Paradigm shifts again

The paradigm of politics in Egypt has shifted multiple times within the last few years. Before the revolution of January 25^th, the people of Egypt perceived only one fault line: Government vs. everyone else. Immediately following the revolution, this perception shifted into revolutionary vs. reactionary. This continued till shortly before the presidential elections where the fault-line was artificially shifted into revolution vs. military\Mubarak regime remnants. I argued in a post before the elections that this fault line was untrue, and that the true division is and should be perceived as the division between those who want a modern (and yes secular) state, and those who want a nepotistic sectarian para-theocracy. This position was, of course, a tiny voice and it went unheard. The result was that revolutionaries, secular, and modern Islamist alike threw the country into the embrace of an ineffective, inbred, conservative mafia called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now after the well expected cluster-failure of the MB, the fault lines are being redrawn. But this time it is significantly more complicated. Again there is an image similar to pre-2011 where there is the illusion of a division between those who are pro and those who are against the MB. But again, as with pre-2011 everyone is concentrating on what they don’t want (in this case the MB), not what they really want.

In this muddy environment few groups are clear on why they are aligning the way they are. There are some exceptions of course. Christians, despite MB protest to the opposite, are of course unanimously opposed to the MB staying in power. This might be partly because of the inescapable antagonism between an Islamist government and Christians, but any fair observer must have seen very material reasons for Christian dismay. MB sponsored progroms, murders that go unpunished, church burnings that go without investigation, the first ever recorded attack on the main Coptic cathedral (not to mention partly by the MoI), and continuous and consistent incitement against Copts in MB media outlets.

Another clear group is, of course, the MB cadre itself. How many there are is as much a secret as everything else about this cult. But MB commitment to their leaders is unwavering and religious. If Mohammed Morsi sinks the whole country, the MB membership will look to the supreme guide for their reaction, and they will copy it verbatim.

Everyone else in Egypt is in a more complicated situation. Why is it that the MB and some of the most solidly Mubarak-regimesque technocrats are on such good terms? Is there really a schism in the Salafist ranks, and would this schism encourage a Salafist to elect a liberal over an MB? Why have some of the most pro-Morsi “revolutionaries” become some of his worst enemies, while others are still unwavering in their support?

It all boils down to what people actually value and want. For the first time since the revolution, people are waking up to the fact that so far this revolution has all been about what they want to take apart and destroy, with no consensus on what anyone wants to build in its place. The exception of course, is the MB, who have always wanted to rebuild Egypt in the image of Hassan El-Banna’s home village.

So whether someone currently supports, is against, or is neutral towards the MB depends on the relative weight they put on several values. Top among these is freedom. Those who value freedom, as in the basic freedoms of people are of course aligned against the MB. This includes the majority of liberals and a section of progressive Islamists who in reality want a secular liberal democracy, but just want to name it and derive its values from non-western sources. Salafists and Islamists for whom infringement on the freedoms of others is a sacred right and duty may find themselves siding against the MB for being “too free” or siding with it because the liberals are much worse.

The second important value is order. People who put a high stake on order and rule of law would agains find themselves either siding with or against the MB. Perhaps they find that the MB’s repression is excusable in terms of the chaos that has struck the country. Yet others would find that the MB’s priorities and nepotism are the reasons for chaos and lack of rule of law.

The third and final value that most people consider before taking a position is stability. Yes, the dreaded S word of the Mubarak era. Egyptians are finally realizing that stability is not so bad, and that what Mubarak provided was indeed stability and not stagnation on so many fronts. Stability in a resource poor country like Egypt translates directly into money. Stability means more tourists, more investors, more jobs, higher salaries. And yes, it means that a guy would drive safely on the desert road to Alexandria to spend a very expensive vacations in Marina El-Alamein, and along the way they would stop to pay a tip to the guy in the parking lot of Masters. The revolution stated that it did not want the inequality between these two guys, what it delivered is a drop in the quality of life of both.

In the end each individual weighs these three factors and makes a very complex decision on why they do or don’t support the MB regime. The fault line will again be drawn and simplified by both sides and by the media as pro-MB vs. against-MB. But in reality neither camp is unified in what it wants. However, there are signs that this time, at least at the level of common folk, the question is starting to shift to: “What do we want” instead of “what do we not want”.

And therein lies the hope.