Nov 26, 2012

Following his recent edict granting himself unprecedented powers, President Mohammed Morsi addressed his supporters in front of the presidential palace — the place originally chosen by Mubarak to serve as the formal presidential building — declaring that he would “cure Egypt from the woodworms.” This particular remark sums up his attitude toward the current crisis: the president and his ruling party view their opponents as woodworm beetles in need of removal.

For anyone who is following closely and understands the history of the country and the ruling party, the Muslim Brotherhood, the recent events should not come as a huge surprise. It should be seen as an inevitable outcome in a country that is still seduced by selfish politics that aim for dominance rather than unity. Although the Brotherhood has undergone many changes to recast their image as “moderates” who support a democratic society, the group did not embrace any serious transformation of their way of thinking. The concept that “It is either me or them” is entrenched inside their mindset. There are some basic rules that have continued to govern its decision-making processes:

First, pragmatism is a tool that protects, rather than replaces, ideology. The pragmatism that Morsi has shown in negotiating the Gaza cease-fire between Israel and Hamas may have surprised many, particularly in the United States. This pragmatism is one of the Islamists’ tools to protect their beliefs when they sense that current conditions are not ripe to force a more preferable outcome. Their aim is rather to secure their basic foundation; pragmatism is the fleece that protects the ideology without compromising it.

Second, the Brotherhood is a monolithic entity. Many analysts argue passionately that the Brotherhood is not a monolithic group and that there are a variety of principles and beliefs among its members. That is true but with clear limits to this diversity. The group can accept differences in opinion but only within certain boundaries. Individualism is not allowed in a group founded on obedience. Those who express strong opinions may be forced to leave the group.

Third, ambiguity is a policy. Since the revolution, the Brotherhood has adopted an approach of deliberate ambiguity in their dealings with the general public and with other political parties. They are always clear about what they are against but are much more elusive as to what they endorse. The phrase “civil state” is one example: the choice of words clearly rejects secularism, yet it does not specifically invoke the notion of an Islamic state. Their ambiguity was reflected in the deliberations over the new constitution, which is precisely why many non-Islamists group who wanted clear protection of liberties and rights within the new constitution were forced to quit the constitutional assembly.