Thank you for the fine analysis of the "project" of Muslim brotherhood. It's very important to have the view from the region itself. And I'm always happy to see that liberalism (classic liberalism) is a genuine force in Arab states.
I have a question. You say that "if the right steps are taken, democracy has every chance to flourish in Middle Eastern societies". So my question is: which steps are to be taken? Thank you.

Tarek Heggy's article on Democracy in Egypt and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood is an important piece which American liberals need to understand. We have been socialized by our liberal press to believe Mubarak is a military dictator who is holding back democracy. In fact, he is holding back those (the Muslim Brotherhood) who once they got into power would end any chance of democracy forever in Egypt. Egypt is and has been on the front lines of anti-terrorism for a long time. The Muslim Brotherhood has been assassinating people, blowing up buildings, and participating in terrorists acts against tourists and their own people for many years. Without Mubarak and his policies Egypt might well be like Iran today. The World should hope that Mubarak stays for awhile and hopefully his son Gamal takes over when he is ready to retire. Fred Kirschstein

It seems to me that much of the power of the Islamists - MB and others - in places like Egypt comes from the fact that effective open opposition to the existing leaders is banned or regulated to the point of being neutered. Without a public voice of opposition, the people are forced to turn to underground groups like the Islamists. It further seems to me that the solution to the problem of political Islamism is to allow a broader democracy, so that legitimate opposition can arise which is not subverted by the jihadis.

It's kind of amusing to see that, in light of the actual dangers of imposing democracy on middle eastern countries in view of the years of our and other countries' encouragement of regimes that suppress progress and opposition parties, it is suddenly the 'liberals' (the 'left') who are deluded. Love to hear how the liberals are at all involved in the present administration and its efforts suddenly and under threat of war, to 'spread democracy' through the area.

As the author quotes: "However, a hasty transformation, is likely to be disastrous for the forces of progress in Egypt and equally in the Middle East, and fits well with the words of the historian Daniel Boorstin, who warned that planning for the future without a sense of history is like planting cut flowers to humanity."

Cut flowers need to be grafted, but they will bloom. Just not the way the impetuous planters expect.

n view of the years of our and other countries' encouragement of regimes that suppress progress and opposition parties, it is suddenly the 'liberals' (the 'left') who are deluded.This knife cuts both ways. From which ranks did Saddam draw his western human shields? It seems everyone is ready to support their pet dictators.

Cut flowers need to be grafted, but they will bloom. Just not the way the impetuous planters expect.

Quite right, though this presumes one was happy with the way the flowers were growing before.

An interesting piece. On the flip side of the coin, I would point out that what democracy "means" is unclear. Fareed Zakaria wrote in Future of Freedom that for Westerners:

democracy means ‘liberal democracy’: a political system marked not only by free and fair elections but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. But this bundle of freedoms—what might be termed ‘constitutional liberal’—has nothing intrinsically to do with democracy and the two have not always gone together, even in the West.

I don't think most thoughtful Westerners wish to put the Middle East region to the vote, transferring power from one autocrat to another. Formation of a liberal constitution, one in which winners and losers accept, appears key.

I guess I forgot to say, thanks JK for this really compelling info.

and lurker, good observation... history is full of 'pet' dictators. Anyone remember Iran/Contra?

(I will be in Central America next couple of weeks, lots of questions to ask.)

PDShaw: we do confuse democracy with a liberal, read enlightened, worldview, it's true. When it gives a weapon to terrorists, guess we trip ourselves up.

The Western World became great because of the credo... I want some of that... Europe discovered the New World while looking for ways to "get some of that" from Asia. Taxes, which make the world go round, are tied to "getting some of that".

Marketing is all about "I want some of that".

What does the Muslim Brotherhood have to offer? What is their "get some of that"?

The internet allows marketing efforts to show those in the Middle East that there are many ways to "get some of that" that don't involve smokin' your neighbour and enslaving their kids.

The younger generation will compare notes with compatriots from around the world. The Muslim Brotherhood can only talk about the bird in the bush, not the bird in the hand.

I believe we are on the right path. The road to prosperity runs right over the Muslim Brotherhood.

What does the Muslim Brotherhood have to offer?

Someone else can probably fill in the details better, but in many countries the MB provide many direct social services. If that is an accurate assessment, then the MB poses as a political machine that has already on the ground running.

I respect that they are offering direct social services in the manner that many religious groups offer presently, and in past times. I suspect every major religious group provides social services of some sort.

The kicker question is what does the Muslim Brotherhood expect from their "clients" who receive this "aid"? This religious/aid/political organization has been around for all of mankind. History shows that these types of organizations will "push" until they are transformed into mainstream society or "smote with vigor".

As the Middle Eastern societies compare themselves with Western counterparts, they will wonder why "such n' such" had to go to North America or Europe or Asia to prosper? They will wonder how they can "get some of that". They won't have far to look to find that answer.

Ruth: it is suddenly the 'liberals' (the 'left') who are deluded.

Commie Liberals, not Classical Liberals.

Commie Liberals are leftists, Classical Liberals, in the USA are not, our opposition are the authoritartians of both the left and the right. Primarily the left.

A classical Liberal, can only be defined as left or right, by who their opposition is, strange but true.

If my opposition are Royalists, Monarchist, so on, then I would be on the left.

When my opposition are socialistic in idiology, then I find myself on the right.

This condition is because the socialistis have perverted the term Liberal, that comes from Liberty they have assumed a label that is the opposite of what they stand for.

So i dont know if you call yourself a Liberal or not, but if you do its a fraud. you seem to have no actual value of Liberty.

I am a Liberal, a Classical Liberal, but I usually cannot identify my self as such, because the common understanding of what a Liberal is in America, the Commie-Liberals, is my opposite, my enemy, pretending to stand for liberty while pushing a platform that would take it away from me. They are a fraud.

Something Ive not seen focused on.

One of the reasons America is such a benevolent place to live, is not the authority of the people to vote what they want, but the procribed limitations of government authority that limits what the mob can demand.

Democracy without limited goverment and individual garranty of rights is just another form of oppression, (as the left have demonstrated for us, one of the most horrific)

The soviets had the duma, and its problem was NOT... NOT the fact that it was a one party state. it was the fact that the state was all powerfull, and the individual having none. that was where all the horror sprang from.

The sensibilties of a Tsar or King are far more benevolent than the sensebilities and a-moral nature of the mob.

Kings ponder the resulte of their acts, the mob does not, it has their horrors carried out by proxies, cutting loose the tie of responsibility.

Any "democracy" without the Classical Notions of liberty proscribing authority will teach the lesson again, there are worse goverments than the Kings Tsars and the benevolent dictator.

And that worse government is the unrestricted demands of the people themselves.

Just thought I would mention it, in passing.

In The New Republic, Marina Ottaway, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, tells her readers that "Liberal reformers aren't the best hope for democratizing the Middle East. Islamists are"

Islamist organizations – that is, organizations that appeal to the religious values and social conservatism of the Arab public in their call for political reform – are the key to democratization in the Arab world. They have considerable support, as measured by the votes they receive when they are allowed to participate in elections, the turnout at their demonstrations and the audiences attracted by radical preachers during sermons at mosques.

A good place to start is with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the first and still the most influential modern Islamist movement. Much of the radical thinking about the moral corruption of the Arab states and the need for dramatic change has come from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ms. Ottaway's opinions have also been published in Voice of America and Foreign Policy. She has given numerous talks on the subject of democracy in the Arab world. Her opinions seem to be respected.

In 1999, Ottaway urged the International community to ignore problems in Africa, because, well, the place is such a mess - who can figure out all their problems.

Of course, she neglected to mention the fact that a lot of the suffering in the Sudan, Nigeria and Mauritania was due to the imposition of Shari’a laws.

I'm not sure what kind of "peace" Ottaway is trying to sell us, but it's pretty clear that she's a big fan of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Tarek Heggy is a prolific thinker who is not afraid to look at reality and say it without political correctness. He raises a very important point that I have been mentioning over and over again in my blog. Several other liberals (most notably Saad Eddin Ibrahim) disagree with our assessment. They are the ones I call the "anyone but Mubarak" crowd. I understand their frustration with the mubarak regime, but I disagree with their rush towards believing that mubarak should go no matter what the consequences might be.

I have said the following in my blog:

1. The most organized and popular opposition entities in Egypt are the muslim brotherhood and other islamists. The liberals, secularists, and the Nasserites do not enjoy such a popular base. The reason for this is mubarak's dictatorship that suppressed all forms of dissent. However, the islamists reached the people through thousands mosques, islamic charities, and the notion that they are "god's" ambassadors on earth. The liberals/secularists do not enjoy this benefit!

2. democracy is a must in egypt and the islamists must be integrated within the political stream, I only disagree with the timing. I believe more time should be given to secularists/liberals/progressives to reach out to people and garner a popular base. Mubarak should be pressured to allow those entities to operate. This is why I am not in a hurry to hug a free ballot box this september. I hope that we will witness the rise of a liberal/progressive group that will counter the islamists in the future. Kind off like Iraq's secular kurds/shias verses the religious parties.

3. of course we cannot guarantee that things will go as mentioned above but i believe thats the most realistic approach. I believe tarek heggy will agree with me as well. I hope he and other who share our concerns will offer a way forward. it is not enough to voice our concerns without saying what we believe should happen.

Cant argue with that Pharaoh

Perhaps Iraq will lead the way, they have a hard road ahead still, but once the resitance to freedom is depleated, they can be a good example, a base of freedom from where it can spread.

And why cant it be evolution, rather than revolution, sure would be better to see a transition without all the bullets and the bombs.

Perhaps the drain on the pool of radicals, all of them throwing themselves into death in iraq, will provide a oppertunity for less violent change elsewhere.

One thing is for certain, its either a close range fights with rifles, or its massive bombs from afar.

Those that dont like the way we in combat now should consider that alternative is worse.

We refuse to be a passive target any more, and that reality is as important as the rest.

Incidentally:
I give a nod to Iranian prince Pahlevi, who:"joined his voice to other Iranian dissidents inside and outside Iran to urge Iranians not to participate in the coming presidential elections and do not give popular legitimacy a “discredited regime”.'

See: http://www.iran-press-service.co...lavi- 3605.shtml

There you go, fellas, let's get with the Plan.

"In his (Pahlevi's) view, more than 65 per cent of the voters would abstain from going to the polls, a percentage confirmed by several opinion surveys, some of them realised by the government, including the Interior and the Intelligence ministries."

This from the family we helped prop up for 25 years or so.

Funny, now Mullah Khomeini comes out in support of the elections: see: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0506040497161154.htm

"Ayatollah Khamenei said religious democracy, advocated in Iran, was different from the Western version of democracy, stressing that religious democracy is based on the heavenly right and obligation of people to determine their fate.

He also warned against the efforts by the enemies of Iran to discourage people from participating in the elections, and said people's strong turnout at the polls will present the "charming meaning" of the Islamic Republic to the world."

Now that really worries me.

#17 Ruth,

I have seen reports showing the turn out in Iran might be as low as 10%.

This will discredit the regime among the Euros.

Of course the stupid Bush has already figured it out.

Simon

And we have seen a constant parade of them walking face first into the swinging door.

I remember Rush doing a laundry list of those, its like the cartoon where the character pulls a hole out of his pack and drops it infront of his foes to fall into.

Such will be the legacy, i would not be surprised if eventually the arch evil, among the mullas and their littany of murdered and 13 year old girls swinging off cranes after spending their last days being gang raped. Would be President Carter, who contributed so much beinging about their years of oppression.

The Shah didnt gang rape 13 year olds and hang them in public.

I still remember the women marching in demontrations after the mullahs took over ... "We will fight the veil" was their message.

Well, so much for the power of demostrations. those that didnt submit are now dead.

Its the same message we have had for the more ignorant leftists, better look at that a leftist state is like, because you might get what you wish for.

And like the Iranians know today, getting back what is now clearly the more desirable alternative can be far harder to reverse than the less oppressive regime you toppled.

Russia was moving to a constitutional monarchy, much like Britain, if it was not for the bolshvics they could have saved 61 Million lives and the wholesale destruction of the country, and 70+ years of abject misery for 100's of millions.

Too bad more cant benifit for histories bad example, too bad the most singular good example for the planet, is still hated by the left, who wrought the most horrically bad example the planet has ever seen.

