Political circles in Egypt and perhaps other countries have been busy recently with developments inside the Muslim Brotherhood, with regard to elections for the group's Guidance Office and the selection of a new Supreme Guide. Egyptian and Arab satellite programs have been busy monitoring what is taking place inside the Brotherhood, along with the reactions, whether inside or outside the movement. The events began with the announcement by the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide, Mohammed Mehdi Akef, that he did not wish to extend his term, which ends next summer. One group of the Brotherhood leadership insisted on holding elections for a new Guidance Office and Supreme Guide, while another preferred not to hurry with the elections, since re-constituting the Guidance Office was not an enforceable matter, and because it was more important to focus on selecting a new Supreme Guide or convincing Akef to go back on his decision to step down. The former point of view won out, and a new Guidance Office was formed, without Akef's deputy, Dr. Mohammed Habib, or Dr. Abdel-Monem Abul-Futuh, who some expected to replace Akef, even if for a transitional period. Much has been said about the legitimacy of the elections and the extent to which they conformed to the lists of the Brotherhood. There was talk about “arrangements” between the first group and some Brotherhood leaders, to get rid of Habib and Abul-Futuh, and talk of election-time assistance that involved “security” favors. There was also talk of a breakthrough in the reformist wing of the group, which counted Habib and Abul-Futuh as members, via the faction of “hawks” led by the Brotherhood's secretary general, Mahmoud Izzat; this effort brought in Dr. Issam Arian and made him a member of the Guidance Council, in return for his abandoning his reformist ideas and stances. The issue of the new Supreme Guide has yet to be settled, although the announcement of his name should take place within a few days, after the candidate receives the “blessing” or support of the Brotherhood's groups and organizations outside Egypt. Certainly, the debate will escalate – about the new Supreme Guide, the way in which he was elected, and whether the process matched the Brotherhood's own lists or not. Some believe that the Brotherhood might end up losing, due to all of the talk of violations within the group, or from the shouting of its opponents on satellite media, and their lament that democracy and transparency have been lost. However, the reality of events on the ground indicate that the current crisis has seen the Brotherhood win out, by exploiting the commotion in order to return to the limelight, and forcing the media to compete over talking to the group's leaders, even if the criticism of the Brotherhood's hawks, and its method of holding elections, is valid. Certainly, political organizations, especially those confronting problems with the security authorities, might become stronger due to criticism from outside, and might gain sympathy from people who are not members of the group, and the Brotherhood has always experienced this phenomenon. However, we also know from political science that the most dangerous thing for such groups is when the criticism and political “explosions” come from inside. The Brotherhood's history and the expertise of its leaders have always proven that the group might be affected by what is taking place inside of it, or around it, for a given period of time, but it always returns to the forefront of events. It is easy to criticize the Brotherhood, and some might believe it preferable to talk about the collapse that the group will confront in the future, as a result of excluding Habib and Abul-Futuh, and the failure to follow proper procedures in electing a new Supreme Guide and Guidance Office. However, a practical analysis should not forget that the Brotherhood has long suffered from splits throughout its history; “heavyweight” names have exited the group, and that some of those who broke off have written books that revealed very dangerous information. However, the Brotherhood has remained, as a political-ideological group, for various reasons. Certainly, one of these is the lack of other political outlets for young people who want to get involved in political action. Rather than the screaming about the dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood, the intransigence of its hawks, or the weakness of its reformists (which concerns the Brotherhood itself, first and foremost), it is more important to study the methods that the Brotherhood uses in the future, whether nationally or internationally, and the impact of political conditions in the countries in which it is active.
