The Muslim Brotherhood’s About Face

A press conference announcing the Muslim Brotherhood's endorsement of Khairat al-Shater

After promising for months that they would not put forth a candidate in the presidential elections, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood shocked many when it announced that Khairat Al-Shater, the millionaire business man and influential financier of the movement, would present his candidacy for presidency. While Shater himself is accustomed to the limelight, and the Muslim Brotherhood has the potential to cash in on this popularity come election time, their decision has sparked controversy with many questioning the organization’s motives for reneging on their earlier promise not to participate in the elections.

The timing is problematic. After all, the movement spent most of last year attempting to discourage its members from participating in the elections – a policy most clearly expressed with the case of Abd al-Moneim Abou el Futouh and his break with the organization. It was not the most tactful moment to announce this about-face, as the organization has lost some popularity in Egypt over concerns that they break promises too often in their efforts to advance the organization’s political ambitions. Already, a number of liberals and independents have boycotted the national assembly over what they argue is the Islamist’s unjust domination over the writing of the constitution. This accusation has evolved into a more conspiratorial theory which argues that the decision of the Brotherhood is part of a deal with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) which would allow the two groups to create a power sharing agreement in the future.

Given the tensions already in place in Egypt and the organization’s longstanding concern that it is perceived as trying to dominate the country’s bourgeoning political system, it is surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood would be willing to invite these types of criticisms at such a critical time. The decision by the Muslim Brotherhood to renege thus appears to be their response to both the opportunities and pressures that have gradually arisen in Egypt’s political scene.

As it has been generally observed, the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming increasingly willing to exert is power and has taken the necessary actions to protect its interests since the onset of the revolution, and particularly since its strong performance in last year’s elections. With a majority in the National Assembly and in Parliament, the next venue for political victory is the presidency. As such it is logical that the organization would want a candidate whose interests are most in line with their own, and who better to represent those interest than a leading member of their organization rather than an independent whose ideology is merely similar to their own.

This opportunity, however, is not all that motivated the Brotherhood to participate in the elections. An important factor that surely led to its decision is its relationship with the SCAF. However it is the nature of that relationship and whether the Brotherhood feels threatened or empowered by the SCAF that is up for debate. To summarize the both conflicting and at times compatible interests between the two, Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy (FP) explained in a recent article that some Islamist leaders fear the army may again crack down on Islamists and reassert authoritarian rule. This suspicion has been greatly heightened by those who feel that the Brotherhood has attempted to use its parliamentary power to exert some control over the SCAF while the military has in turn blocked parliamentary action. This stalemate has inevitably encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood to increase their presence in government.

On the other side of this argument are many critics who beleive that rather than responding to a threat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision represents the “culmination of a long-standing collusion between the Brotherhood and the SCAF.” According to this theory, the Muslim Brotherhood will be given the presidency in exchange for the protection of the military elite’s core interests. While proponents of the conspiratorial theory argue that the evidence for the SCAF-Brotherhood alliance lie in the Brotherhood’s reluctance to criticize the SCAF’s performance or hold it accountable for the deaths of protestors, the tension observed between the two organizations in recent months seems to refute the possibility that the two are secretly working together. Even then there are many that insist these confrontations are part of a bluff and that if the army was truly against an Al-Shater presidency, then he would have never been pardoned. While the dominance the Muslim Brotherhood has acquired in the political scene is significant, the conspiratorial theory is problematic because all evidence (even that which appears to contradict their theory) is automatically spun in such a way that supports their claim. After all, the Muslim Brotherhood has recently put forth an alternate candidate in case Al-Shater is ineligible to run because of his former conviction.

In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood’s murky relationship with the SCAF it has been suggested that there is an international incentive for the Brotherhood to present a candidate in the elections. According to Zvika Kriger of The Atlantic Monthly there are a number of international player’s whose interest are in conflict with those of the organization. The Unites States, with its recent waver for aid to Egypt and its deal over the NGO affair, is unwilling to compromise its long-standing relationship with the military. Meanwhile, some Gulf leaders are uneasy with the Muslim Brotherhood’s position in Egypt’s political scene. Under these circumstances the Muslim Brotherhood would be less comfortable with a President that “would use these tensions in the country’s foreign relations to domestic ends”.

Though it is likely that the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision came about as a result of both the opportunities and threats that it perceives in Egypt’s political scene, the question remains, was the nomination of a candidate a good idea? It is possible that in nominating a candidate, the Brotherhood has given its opponents the ammunition they required to discredit the organization (with accusations such as its alleged conspiracy with the military). Instead of supporting the image that the Brotherhood is on a quest for hegemony at all costs, they might have considered the option of a supporting a sympathetic but independent candidate. Although the outcome of the elections is uncertain, the organization should keep in mind that by dominating all branches of government it will be accountable on all fronts on the future of the country including the economy and society in the context of a complicated transition.