When the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt obtained 88 seats in the 2005 parliamentary elections, despite the blatant fraud and the support of all state services for the candidates of the then ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), it was said at the time that electors had exercised punitive voting, and given their votes to the Muslim Brotherhood in order to spite the NDP and punish it for its corruption and the poor state of government affairs under its leadership. The expression was promoted by the NDP itself as well as by secular forces, who were opposed to both the ruling party and the Islamists, and who did not realize at the time that the result of the competition between them and Islamist candidates in the absence of the NDP would have a greater impact on them, unless the candidates of the Islamist movement have achieved such an astonishing result in the first phase of the recent elections through a punitive vote as well, or that electors have given their votes to the Muslim Brotherhood in order to spite the Liberals!! The biggest mistake that was made, and is still being made, by secular forces opposed to the Islamists in general, and to the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, is their focus on the latter's flaws, on the Salafists' mistakes and on the dangers of Islamist rule, without presenting themselves to people as alternative forces that put forth programs and solutions to the problems citizens suffer from. And regardless of the “alcohol and bikini” campaign adopted by these forces to frighten people from the rule of Islamists, and of the frequent focus of television channels owned by businessmen affiliated with the Liberal movement on fishing for a passing stance by a Muslim Brotherhood figure or a Salafist preacher on the basis that this would repulse people from the Islamists and bring them closer to the Liberals, such methods have, inasmuch as they have frightened some people, also ended up in favor of the Islamists, not just because the Egyptian people's cause is unconnected to banning alcohol or outlawing bikinis, but also because people in general sympathize with those who face an organized campaign targeting them. And this is what the results of the first phase of Egypt's parliamentary elections expressed. Indeed, the campaign only frightened those who were frightened already. It is true that it increased the fears of the Copts for example from the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, but the Copts are not one of the voting blocs loyal to the Brotherhood to begin with. The scene now is as if the secular forces' media, whether through satellite television or social media websites, is talking to itself and bringing no added value, in fact benefiting the opposite side – just like defective weapons that one buys to fight one's enemy, only to find them blowing up in one's face. Adding to this arsenal of defective weapons are some prominent Liberal figures, who speak or behave poorly, imagining, when they make some fiery statements, that they are being of service to their movement, while in fact dealing it a lethal blow. And with the exception of a few attempts at coordination to lessen the competition between the prominent figures of secular forces in the second and third phases of the elections and to confront the candidates of the Islamist movement, it does not seem that these forces have changed many of their strategies, altered the mechanisms they use or learned from their mistakes. Indeed, they have justified their defeat in the first phase by claiming that Islamist candidates had committed violations, distributed electoral bribes, made use of mosques to promote themselves, or played on religion to deceive competitors. All of the latter are practices that were engaged in by some of the candidates of secular forces, without them realizing that people are well aware of this. Even when signs of a confrontation between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military over the powers the next parliament will hold, the articles of the constitution and the constituent assembly that will draft them, secular forces did not adopt a stance consistent with their principles, ideas and goals, out of fear that this would be interpreted as rapprochement between them and the Military Council! Rather, they chose to pour more oil on the fire of the conflict, and thus appeared powerless and lacking a stance, only to suffer another defeat when matters settled down between the Brotherhood and the military. Yes, satellite television, social media websites, fishing for mistakes or even making allegations may be of use as auxiliary weapons for secular forces to confront the march of the Islamists to power. Yet the greater mistake is that those forces have sufficed themselves with such weapons and believed them to hold reasons to win over people's votes. They thus seemed as if they had relied on Molotov cocktails to confront adversaries who hold weapons of mass destructions. In the end, the decision will remain with the street, and ballot-boxes will remain the arbiter between the forces competing for power, and the road to the electoral committees is not paved with defective weapons.