Why must man only learn his lessons via misery and suffering. the cold enforcer of reality that never fails to hold man to account for his folly.

M.Simon:

Sadly, who has to pay for stupidity at the top is the innocent.

It looks like our abysmal ignorance, and the outcome of acting on it, are becoming dreadfully clear.

"Syria's ruling Ba'athist regime has launched a brutal crackdown on dissenters in the run-up to a landmark gathering of senior party leaders this week.

Damascus's feared secret police have detained at least 14 opposition figures and have been blamed for the murders of two more."

See this Telegraph article

our abysmal ignorance, and the outcome of acting on it

Whos "Our" ....In Damascus ? ... So we should have invaded Syria too ?

You twisted lefty's,,, and your "Blame America First" kneejerk,,,, that suspects the CIA every time yout potty backs up,,,,, or when a desperate tinpot despot lashes out cause he sees his game time running out.

Totally absurd, nutbar, little choo choo round the bend, a brick shy, a few megs short of the request at page fault, and how typical. ..And so predictable.

Yes, there is something abysmaly ignorant. and clearly so. but watch the "Our"s and the "We"s

Your clearly part of the NION bunch, and from Afgan to Iraq to the results of the shakout elsewhere, dont worry, it isnt you didnt, and you wont, ... and we did, it is, and we will.

And history will record it that way.

_less freedom, increased state-ownership, segregated class-rooms, as well as the fact that a non-Muslim could never become president. _

Less freedom than they have now in the Middle East? Atleast everybody will have work because you need atleast 10% of the population working for the secret police instead of the 5% that works now for the secret police

Increased state ownership? Possible but very difficult. It is not like there are many non state companies left in the Middle East

segregated classrooms? Like we had fifthy years ago? (i mean sex segregation as class is still unofficially segregated)

Can a non-Muslim become president now in the Middle East? It is very rare for a minority to become head of state when 80% or more belongs to another religion. For instance there is nothing that forbids a hindu becoming president of the USA but the likelyhood of that is very small, much smaller than the percentages of hindu's in the USA.

I wonder if Fortuyn was right and that the Middle East was just 50 years behind us because this sounds exactly like the program of a European christen democratic party from 50 years ago.

Tarek Heggy and most people commenting in this blog miss the point entirely. The Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups appeal to many Muslims not because of they distribute money or perform social services, but simply because they are sincere in their beliefs and everyone sees that. This includes Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
You might call Bin Laden a "cold blooded murderer of innocent people" but you cannot certainly claim that he is not an observant Muslim, and he is living a comfortable playboy life out in the mountains, sleeping with a virgin every night, or drinking wine. But you can make all these claims against most rulers in the Middle East, and people on the street would agree. And I have to say that people do not trust the western-leaning intellectuals and doubt their sincerity because for many decades, these intellectuals have been supporting and flourishing under the oppressive regimes.

I agree with Tarek Heggy if he criticizes the Brotherhood as an organization that cannot tolerate criticism or opposition, either interanal or external. But the MB or other Islamist groups will not simply go away by prosecuting them, or banning them. You simply cannot impose social transformation against people's will.

Finally, I might be talking and discussing here until sunset about civil society, democracy and freedom, but before going to bed, when I would like to read a few verses from the Qur'an, I will still end up following Sayyed Qutb's commentary. He is still an inspiration to us.

And I have to say that people do not trust the western-leaning intellectuals and doubt their sincerity because for many decades, these intellectuals have been supporting and flourishing under the oppressive regimes.

And you are right not to trust them.

However, as long as we see 14 year old girls swinging off cranes after being gang raped in jail, as long as Islam is spread with the sword and the flame.

As long as Islam looks opon me as a Dhimmi ....

Our leaders are weak, the people are still looking to see if Islam dictates a threat to us, once its decided it does, it will be wiped off the earth to obtain our security.

Thats what will happen once the free world understands its them or us.

Iraq, even with the terrorists that we refuse to surrender to, seems full of good people that want nothing but a better life for themselves.

They can do more to restore the Image of Islam than anything else, they can show that the Middle east is capable of joining civilisation.

The time for tyrants is coming to an end.

The brave people of Iraq can show the way.