
witnessing the rebirth of Political Islam in
several countries. The Muslim Brotherhood's
Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the
Salafsit Nour Party (both of Egypt) took
more than seventy percent of the Shura
Council (the upper house of the Egyptian
parliament). Tunisia's Ennahda party, the
main Islamist party, also performed pretty
well, securing a simple majority. They all
had similar goals, with varying degrees of
strictness, but their agendas were revolving
around Sharia, were revolving around
conservatism. Labeling them as the political
right is not exactly a matter of debate.
It took the Muslim Brotherhood nearly a
century to even become a legitimate entity.
To suddenly storm into the Shura council
and even take over the presidency was a
very sharp turn of fortunes for the
Brotherhood. Even sharper was their fall.
Morsi's lack of experience was evident when
he tried to assume so much power for
himself and his Brotherhood.
Love him or hate him, Morsi belonged to a
particular ideology and he did his best to
serve it, in a naive manner perhaps, but
sincerely nevertheless. The FJP and the
Muslims Brotherhood values have always
been the same. Yes, they might have tried to
benefit the Brotherhood with certain topics
and issues, and yes, they might have used
what can be considered as underhanded
tactics to serve their purposes. While
everyone has the right to agree or disagree
with that, let's at least agree on something:
the Brotherhood has only strived to serve its
Right-wing politics.
It wasn't long before Supreme Council of
Armed Forces (SCAF) interfered (again).
SCAF guarded the pride and honor of Egypt
for decades. Their past heroics, combined
with witty management, has enabled the
SCAF to own an empire of assets and laws
that made them very much invincible. Morsi
trying to challenge that empire in a single
year, combined with his strife to Islam-cise
the nation was enough for the SCAF to make
it a mission to take Morsi and the entire
Brotherhood down. This brings us to the
other side of the political scene, the selfproclaimed liberals.
Photograph by Anushiya Suresh
“It took the Muslim
Brotherhood nearly a
century to even become a
legitimate entity. To
suddenly storm into the
Shura council and even
take over the presidency
was a very sharp turn of
fortunes for the
Brotherhood. Even
sharper was their fall.”
Left wing policies
are supposed to
be
about
the
continuous
progress
of
a
society,
where
(positive) change
is something to be
embraced rather
than
resisted.
‘Freedom of speech’ and ‘minority rights’ are
always to be protected. But those "liberals" are
anything but that. When the masses went out in
protest against the Mubarak regime, it was
considered a legitimate right. When the masses
went out in protest against Morsi, it was still a
legitimate right. Let the masses go out in protest
against what they believed was a coup d’état,
and those m