Everywhere in the world, governments impose restrictions on political movements and parties engaged in political action and democratic countries are no exception. Despite such restrictions, activists have been trying to develop their legitimacy based on popular support. As long as they do not promote violence or incite it, whatever label governments give these activists does not have great importance. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is an example of such movements. After decades of political struggle with successive secular regimes, the movement achieved a remarkable victory when it amazingly won 88 seats in Egypt's 444-seat parliament that has always been controlled by the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP). Right after this success, Egyptian state-run media allocated larger space or airtime for the Islamists' victory, and the usual charges that the movement is radical and untrustworthy are gradually fading. The NDP regime, which used to label the movement as mahzora (prohibited) and monhalla (decadent), grudgingly admitted that the Islamists have gained weight in the streets and that their victory has erased from Egypt's political dictionary the word “prohibited” with which the movement was tagged previously. It is unreasonable to accuse the tens of thousands of Egyptians who voted for the movement of posing a threat to public security. In the 2010 elections, the ruling party decided to change this image, but it paid a much higher price than it expected. The people were angry and provoked by the flagrant fraud that took place and given its new and powerful connection with the people, the Muslim Brotherhood played its role as an underdog very well. The January 25 uprising was a matter of pride and honor for Egyptians, and for the movement. It was a golden opportunity for sweet revenge. In the first and second round of the ongoing elections, its newly formed Freedom and Justice party won 36.5 percent of the total seats, official figures showed. Together with the hardline Salafist Al-Nour party, the Islamists have so far taken more than 70 percent of the total parliament seats. One important lesson we can learn from these political developments is that ideological and political differences cannot be used as a basis to deny a party its political legitimacy, especially if the party renounces violence and enjoys clear public support. The problem in Egypt and in other Arab countries is that political culture lacks constructive dialogue and discussion. What prevails instead are charges of treason, insults and other verbal attacks. The more one party humiliates the other in the media and in other forums, the more powerful that party becomes. Unfortunately, trading barbs seems to be an Arab guideline for a political discussion. The political orientation of many political parties in Egypt needs to be reassessed. Instead of collision, there is always plenty of room to assess the role of religion, economics, social conditions and the psyche of the people in Egypt. The ultimate goal is to respect this orientation, to strengthen or challenge it according to reason and beliefs in a civilized manner. No one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom. That is the first rule Egypt is learning as a lesson in democracy. Egyptians do not consider their next parliament to be made up of members of a “prohibited” party. The Egyptian people selected the members of parliament, they trusted them and the new members have to prove that they will address the problems of Egypt with open hearts and minds to lead the people to a better future. It will be much harder for the Muslim Brotherhood to regain legitimacy if it is labeled “prohibited” once again, this time by the people themselves. Hatem Y. Ezz Eldin is a political researcher and analyst based in Jeddah. He can be reached at [email protected] __
