Just what does a Muslim democracy entail?

I appreciate that the Muslim Brotherhood claims it represents a third option, neither secular democracy nor authoritarian theocracy.

But, what does that mean? We still don't know in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the Taliban would win elections today; it won acclamations or whatever in the past. We had a brief Muslim democracy in Algeria in the past.

I mean, I'm not Faux News paranoid about the Muslim Brotherhood, or even close to it. But, I'm not buying that it's all sweetness and light, either; there's a PR line that's being told to us.

Let's put it this way: If I said "Christian democracy" I could go one of two ways. Were I in Europe, I'd be thinking Angela Merkel. Were I in the U.S., I'd be thinking Sarah Palin.

While I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood is Sarah Palin, I don't think it's Angela Merkel either. And, it's at least as close to Palin as it is to Merkel, I'm guessing.

Muslim Brotherhood - incompetent, not evil

As we wonder if and when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will depart and who will replace him, one question in the air is: What of the Muslim Brotherhood? Is it eeevvulll like neocons say?

Anthropologist and scholar of religion Scott Atran says it's incompetent, if anything, so such co-opting is unlikely. And, Atran says it's a "carpetbagger" as much as some claim ElBaradei is:

Ever since its founding in 1928 as a rival to Western-inspired nationalist movements that had failed to free Egypt from foreign powers, the Muslim Brotherhood has tried to revive Islamic power. Yet in 83 years it has botched every opportunity. In Egypt today, the Brotherhood counts perhaps some 100,000 adherents out of a population of over 80 million. And its failure to support the initial uprising in Cairo on Jan. 25 has made it marginal to the spirit of revolt now spreading through the Arab world.

That said, Atran adds that this is two wrongs definitely not making a right.

This error was compounded when the Brotherhood threw in its lot with ElBaradei, the former diplomat and Nobel Prize winner. (W)hen ElBaradei strode into Tahrir Square, many ignored him and few rallied to his side despite the enormous publicity he was receiving in the Western press. The Brotherhood realized that in addition to being late, it might be backing the wrong horse.

Very, very interesting.

If this is all the case, then how did we get here? Atran goes on, to talk about exactly that:

The British, King Farouk, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar el-Sadat all faced the same problem that Hisham Kaseem, a newspaper editor and human rights activist, described playing out under Mr. Mubarak. “If people met in a cafe and talked about things the regime didn’t like, he would just shut down the cafe and arrest us,” Mr. Kaseem said. “But you can’t close mosques, so the Brotherhood survived.”

If Egyptians are given political breathing space, Mr. Kaseem told me, the Brotherhood’s importance will rapidly fade. “In this uprising the Brotherhood is almost invisible,” Mr. Kaseem said, “but not in America and Europe, which fear them as the bogeyman.”

Atran adds that, in the wake of 9/11, President Mubarak had good reason to demonize the Brotherhood as well as pump up its alleged size — that meant more military aid from Bush, and more of a license to crush dissent of all stripes. Which he did in spades.

Kaseem wants his countrymen to go slow on the transition, too:

“Egypt is missing instruments essential to any functioning democracy and these must be established in the transition period — an independent judiciary, a representative Parliament, an open press,” Mr. Kaseem said. “If you try to push democracy tomorrow we’ll end up like Mauritania or Sudan,” both of which in recent decades have had coups on the heels of democratic elections.

If there's enough people like him around, there's hope for Egypt's future indeed.

Egypt 1-31 — what's next?

First, will Egyptians really accept Mohamed ElBaradei as possible leader of a new government, or will they treat him as a Johnny-come-lately and carpetbagger?

Meanwhile, with the Egyptian military, for now at least, not firing on protesters, this may not be just an academic question.

And, Salon has an excellent piece on ElBaradei's partner, for now at least, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Time frame? I would say that, by the end of this week, President Hosni Mubarak is either back in the saddle firmly, or else negotiating an exit.

Egypt, the U.S., Mubarak, 9/11, Arab democracy

Ross Douthat, in what might just be his best column ever, completes a circle of sorts by reminding us that the U.S.'s continued propping up of Mubarak was surely a major factor in 9/11. Remember, mastermind Mohamed Atta, among others, was Egyptian. He notes that the thuggish nature of Mubarak's crackdown on the Muslim Brotehrhood, as we turned a blind eye to that, caused people like Atta to develop.

The column is good enough, as far as it goes.

But, it gets better, as he calls out the neocons and other democracy-promoting idealists who lose their idealism when Islamic political parties become part of the mix. Or, when other things don't go according to the plans on paper.

I'm making a long, deserved, quote:

The memory of Nasser is a reminder that even if post-Mubarak Egypt doesn’t descend into religious dictatorship, it’s still likely to lurch in a more anti-American direction. The long-term consequences of a more populist and nationalistic Egypt might be better for the United States than the stasis of the Mubarak era, and the terrorism that it helped inspire. But then again they might be worse. There are devils behind every door.

Americans don’t like to admit this. We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.

But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.

Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic. History has its upward arcs, but most crises require weighing unknowns against unknowns, and choosing between competing evils.

To me, this is another part of American exceptionalism — the idea that American politics, and foreign policy, is so great that other nations should just automatically line up. It's also another part of American exceptionalism — that the general public, as well as the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, can maintain directly contradictory ideas in place at the same time, because we're America, dammit.

ElBaradei, Muslim Brotherhood rapproach in Egypt

Both the New York Times and Ha'aretz from Israel report that Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Muslim Brotherhood have reached rapproachment on forming a national unity government, broad based, to include everybody but current Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's National Democratic Party.

From Ha'aretz:

"I have been authorized -- mandated -- by the people who organized these demonstrations and many other parties to agree on a national unity government," (ElBaradei) told CNN.

The NYT notes that ElBaradei is not afraid to call out the Obama Administration for continuing to prop up Mubarak.

“It’s better for President Obama not to appear that he is the last one to say to President Mubarak, it’s time for you to go,” Dr. ElBaradei said.

Given how he refused to sign off on BushCo bullshit in Iraq, while running the IAEA, this should be of no surprise.

It is seeming more and more clear that the police aren't strongly in Mubarak's corner. The military, with hardware largely paid for by the U.S., still seems strong for the moment. But, remember, Nicholas II lost the gendarmes first, then the military, in 1917.

So, too, did a certain Reza Pahlavi in 1979. Will Mubarak's path follow the late Shah of Iran's, who, ironically, lived his last days in Egypt, which led the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, which put Mubarak in power?

Former President Jimmy Carter, who is certainly in a position to remember Iran and the Shah's fall in 1979, agrees that Mubarak is eventually likely to go.

And, speaking of that, will ElBaradei pull this off? Or, will Mubarak try to co-opt him, to make him, in essence, Egypt's Shapour Bakhtiar? I doubt ElBaradei can be co-opted. If we were talking about former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, that would be different. Indeed, that might be Mubarak's next move.

And, Ross Douthat completes a circle of sorts by reminding us that the U.S.'s continued propping up of Mubarak was surely a major factor in 9/11. Remember, mastermind Mohamed Atta, among others, was Egyptian.

However, it is possible that ElBaradie could be undercut by the Brotherhood at some point, and become Egypt's equivalent of Abolhassan Banisadr.

Meanwhile, here's more on Omar Suleman, the thuggish CIA pal that Mjbarak has lined up to replace him, it seems.

And, further meanwhile, here's Hillary Clinton pushing for "real democracy" in Egypt. (Muslim parties, of course, need not apply.)