The votes are almost all counted and, in what has surprised me a little and disappointed most of my Egyptian friends a lot, it seems the two candidates to enter the run-off election at the end of June will be the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Mursi, and the Air Force/military candidate Ahmed Shawfiq. In other words, the two most polarizing candidates - the two on the most opposite side of the spectrum. I feel for my friends this morning, as already a number of them are distressed about who they might vote for next month: a candidate who mixes religion and politics more than they would like (Mursi), or a candidate who represents a return to the old regime (and, as some feel, a failure of every protest since the revolution)?
What I am disgusted with, however, is reading Western news - and, in particular, Western news readers' comments - on articles about this election and these results. Canadians, I am ashamed. I've been reading the Globe and Mail and the reader comments on the Egyptian election articles are hateful, spiteful, and utterly ignorant.
I think what we ought to be very aware of are generalizations here. The Muslim Brotherhood winning approximately 26% of the vote does not mean a "return to the Dark Ages," the beginnings of an Iranian-style theocracy, or "a move down the toilet bowl" (to quote a few of the more "civil" comments. Ha). 26% people... 26%! If we know our math, we realize that this is not close to half, obviously. Like Canadian politics, in which you have more than two parties running, the votes were split in this Egyptian election. Approximately 26% for Mursi and 24% for Shawfiq (again, approximately) means that not only did 75% of the population NOT vote for the Brotherhood, but 50% of them voted for more secular, liberal candidates like Sabahi and Moussa, or at least for the moderate religious candidate Abu al Fotouh (in fact, in Alexandria and Cairo, Sabahy took the most votes overall). To say that Egyptians are now in a decline in Iran's direction is not only factually untrue, but completely degrading and insulting to Egyptians. They deserve better than our ignorance!
In any case, even if Mursi does take it in the end, my opinion is that we need to wait and see. If the people decide it (as flawed as democracy is) than the Brotherhood needs to be given the chance to "put up or shut up" (i.e. prove themselves). Otherwise they will remain a spectre, haunting Egyptian politics and the Egyptian government forever. If banned, like Mubarak, they will only radicalize. There's a reason "free speech" is such a "sacred" thing in the West: it gets the views out there, and once out there, then the people can decide openly what to do with them. Usually it results in open criticism and moderation, often leading to reform. In any case, I also feel that if the Brotherhood turns into any kind of regime, the people will be out on the streets again. They did not come this far to be shut down again. Additionally, in my view, Shawfiq is as "dangerous" as Mursi, if not more, as he could easily represent (as I said) a complete return to autocracy and a police state. We're hypocrites to believe that's somehow "better" than what the Brotherhood might bring. Call me naieve, but I don't see a whole lot of other options out there right now.
Off my soapbox now...
What I am disgusted with, however, is reading Western news - and, in particular, Western news readers' comments - on articles about this election and these results. Canadians, I am ashamed. I've been reading the Globe and Mail and the reader comments on the Egyptian election articles are hateful, spiteful, and utterly ignorant.
I think what we ought to be very aware of are generalizations here. The Muslim Brotherhood winning approximately 26% of the vote does not mean a "return to the Dark Ages," the beginnings of an Iranian-style theocracy, or "a move down the toilet bowl" (to quote a few of the more "civil" comments. Ha). 26% people... 26%! If we know our math, we realize that this is not close to half, obviously. Like Canadian politics, in which you have more than two parties running, the votes were split in this Egyptian election. Approximately 26% for Mursi and 24% for Shawfiq (again, approximately) means that not only did 75% of the population NOT vote for the Brotherhood, but 50% of them voted for more secular, liberal candidates like Sabahi and Moussa, or at least for the moderate religious candidate Abu al Fotouh (in fact, in Alexandria and Cairo, Sabahy took the most votes overall). To say that Egyptians are now in a decline in Iran's direction is not only factually untrue, but completely degrading and insulting to Egyptians. They deserve better than our ignorance!
In any case, even if Mursi does take it in the end, my opinion is that we need to wait and see. If the people decide it (as flawed as democracy is) than the Brotherhood needs to be given the chance to "put up or shut up" (i.e. prove themselves). Otherwise they will remain a spectre, haunting Egyptian politics and the Egyptian government forever. If banned, like Mubarak, they will only radicalize. There's a reason "free speech" is such a "sacred" thing in the West: it gets the views out there, and once out there, then the people can decide openly what to do with them. Usually it results in open criticism and moderation, often leading to reform. In any case, I also feel that if the Brotherhood turns into any kind of regime, the people will be out on the streets again. They did not come this far to be shut down again. Additionally, in my view, Shawfiq is as "dangerous" as Mursi, if not more, as he could easily represent (as I said) a complete return to autocracy and a police state. We're hypocrites to believe that's somehow "better" than what the Brotherhood might bring. Call me naieve, but I don't see a whole lot of other options out there right now.
Off my soapbox now...
No comments:
Post a Comment