Like Reihan and Alex Massie, I’ve been curious to know what Reuel Marc Gerecht — former CIA officer, Islam expert, and robust supporter of Arab democracy — thinks about the extraordinary events convulsing Egypt. Gerecht combines a staunch belief in the inevitability of Middle East democratization with a sober-minded realism about its probable consequences. Back in the heady “Arab Spring” days of 2005 — before Iraq became an abattoir of sectarian bloodletting, before an Islamist group captured roughly 20 percent of all seats in the Egyptian national assembly, and before the Palestinians elected Hamas — he rebuffed the notion that somehow the region could embrace genuine democratic pluralism while keeping religious fundamentalists on the sidelines. “The history of democratic Christendom,” Gerecht wrote in The Weekly Standard, suggests that “you don’t get to arrive at Thomas Jefferson unless you first pass through Martin Luther.”
In other words, during the infant stages of Arab democracy, we should not anticipate a dominant performance by the secular liberals popular among Washington think-tankers. The political success of devout Muslims will trigger all manner of alarm in Western capitals. (Witness the reaction to Iraq’s first free elections, which empowered a slew of religious parties.) Yet Gerecht argues that, over the long haul, drawing Islamic fundamentalists into the cross-pollinating world of democratic competition is essential to defusing the ideological appeal of jihadism.
What about the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, which Gerecht has described as “the fount of all Sunni fundamentalists”? The Brotherhood represents Egypt’s “most organized non-state political force,” observes Noah Millman. In the 2005 national elections, its candidates (running as “independents”) secured approximately one-fifth of all parliamentary seats, despite violent government harassment at the polls. Under a truly free, democratic political order, wouldn’t Brotherhood influence balloon? And wouldn’t that be a disaster?
“I fully expect the Muslim Brotherhood to do well in any election,” Gerecht tells me. “They have a fairly substantial following.” He has no illusions about the group’s Islamist agenda, or about its virulent anti-Americanism, or about its hatred of Israel. In his view, calling for U.S. “engagement” with the Brotherhood is like calling for engagement with Ayatollah Khamenei. But Gerecht insists that allowing Brotherhood members to participate in a democratic process is the sine qua non of Egyptian political maturation. The country will never achieve real progress, he says, without first creating the political space necessary for a momentous debate over God and man. Indeed, Egypt’s secular liberals must defeat the Islamists in the public square, rather than through military repression. They must win the battle of ideas.
For decades, Gerecht notes, U.S. policymakers of all stripes nurtured the hope that an “Arab Atatürk” would emerge to catalyze piecemeal liberalization within the stable confines of an autocratic system. This way, the theory went, democratization could unfold gradually, and the threat of an Islamist election victory would be neutralized. It was a nice idea. Unfortunately, the Arab Atatürk has proved to be a chimera. While U.S. officials were waiting for Godot, brutal dictatorships were creating fertile ground for jihadist recruitment.
Take the Mubarak regime. No doubt, its maintenance of the 1979 Egypt–Israel peace treaty has greatly bolstered regional stability, and its adoption of prudent economic reforms has aided GDP growth. Yet its iron-fisted subjugation of the Brotherhood and other Islamists contributed significantly to the development of al-Qaeda, and its pragmatic approach to Israel should not be confused with an enlightened attitude toward Jews. Under Mubarak’s watch, says Gerecht, Egypt has become the Middle East’s leading bastion of anti-Semitism, which functions as “a currency of legitimacy” for the ruling government.
Still, shouldn’t we be profoundly nervous about a post-Mubarak transition? “It is unquestionably going to be a rollercoaster ride for the United States,” Gerecht admits. “This is the price you pay when a detested authoritarian regime is the indispensable pillar of stability in the Middle East.” Among Arab countries, Egypt boasts the oldest liberal tradition; but that tradition has been pulverized by the dictatorship. Gerecht stresses that the Muslim Brotherhood has “evolved” considerably and is far from a monolithic bloc. Yet he also acknowledges that Western fears of a Brotherhood-led government are amply justified.
While democratic elections do not necessarily promote stability — indeed, they can dramatically disrupt short-term stability — they do “allow for the evolution of these societies.” Luckily for us, Gerecht adds, the democratic wave is crashing before the Muslim Middle East goes nuclear. Our biggest concern isn’t really the outcome of the first free Egyptian election; it’s preventing the cancellation or theft of the second free election (and the third, and the fourth, etc.).
If Egyptians voted the Brotherhood into a position of serious power, that would generate a kaleidoscope of problems for America and Israel (and Egypt). No serious analyst should pretend otherwise. But Gerecht’s logic is inescapable: You can’t have authentic Egyptian democracy while disenfranchising the country’s largest opposition movement. If you aren’t willing to countenance Brotherhood electoral participation, you shouldn’t be demanding representative government.
On balance, then, the nascent Egyptian revolution holds both great promise and great peril. Speaking to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius at the World Economic Forum retreat in Davos, an Egyptian business executive said of regime change in his home country, “Long term, it’s good; short term, it’s bad.”
I think that Gerecht and Currie have this exactly right. Of course there are insane psycopaths who will try to take control, but not everyone is irrational. All we need are Muslims that we can do business with. When the money starts flowing and living standards start to rise, we'll see who stays in power. This is a battle we can win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, Gerecht is correct. However, that does not mean that the US can not encourage, and promote, a transition that is less likely to be violent. A violent transition in non-westernized cultures is more likely to result in a power vacuum that will be filled by the most organized (and often ruthless and anti-American) political faction.
As alluded to in the piece, there is a fear that there will be one election, one time. However, over time, the new autocratic 'reform' government is likely to be overthrown. Of course, the problem then becomes what sort of problems will this new gov't cause in the short run.
PS..An additional problem is that the US might be unwilling or unable to continue to be the world's preeminent military power. If that happens, both the short and long-run will be disastrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“you don’t get to arrive at Thomas Jefferson unless you first pass through Martin Luther.” The problem is in the Muslim world any "Martin Luther" who pops up, has his head lopped off! This provides a powerful incentive for the Martin Luther's of Islam to be quiet, which in turn keeps the hard line Islamist organizations in power. As shown in Iran, US/Western influence has little to no influence on their theocracy. What would one expect when that theocracy is getting their guidance directly from Allah? Hard for democratic values to compete with that direct guidance from the almighty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne big spanner in the works of this theory: What if the Muslim Brotherhood use democracy as a means to their own authoritarian regime?
Democratic reforms have to come with some constraints on the Brotherhood's potential for control. Otherwise, we'll see some version of what's happening in Turkey, or worse, Iran.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@RNCCritic - "but not everyone is irrational"
Perhaps not "everyone is irrational" in the West, but the Middle East is not the West.
I served two tours in Iraq. In both tours, I was struck by antisemitism that dominates the region, and touches virtually every aspect of everyday life for the average Arab. You could engage a tribal leader, a person of great community standing, on a host of issues, and they would indeed be very rational, and civil if also occasionally passionate. BUT, it seemed that eventually, every one of the meetings would devolve into a "blame the Jews" seminar.
Rantings about the "Zionists" that are so paranoid and delusional that they would universally be diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder here in the states, are common place there.
I think most Americans that haven't traveled to the region (and I don't mean the touristy areas) have no idea about the extent, and fervor, that antisemtic sentiments (sentiments is not a strong enough word, foundational beliefs would be a better phrase) are held across the regions.
While it's likely, perhaps even certain, that Gerecht is right about the long term (50+ years) net-positive effect this will have on Egypt and the region, the shorter term implications for Israel are very, very dire and perhaps even unsurvivable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, this is an extremely important column and thank you for marshaling Gerecht's very telling points and your own insights. What most troubles me is whether the Muslim Brotherhood and its spawn will allow that debate over God and man "in the public square" without squelching the liberal secularists by that ever-popular Islamic tool, assassination as a "teaching moment." I, too have hopes for the long term, but the short term may be a very bloddy one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Muslim Brotherhood equates to the Reformation?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy Lutheran friends would be somewhat surprised.
The idea that introducing a lethal contagion like radical Islam, which is anathema to a freely functioning democracy, into the actual workings of a political system will moderate it should meet with the same success as chowing down on a pound or two of anthrax in order for our bodies to neutralize it.
Both Catholicism and Protestantism have proven themselves adaptable and amenable to and protective of liberal democracy. A very strong case can be made that they made it possible.
None of the above is true of Islam and sharia. They are fundamentally opposed to liberal democracy and governance by the consent of the governed in a way Christianity never has been from its inception.
I completely agree with Duncan. In the short term, it is a disaster. In the long term, who knows. We saw what happened when Iran was taken over by an Islamic government. It is extraordinarily hard to displace an Islamic government because Islam is way, way beyond just a religion; it is a complete way of life. It is not democracy when you get to vote just once.
Until we have a strategy for either defeating Islam or transforming it into something that is civilized, we have to prevent Islamic governments. Obviously Obama is not remotely prepared to deal with this so it will probably end up a complete fiasco. We should try to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power, hang on until an acceptable successor for Mubarak is found. Mubarak has to realize there is the potential for him turning into a pull toy for the mobs if he hangs on to long. His job now is to try to figure out a succession plan that will work with his people. Most likely somebody from the military is the best choice right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuncan, my apologies re attributing your excellent piece to Jonah. I was composing a note to him on another matter and... well. Meanwhile, I am trying to muster up a more hopeful attitude about RNCCritic's "Muslims we can do business with."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The problem is in the Muslim world any "Martin Luther" who pops up, has his head lopped off! This provides a powerful incentive for the Martin Luther's of Islam to be quiet, which in turn keeps the hard line Islamist organizations in power. "
------------
I don't think you quite understand the analogy. The piece is analogizing Luther, as a fundamentalist, to the Muslim Brotherhood, while Jefferson is used as an analogue for the secular liberals the Wilsonians hope eventually win out in a democratic Egypt. The piece was not holding up a Muslim Luther as a moderating, liberalizing, or otherwise positive force but rather an inescapable evil on any path to full-fledged Egyptian democracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey don't need a Luther, they need a Garibaldi.
Jefferson wouldn't have been possible in Europe (perhaps England). The power wasn't wrested completely from Canon Law until Garibaldi (and Victor Emmanual II) finally freed the Papal States by means of force. France had to pull her military out as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the big scheme of things it is in Americas interest to do what is best for America. To let the ball bounce up in the air and hope it goes our way in "the long run" is childish. I hope our CIA/State dept doesn't think this way. I hope they still have enough old timers from the cold war around.
In Iran the right soultion would have been to forment regime change, in Egypt not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSometimes you can have favorable outcomes for all involved and sometimes you can't but what is most important is that we have a favorable outcome for the USA.
More Wilsonian utopian nonsense. Currie and Gerecht are taking a (tendentious) interpretation of Christian-European history and just assuming it's universally applicable.
Reality: even if the West HAD developed according to Gerecht's storyline, that would be exactly one data point. It does not follow that Muslim and other non-western societies are going to have their own "reformations" and "enlightenments." To assume that they will is laughable on its face.
I hate to harp on this, but we're really in bad shape if utopianism jibberish like this is what passes nowadays for conservative thought.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Arab Atatürk”
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo all so called expert. “Atatürk” must be turning on his
grave. After 80 years of force modernization All his reforms are being dismantled piece by piece. Let's face it Islam will not accept modernity. Until the Islamists are defeated, the same way Hitler was. The will be no peace.
So this is NRO? Parroting anti-Catholic bigotry? Oh sure, I realize it's more historical ignorance and intellectual laziness than a conscious hatred of Christ and His Church, but you've arrived at the same place.
Perhaps an NRO contributor who is not an anti-Catholic bigot could explain how offensive is the comparison between the authentic Catholic faith and an Islamism that oppresses its adherents and terrorizes its neighbors.
And maybe someone there with a base of historical knowledge and understanding that goes beyond the most simplistic Whig Version of History, American Style, could explain why "you don’t get to arrive at Vladimir Lenin unless you first pass through Martin Luther” would be more accurate. Or you could deconstruct the Jefferson mythos, but we wouldn't want to make Christopher Hitchens cry.
Gerecht's article was intelligent and informative, but the part you chose to focus on deserved fisking, not praise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The problem is in the Muslim world any "Martin Luther" who pops up, has his head lopped off!"
The real problem is that every Muslim believer is his own Martin Luther. Islam is the original sola scriptura religion. There is no clergy or church or other institutional authority commanding religious assent to a particular interpretation of the Muslim scriptures. So if you're a violent jihadist and you hear that some prominent "cleric" condemns terrorism (not that you're likely to hear that very often, alas), you won't be overly troubled because the so-called cleric has his interpretation of scripture and you have yours. Bombs away.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm going to stand with those that say that radical Islam is an anathema to any form of secular liberal democracy. It's simply not possible.
Scott Wilson above has a good handle on it. My ex-husband served twice in Iraq, Civil Affairs. He can attest that these people simply do not have the same foundation for a society that we do. Anti-Semitic? Yes. And right now incapable of understanding the foundation of the kind of liberal democracy we have in this country.
As some other person on the Right has been asking lately - Can Man Rule Himself? And I say, Yes, and agree with that person - if he educates himself, enlightens himself and empowers himself.
Otherwise, he will be the subject of someone else's rule.
I would love it if everyone lived in countries where they ruled themselves as we do. But it takes organic change, something from within to do that.
The Muslim Brotherhood will win and they will impose an Islamic state. Groups like radical Muslims are not interested in education, enlightenment or empowerment. They are for Sharia law, law coming down from Allah and not to be questioned. How do you get from that to a liberal democracy as we have in the U.S.?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseislam is a religion of oppression and tyranny. Liberty and any notion of democracy will never take root. Any nation that is westernized or free in the muslim world will not last. Instead it will be blown away in the winds of shariah lunacy. And the direction is tyranny now and forever. See Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, now Egypt and Jordan. From secular democracies or quasi-safe dictatorships to militant theocracies. muslims will never be free as long as they are muslim.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce Islam gets a lock on a nation there is no letting go. Islam is ruthlessly authoritarian and totalitarian. Pew Polls have 84% of Egyptians favoring the death penalty for Muslims who leave Islam. It is impossible to build a sane society from that rootstock, unless perhaps that number would rapidly decrease if the people felt safer voicing their true opinions.
It would be more accurate to say that you don't get to Jefferson unless you go through Christ, the one who freed us from the letter, which kills, and opened us to the Spirit that gives life. But as true as that is, even that does injustice in its comparison of Islam to Judaism.
My solution: pray for these societies, that the light of Christ would break through. Indeed, it is happening, though mostly under radar for obvious reasons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I agree with the underlying ideas expressed in this piece, and think that ultimately Egypt will choose a secular democratic model of government, I still believe that no republican form of government, similar to our own in the US, will be able to rise as long as there are a substantial amount of Muslims that firmly believe in the Quranic notion that essentially restricts righteous form of governance to Islamic theocracies.
In that vein, I believe that Iraq may be the more likely candidate as being a model for the region. This is because the two major branches of Islam necessarily need to coexist there if the society is to thrive; much as in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Only a similar reconciliation will enable all Muslims to relegate spirituality to the individual place it occupies in western societies, and develop the notion of personal freedoms and a completely secular government based on the will of those governed rather than by the dictates of any particular religious sect and the concomiatant absolute moral authority, in all matters, that they claim stems from God.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse