Amid all the euphoria that greeted last year’s Arab Spring and the events in Tahrir Square specifically, a terrifying thought lurked below the surface for many outside observers: what if Egypt is like Iran all over again?
In 1979, the Iranian people revolted against the country’s Shah, leading to his expulsion from the country. The uprising itself was not Islamic in nature, and there was great hope for freedom and democracy in Iran- much as there has been in Egypt over the past year. In Iran’s case, such hopes were soon dashed, as fundamentalists led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini consolidated power and built up an authoritarian Islamic government. Over 30 years later, that government continues to pose one of the greatest challenges to peace and security in the world today.
The fears of a reprisal of such a political nightmare were thus not to be taken lightly. Egypt, however, was supposed to be different: in its demographics, in its Islamic denomination (Sunni as opposed to Shia), and in the objectives of its people. Plus, the Muslim Brotherhood (the popular pick to push for a fundamentalist Islamic regime) was quick to quash speculation that it would make any kind of power grab, insisting, for instance, that it would not nominate a candidate for the presidential election.
Nominations for that election closed over the weekend, however, and, surprise surprise, the Muslim Brotherhood nominated not one but two candidates. Khairat al Shater, who has claimed that sharia law would be his “first and final” objective as president, is the group’s favourite, but the chairman of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, Mohamed Mursi, also filed his nomination papers as a hedge against the possibility that Shater is disqualified because of a criminal record amassed during the Hosni Mubarak years.
Meanwhile, the Brotherhood is working hard to limit its opposition in the political contest. Omar Suleiman, former Egyptian intelligence chief and briefly vice president at the end of the Mubarak era, filed his own nomination papers after a good deal of speculation concerning whether he would run. Shater reacted strongly to Suleiman’s candidacy, calling it “an insult to the revolution and the Egyptian people” and saying, “he will win only through forgery”, thus essentially delegitimizing any gains that Suleiman might make.
Additionally, Egypt’s parliament, controlled in the majority by Islamic factions, sought on Monday to prevent Suleiman’s bid on legalistic grounds, approving a bill banning former Mubarak regime figures from running for president. The bill was a thinly veiled preemptive strike directed at Suleiman as well as several others associated with the Mubarak government. For his part, Suleiman has responded that the Muslim Brotherhood has “lost a lot of its popularity.”
And so the maneuvering and posturing have begun in earnest in advance of the presidential elections that will be held at the end of May. The nomination period may have ended, but the question of who will actually remain on the ballot come election day is an open one (another hopeful’s candidacy may be in jeopardy because his mother possessed U.S. citizenship towards the end of her life).
The other, more consequential open question is to what kind of government the Islamic fundamentalists of Egypt aspire. The answer will play a major part in defining the politics of the Middle East in the coming years, because one thing seems quite clear: the region doesn’t need another Iran.
______
Matthew Frisch writes Foreign Desk for Toronto Standard. Follow him @mfrisch.
For more, follow us on Twitter at @TorontoStandard and subscribe to our newsletter.
