Once again the Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood that is ruling in Egypt and Ennahda (Renaissance) Party in Tunisia, have proven their incapacity to go beyond the confines of ideology and to make use of the experiences of the past, or that they are unwilling to do so as long as they can cling to power. No one doubts that the Brotherhood and Ennahda have come to power thanks to the ballot boxes that gave them the majority. However, they did not understand one thing. It has to do with this popular mandate, which came under abnormal circumstances and within the framework of a transitional period, laying the foundations for the nature of the next regime after the former was toppled, except that it allowed the two parties to rule; And they have done this without any consideration for other forces in the country, and without any consideration for the fact that the coming phase is that of laying the foundations for a regime that cannot enjoy any kind of legitimacy, if it does not include, from the onset, a non return, in any way, shape or form, to any of the former dictatorial practices. This is an essential condition for establishing a new regime, which in itself includes the broadest possible recognition of other forces that contributed to toppling the former one, as well as the participation of all civil and democratic forces in the transitional period and in laying the foundations for the new rule. Yet the Islamists, whether ruling in Cairo or in Tunis, have succeeded, from day one, in doing away with this fundamental condition. In fact, they have considered that their political rivalry should be focused on secular, democratic and liberal forces. Making use of the accusation of being “remnants" (of the former regime) to smear some of these forces and exclude them from participation in the transitional period, the Islamists thus began to up the ante at “Islamizing" the constitution and the laws, reaching up to the “Islamization" of the state and its institutions. This is while considering it to be the way for them to remain in power and to maintain their hold on it. With such “Islamization", and with upping the ante at it, they assumed that they could attract allies from among other Islamists, such as Salafists and Jihadists, and win more votes in the ballot boxes. Then, they would put that to use, in order to cling to power and exclude others. On this path chosen by the Islamists for rule, the rift has increased between them and the civil and democratic constituents of society, who have found themselves in the same vicious circle of marginalization, which the former regime had driven them to. This is not just due to their presence in the opposition and to the fact that those in power do not wish to allow them to participate in the transitional period. It is also due to the fact that Islamists have sought after a new regime that leaves no place to anyone but them, by controlling, as the majority, the legislative process during the transitional period. In parallel to this, and perhaps even more dangerously, the Islamists have directly or indirectly “encouraged" radical Islamist forces, which have in turn begun to practice exclusion, especially through their stances and alliances on the eve of the elections, targetting secular forces at first, and then at the new regimethat is not sufficiently “Islamic" in their view. Thus, we witness the recurrence of possibly similar acts of violence in Egypt and Tunisia, including assassinations and the targeting of security forces. There was also a repeated exposure of terrorist cells connected to Al-Qaeda. In other words, the method of excluding civil forces and getting close to fundamentalists has turned against its makers at the end of the day ... This is what happened with the rule of the National Liberation Front (FLN – Front de Libération Nationale) in Algeria, which did away with civil society and ended up faced with only the Islamists, who fought against it before fighting amongst themselves through the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS – Front Islamique du Salut) and the Armed Islamic Group (GIA – Groupe Islamique Armé). Something similar occurred with the Islamic rule in Sudan, and then in Yemen, where former President Ali Abdullah Saleh went as far as to play the Al-Qaeda card in order to prevent change in his country. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is faced with the violence of radical and fundamentalist groups, old and new. The latter have come to form its prime security challenge, with the dangers this entails for the slogans that were raised during the Revolution, and for what little remains of an economic cycle, as well as in terms of returning to dictatorial rule under the pretext of “confronting terrorists". In addition, the same thing is being repeated with radical groups in Tunisia, where the leaders of Ennahda have begun to declare a “war on terror". Thus, the Brotherhood and Ennahda are adopting security measures to confront violence, exactly like the ones that used to be taken by the regimes of Hosni Mubarak and of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali... They have not learned anything.
