Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Salafis take at least a quarter of the vote in Egypt

  1. #1

    Default Salafis take at least a quarter of the vote in Egypt

    CAIRO — Islamists claimed a decisive victory on Wednesday as early election results put them on track to win a dominant majority in Egypt’s first Parliament since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the most significant step yet in the religious movement’s rise since the start of the Arab Spring.

    The party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s mainstream Islamist group, appeared to have taken about 40 percent of the vote, as expected. But a big surprise was the strong showing of ultraconservative Islamists, called Salafis, many of whom see most popular entertainment as sinful and reject women’s participation in voting or public life.

    Analysts in the state-run news media said early returns indicated that Salafi groups could take as much as a quarter of the vote, giving the two groups of Islamists combined control of nearly 65 percent of the parliamentary seats.

    That victory came at the expense of the liberal parties and youth activists who set off the revolution, affirming their fears that they would be unable to compete with Islamists who emerged from the Mubarak years organized and with an established following. Poorly organized and internally divided, the liberal parties could not compete with Islamists disciplined by decades as the sole opposition to Mr. Mubarak. “We were washed out,” said Shady el-Ghazaly Harb, one of the most politically active of the group.

    Although this week’s voting took place in only a third of Egypt’s provinces, they included some of the nation’s most liberal precincts — like Cairo, Port Said and the Red Sea coast — suggesting that the Islamist wave is likely to grow stronger as the voting moves into more conservative rural areas in the coming months. (Alexandria, a conservative stronghold, also has voted.)

    The preliminary results extend the rising influence of Islamists across a region where they were once outlawed and oppressed by autocrats aligned with the West. Islamists have formed governments in Tunisia and Morocco. They are positioned for a major role in post-Qaddafi Libya as well. But it is the victory in Egypt — the largest and once the most influential Arab state, an American ally considered a linchpin of regional stability — that has the potential to upend the established order across the Middle East.
    Islamist leaders, many jailed for years under Mr. Mubarak, were exultant. “We abide by the rules of democracy, and accept the will of the people,” Essam el-Erian, a leader of the Brotherhood’s new party, wrote in the British newspaper The Guardian. “There will be winners and losers. But the real — and only — victor is Egypt.”

    Results will not be final until January, after two more rounds of voting. And the ultimate scope of the new Parliament’s power remains unclear because Egypt has remained under military rule since Mr. Mubarak resigned as president in February. But Parliament is expected to play a role in drafting a new Constitution with the ruling military council, although the council has given contradictory indications about how much parliamentary input it will allow.

    The emergence of a strong Islamist bloc in Parliament is already quickening a showdown with the military. Brotherhood leaders announced Wednesday that they expected the Islamist parliamentary majority to name a prime minister to replace the civilian government now serving the military. In response, a senior official of the military-led government insisted that the ruling generals would retain that prerogative.

    The unexpected rise of a strong ultraconservative Islamist faction to the right of the Brotherhood is likely to shift Egypt’s cultural and political center of gravity to the right as well. Leaders of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party will likely feel obliged to compete with the ultraconservatives for Islamist voters, and at the same time will not feel the same need to compromise with liberals to form a government.

    “It means that, if the Brotherhood chooses, Parliament can be an Islamists affair — a debate between liberal Islamists, moderate Islamists and conservatives Islamists, and that is it,” Michael Wahid Hanna, an Egyptian-born researcher at the Century Foundation in Cairo, said this week.

    The ultraconservative Salafi parties, meanwhile, will be able to use their electoral clout to make their own demands for influence on appointments in the new government. Mr. Hanna added: “I don’t mind saying this is not a great thing. It is not a joyous day on my end.”

    If the majority proves durable, the longer-term implications are hard to predict. The Brotherhood has pledged to respect basic individual freedoms while using the influence of the state to nudge the culture in a more traditional direction. But the Salafis often talk openly of laws mandating a shift to Islamic banking, restricting the sale of alcohol, providing special curriculums for boys and girls in public schools, and censoring the content of the arts and entertainment.

    Their leaders have sometimes proposed that a special council of religious scholars advise Parliament or the top courts on legislation’s compliance with Islamic law. Egyptian election laws required the Salafi parties to put at least one woman on their electoral roster for each district, but they put the women last on their lists to ensure they would not be elected, and some appear with pictures of flowers in place of their faces on campaign posters.

    Sheik Hazem Shouman, an important Salafi leader, recently rushed into a public concert on the campus of Mansoura University to try to persuade the crowd to turn away from the “sinful” performance and go home. He defended his actions on a television talk show, saying he had felt like a doctor making an emergency intervention to save a patient dying of cancer.

    The new majority is likely to increase the difficulty of sustaining the United States’ close military and political partnership with post-Mubarak Egypt, though the military has said it plans to maintain a monopoly over many aspects of foreign affairs. Islamist political leaders miss no opportunity to criticize Washington’s policies toward Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and the Palestinians. And while Brotherhood leaders have said they intend to preserve but perhaps renegotiate the 1979 Camp David peace treaty with Israel, the Salafi parties have been much less reassuring. Some have suggested putting the treaty to a referendum.

    Speaking on the condition of anonymity, an Israeli official acknowledged concerns: “Obviously, it is hard to see in this result good news for Israel.”

    Some members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority — about 10 percent of the population — joked Wednesday that they would prepare to leave the country. Previously protected by Mr. Mubarak’s patronage, many have dreaded the Islamists’ talk of protecting the Islamic character of Egypt. Some Brotherhood leaders often repeat that they believe citizenship is an equal right of all regardless of sect, even chanting at some campaign rallies that Copts are also “sons of Egypt.” But Salafis more often declare that Christians should not fear Islamic law because it requires the protection of religious minorities, an explanation that many Christians feel assigns them second-class status.

    Most Copts voted for the liberal Egyptian bloc, which was vying for second place with the Salafis in some reports. It was an eclectic alliance against the Islamists, dominated by the Social Democrats, a left-leaning party with ties to the revolution’s leaders, and by the Free Egyptians, the business-friendly party founded and promoted by Naguib Sawiris, the Coptic Christian media-and-telecommunications tycoon.

    The results indicated that some of the candidates and slates put forward by the former ruling party appeared to have won back their seats. It was unclear how large a bloc they might form, but they could prove sympathetic to the familiar mantra of stability-above-all that the ruling military is putting forward.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/wo...amists.html?hp

    Looks like Salafis got a quarter of the vote in Cario and Alexandria, with the former being containing a vast majority of Egypt's liberals. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting a third of the vote once the rural parts of Egypt go to the polls. While it's not particularly surprising that the Brotherhood finished second, I'm astounded that this many Egyptians want an Iranian form of government. Meanwhile, the liberals who overthrew Mubarak might end up with 20% of the vote (if that). We've usually been told that the reason Muslims in the Arab world support Salafis is because they're the only alternate to the corrupt autocrats ruling. In Egypt, they had plenty of alternatives, including the relatively moderate Islamist Brotherhood, and they still opted for the Salafis.

    Furthermore, the current parliament is going to have a large role in creating a new constitution, and a parliament with such a large Salafi contingent is bound to craft a constitution that provides an overwhelming role to political Islam. As the NY Times piece points out, there will be no need to compromise with liberals. I would not be surprised to see provisions discriminatory against Christians and women placed into the constitution, nor to see a clause that explicitly forbids friendlier relations with Israel.

    The silver lining here is that once (if) Islamists of all shapes gain power and fail miserably to improve the economy, people might start realizing that Islam is not the solution to all of their problems.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #2
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The silver lining here is that once (if) Islamists of all shapes gain power and fail miserably to improve the economy, people might start realizing that Islam is not the solution to all of their problems.
    Like how after a few terms of failure from the lefties and socialists, the West will embrace capitalism again, right? And since the 1940's are right around the corner, there's no reason to expect anything but a turn away from the failed policies of Marxism and policy compromises to the Marxists!

    Just another instance of proof that democracy doesn't work, incredible stupidity is the only universal human trait, etc.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  3. #3
    Not too many groups advocating Marxism anymore, are there? And most "socialist" parties in Europe aren't particularly socialist anymore.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    There is no special reason why the MB would especially want to work with salafi's; or the other way round. The MB may very well be able to get a better deal if it looks to the other side. For the salafi's the MB is barely better than the secularists anyway.

    BTW; salafi's are sunni, which means that a reference to an 'Iran-style' regime is more than a bit silly. Iran has a religious hierarchy with a role in the state, for sunni's such a state would be unthinkable. To the oudsider it may look like an unimportant distinction, but it is not. In Iran the government has to dance to the tune of the religious leader, in sunni countries the religious opinion leaders are always subservient to the ruler. Iran is a theocracy, and no matter how conservatively religious Saudi Arabia is, the latter is not.
    Congratulations America

  5. #5
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Not too many groups advocating Marxism anymore, are there? And most "socialist" parties in Europe aren't particularly socialist anymore.
    Define "socialist."

    Seems to me that taking half in taxation is about midway between capitalism and communism... and "socialism" seems like the appropriate moniker to describe the middle area between those other two -isms, at least to me. Meaning it applies to Europe for sure, and probably to the rest of the "Western World" as well.

    And if being correct and rational makes mine a fringe opinion, so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    BTW; salafi's are sunni, which means that a reference to an 'Iran-style' regime is more than a bit silly. Iran has a religious hierarchy with a role in the state, for sunni's such a state would be unthinkable. To the oudsider it may look like an unimportant distinction, but it is not. In Iran the government has to dance to the tune of the religious leader, in sunni countries the religious opinion leaders are always subservient to the ruler. Iran is a theocracy, and no matter how conservatively religious Saudi Arabia is, the latter is not.
    Yeah, but Saudia Arabia is a lot like Iran, in that it's populated by batshit-insane Islamofascists who like to blow shit up and kill Jews (And their American pig-dog puppets) and make the world worse by not keeping all those nuts inside their own borders. Whether Saudi Arabia is a theocracy or just another tinpot regime beholden to violent Islamofascist morons seems like the sillier distinction. Both seem to end in the same Allahu-ahkbar-BOOM! (If anything, the Shi'ites seem less dangerous, because at least they're reigned in by a state apparatus, and tend to blow themselves up in fewer numbers.)
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Define "socialist."

    Seems to me that taking half in taxation is about midway between capitalism and communism... and "socialism" seems like the appropriate moniker to describe the middle area between those other two -isms, at least to me. Meaning it applies to Europe for sure, and probably to the rest of the "Western World" as well.
    Advocating direct government control over significant portions of the economy, e.g. nationalizing the railways, telecommunications, ports, and many other large businesses. That was the position of the British Labour Party until Tony Blair, but it's a view shared by minorities of "socialist" parties in Britain, Spain, Italy, and Germany. From the major European countries, only French socialists could conceivably call for nationalization, and even that's not terribly likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    There is no special reason why the MB would especially want to work with salafi's; or the other way round. The MB may very well be able to get a better deal if it looks to the other side. For the salafi's the MB is barely better than the secularists anyway.

    BTW; salafi's are sunni, which means that a reference to an 'Iran-style' regime is more than a bit silly. Iran has a religious hierarchy with a role in the state, for sunni's such a state would be unthinkable. To the oudsider it may look like an unimportant distinction, but it is not. In Iran the government has to dance to the tune of the religious leader, in sunni countries the religious opinion leaders are always subservient to the ruler. Iran is a theocracy, and no matter how conservatively religious Saudi Arabia is, the latter is not.
    I was referring to having a veneer of democracy, while banning any acts viewed as un-Islamic and banning any candidates not viewed as being sufficiently Islamic. Obviously, they wouldn't adopt the Shi'a form of hierarchy. If the Salafis are in the government, the question of whether religious leaders influence political ones or vice versa becomes a moot point. And quite frankly, what does it say about a country when a third of its people are willing to vote for Salafis in an election with numerous options? I don't think you'd obtain similar results anywhere outside of the Arabian peninsula.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Not as moot as you would think; for Iran to change the system needs to change, for a country like Saudi Arabia to change social attitudes need to change. You would say that this is not going to happen, but it's not like Saudi Arabia was always as batfuck crazy as it is today. IIRC the country is coming to terms with women driving, that seems like a small and long overdue reform, but in Saudi social terms it is no less than an earthquake. It implies that it is ok for women to go outside without a chaperone.
    Congratulations America

  8. #8
    "Salafi" sounds like Arab waffles.

  9. #9
    The more I see "Democracy" in action in the Middle East the more pathetic I find their culture.

  10. #10
    Whereas each man claims his freedom as a matter of right, the freedom he accords to other men is a matter of toleration.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowheart View Post
    Whereas each man claims his freedom as a matter of right, the freedom he accords to other men is a matter of toleration.
    Exactly and the people over there like to vote in crazy nutters who deprive people of liberty.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Exactly and the people over there like to vote in crazy nutters who deprive people of liberty.
    Since we have seen preciously little 'democracy' in the middle east so far, I would not dare judging how it works yet.

    Also, religious nuts in the US have a surprisingly big say in the way how things are run. Any gay person in the US can tell you how wonderfully their civil rights are respected by christians.
    Congratulations America

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Since we have seen preciously little 'democracy' in the middle east so far, I would not dare judging how it works yet.

    Also, religious nuts in the US have a surprisingly big say in the way how things are run. Any gay person in the US can tell you how wonderfully their civil rights are respected by christians.
    You seriously think Lewk gives a shit about gays?

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Momo View Post
    You seriously think Lewk gives a shit about gays?
    I don't know if he gives a shit about anybody besides his closest circle. I do know he is not a bigot.
    Congratulations America

  15. #15
    You've answered my question.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Exactly and the people over there like to vote in crazy nutters who deprive people of liberty.
    Like when the United States voted to maintain the institution of human slavery when we first dabbled with democracy?

    Careful with the stone-throwing there.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Exactly and the people over there like to vote in crazy nutters who deprive people of liberty.
    But, this goes to my waffle comment. US military aid to Egypt will be taken out, damn the treaties, the moment nutcases start running the show... if so, Egypt will become inconsequential. "Here's the new boss, same as the old boss"... or so I hope.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    But, this goes to my waffle comment. US military aid to Egypt will be taken out, damn the treaties, the moment nutcases start running the show... if so, Egypt will become inconsequential. "Here's the new boss, same as the old boss"... or so I hope.
    Sorry to pop your dream but Egypt will never be irrelevant in the region.
    Congratulations America

  19. #19
    But Hazir, didn't you know every country loses it's relevance in the region once the US pulls out, just look at Iran after the Islamic revo.. oh.. erm.. wait.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    But Hazir, didn't you know every country loses it's relevance in the region once the US pulls out, just look at Iran after the Islamic revo.. oh.. erm.. wait.
    Iran. Has. Oil.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Iran. Has. Oil.
    Egypt.Has.Suez.
    Congratulations America

  22. #22
    So? We'll just take it from them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •