then everything else is noise in Egypt

The key point from the Schmitt in Cairo perspective is adduced by Mustapha Ajbaili, writing in Al Arabiya:

In between the polarizing views, lies the reality that many choose to ignore. The Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized and powerful group in the country. All other forces are divided and in many instances have failed to consolidate their efforts to provide a viable alternative.

Any analysis of the current Egyptian moment that does not explain, any proposal that does not confront, and any criticism, prognostication, or moralistic condemnation that does not comprehend this fact – if indeed it is a fact, as seems likely – is an argument for social-political disintegration, and will sooner or later will be swept aside.


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

13 comments on “then everything else is noise in Egypt

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Well they do, that is rather clear, Arabia was not naturally Wahhabi, either, they had gaps under Ottoman tutelage, in part due to inflighting between factions

  2. it’s may turn out not to be fact at all……any any analysis that posits the MB as being most powerful because it’s “not divided” is only dealing out a dubiety .

    of course, other folk would agree with the more traditional view that the armed forces in Egypt is by far the most powerful group….

    • Depends on how you define “power.” It may flow from the barrel of a gun, but someone has to give the orders. The armed forces, by their omissions, have already admitted that they can’t/won’t rule on their own behalf, though they will step in to prevent total disintegration. That makes Egypt no different from every other country on Earth.

      • the armed forces, by their omission, ceased ruling directly after 60 years or so of so doing……that doesn’t mean that they’re now without political activity or that they’ve shed any great part of their power

        • Except it wasn’t some abstraction “the armed forces” that ruled: It was particular individuals and autocrats capable of commanding obedience and treated as legitimate. That’s what gave them political power. That seems to be over. If SCAF or some other military configuration moved to re-assert control by short-circuiting the political/revolutionary/constitutional process, it would face the real prospect of disintegration – loss of external support, loss of discipline, fracturing, even civil war – though a total descent into anarchy and violence might set a predicate for a re-legitimation of military rule under whatever window dressing.

  3. There is no process, more often then not, the liberal faction was not able to influence things, the last time was Zaghoul in 1924-25, Mahfouz illustrates how it was that his step down was taken in Palace Walk, the Brotherhood came to note, not long after that, the military has been in charge since 1952, when they arose as the Free Officers withe the concurrence of the Brotherhood, but they quickly found themselves at odds,

    • Don’t see where you get that. I’ve avoided offering any characterization of the MB. I have only secondhand evidence related by obviously biased sources. In some fantasy reality, I might prefer a liberal democratic Egypt, but no one’s asking me, I don’t live there, the broad electorate gave a majority to the Islamists, and most of the rest of the vote to the felool. The future of Egypt one way or another seems to involve coming out the other side of authoritarianism, religious and otherwise, not the imposition of readymade liberal democratic and Western capitalist culture.

      There is a strain of contradiction running through that otherwise informative article. We’re told that the MB exercises an iron grip on dissent and systematically pre-empts it, yet the chief evidence other than the cursory description of indoctrination and internal hierarchies is the rise of dissenters, including at the highest levels.

  4. They have a purpose, and I take them at their word, they have been waiting more than 80 years, for this opportunity, and they mean to take advantage of it, the Ikwan said they would not field a candidate, they did, they said they would contest 30% of the districts, they did 70%, we’ve seen this story time and time again, it does not end well.

  5. The question, is over tactics, now frankly some in the Brotherhood, are probably a little ticked at Morsy, for validating the opposition’s misgivings, the subterfuge was supposed to go on for a while longer, till they could arrange their own version of
    Ergonokon,

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins