Arab elections: A note of cautious optimism

To judge by comments in the Western media, hopes that Arabs might move towards democracy have been dashed by “Islamist” victories in elections from Morocco to Egypt.

Editorialists predict an “Islamist Winter” following the “Arab Spring”.

Western intellectuals ask “what are we going to do?”

Assuming that it is any of our business, as outsiders, to do anything, the first thing to do is see what has happened.

The first thing that has happened is the dismantling of the Arab model of security-military regimes developed by coups d’etat from the 1940s to the 1960s. That model still resists in Sudan and Syria. But even there, it is past its sell-by date.

The second thing that has happened is that, implicitly at least, people from Morocco to Yemen, passing by Tunisia, Egypt and Iraq, agree that legitimacy could be based on the will of citizens expressed through elections.

This is a tremendous development. At one end of Arab politics, forces that dreamt of revolutionary legitimacy, which often meant a military coup, have abandoned the myth. At the other end, parties that advocated legitimacy based on religion have also dropped their claim. Several Arab countries have started creating a public space in which all political forces could operate freely. In that inclusive space, there is room for everyone, Islamist as well as conservative and socialist parties.

By accepting the rules of this new game, Islamist parties have abandoned the pretension that they alone hold the truth and that everyone else must conform or shut up or die.

Arab Islamists entered elections with their flags in their pockets. They changed their names to assume a new persona, and abandoned slogans such as “Islam Is The Solution”. Their electoral manifestoes read like that of pro-market conservative parties anywhere.

Often, the Islamists entered the race in coalition with secular parties. And yet, even when we combine the votes of Islamist parties and groups, they did not win a straight majority anywhere. Taking into account average turnouts, the Islamist share is around 30 per cent of the total electorate. And this is in countries where Muslims account for 85 per cent (Egypt) to almost 100 per cent of the population (Tunisia).

In ideological terms, Islamist parties have paid a heavy price for conversion to a system they always dismissed as “alien”.

To be sure, one never knows whether Arab Islamists have really accepted the new game. They may well be playing a tactical game until they establish their hold on power. History is full of examples of wolves disguised as lambs. Three decades ago in Iran Islamists promised free elections but, once in power, never agreed to submit to the test.

However, while remaining vigilant, why not give the Arab Islamists the benefit of the doubt?  One rule of politics is that what matters is what people do, not what they believe.

The third important thing is that religion, which, as its name implies, is supposed to link people together, is exposed as a factor of division in politics. It is no accident that everywhere, from Morocco to Yemen, we have a dozen parties and groups competing in the name of Islam. In Iraq, over 30 groups claim to represent “true Islam”.

Fortunately, with the litmus test of elections, what matters is what the people think of those parties not what they think of themselves.

The next important development is that the myth of winning power through armed struggle, in the name of religion or a secular ideology, has been debunked. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, spoke of “the gun and the dagger” as weapons for his flock. For eight decades, those gadgets did not win the Brotherhood even a toehold in power. Now, however, the Brotherhood may end up leading a coalition government in Cairo.

The same is as true of the more radical Anathema and Withdrawal (Takfir wa al-Hijrah) and Islamic Society (Gamaa al-Islamiyah) that used psychological and physical terror for decades without getting anywhere except into prison. They, too, are now poised to secure a place in Egypt’s new political landscape.

Earlier in Iraq, the Full Moon Brigade (Failqat al-Badr) and The Army of the Hidden Imam (Jaish al-Mahdi) found out that power did not come out of the barrel of guns supplied by Tehran but from ballot boxes filled by Iraqi voters.

Finally, the recent elections show that, at least in the countries concerned, Arab politics may have begun a process of normalization. Politics, as defined by its founding father Aristotle, known to Muslims as The First Teacher, is the art of solving the problems of the community (polis in Greek). Thus, it is primarily about concrete issues: security, administration, education, protecting individual freedoms and dignities, economic production, caring for the sick and the less able, arbitrating differences among citizens, and defence against foreign aggression. In other words: “bread-and-butter” politics.

For decades, Arabs were denied access to politics in that sense. Their politics was dominated by abstract concepts such as pan-Arab unification, the ideal Islamic society, the revival of the caliphate, and various versions of leftist Utopia. To enter the political arena, all one needed to do was clench a fist, and shout “death” to this or that or “long live” this or that despot.

Often, a strong dose of personality cult was injected into that witches’ brew. During one of my visits to Iraq in the mid-1970s, I conducted a non-scientific test. The result was simple: Iraqi politics meant showering praise on Saddam Hussein. Everyone did it, from the taxi driver to the Cabinet minister; and everyone lied.

My answer to Western friends who demand “what are we going to do?” is simple: take a deep breath!

Arabs should not be regarded as objects in their own history; the uprisings showed that they wish to be its subjects. For the first time, many Arabs have a chance to run their own show. Inevitably, they will make their own mistakes and pay the bill for it. But to play the owl so early in this saga might be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Since history is not written in advance, no one can be sure how things will turn out in the next months, let alone next decades. For the time being, however, I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic.