Erdogan vs. Egyptian Islamists
Issandr El AmraniAmong the interesting things that came out of Recep Erdogan's visit to Egypt (a topic on which I'm writing a longer piece) was the furore he caused among Egyptian Islamists when he endorsed secularism. Erdogan had a busy schedule, and did spend some of it meeting with religious figures such as Pope Shenouda and Sheikh al-Azhar Ahmed al-Tayeb, as well as Islamist politicians, including MB General Guide Mohamed Badie, former MB and presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh (for some, the MB's stealth candidate). I think that's a first for any foreign head of government.
In his keynote speech at the Opera House, he reportedly made a statement in favor of a secular state as the only basis for social progress and economic development. I don't have a transcript of the speech to verify (and besides don't understand Turkish), but this bit in Erdogan's speech is causing quite a stir. The Muslim Brothers slammed Erdogan for "foreign intervention" — the classic infantile Egyptian reaction to any foreign leaders' statement on their country, as if saying something meant interfering — and the new Salafist party al-Fadila attacked him for favoring secularists over Islamists. Other Islamist leaders said that the Turkish model is not reproducible in Egypt, but some talking heads think Erdogan's statement boosted the secularists' chances in the current debate over "Egypt's identity" and the future constitution.
Considering that Egyptian secularists have already conceded Islam as the region of state, Sharia as a source of legislation, and personal status law according to religion, I'm not sure what the debate is about aside from the implementation of the above.
Erdogan says the Egyptian reaction was due to a translation error, according to Zaman (via @blakehounshell):
Erdoğan also offered an explanation for the Muslim Brotherhood's anger at his words in Cairo, where he told Egyptians not to be “afraid of secularism.” The prime minister said: “My words were misunderstood because of a translation mistake. In Arabic, there is a word for ‘irreligiousness,' and the translator used that word for secularism. Secularism is not about being an enemy of religion. It is about the state maintaining the same distance from all religions and acting as a custodian of their beliefs. This is what we mean when we say don't be afraid of secularism.”
He also said a person who expressed anger at Erdoğan's words was going to make a new statement and offer a correction to the misunderstanding. Erdoğan also said rumors that the person who made the statement on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood was not their presidential candidate. “This person is someone who left the Muslim Brotherhood. Plus, if the Muslim Brotherhood had any problems with us, they would have told us so during our contacts in Egypt. They didn't even imply any discomfort [with the secularism statement].”
It doesn't really look like Erdogan is walking it back fully, but rather talking about a misunderstanding. He's giving a lesson about secularism not being the opposite of piety, something many Egyptian secularists and quite a few Islamists have advocated. But in Egypt's current culture wars, to have the prime minister of the most (politically, democratically, economically, socially) successful Islamist party in the world advocate a secular system in which he has thrived seems to be a bit much.
The Brothers, in particular, have always resisted the idea of a Turkish model — in the sense of a secular system in which Islamits can exist — and said Egypt will have its own model. That's an easy nationalist line to take (we won't imitate anyone!) but if Egypt's Islamists say they don't want to be like Turkey, they still haven't quite explained what kind of model they are envisaging. I suspect that, over the next decade, we may see some Egyptian Erdoganists rise among them.
Reader Comments (9)
"The Brothers, in particular, have always resisted the idea of a Turkish model" - odd, because every MB leader I ever spoke to of the middle-generation liberal moderate variety extolled Turkish Islamism as a model. Earlier they used to talk about how the AK party and its predecessors had successfully pushed back against limits on preaching and religious expression as something the MB should learn from. And they liked the idea of the Turkish Islamists as a kind of moral majority. Perhaps they are too used to having the Turkish etat laique to bash to come to terms with the fact that the Islamists now sort of rule it.
Well that was before the revolution, SP!
Since then I have seen tons of quotes of how while they think Turkey has done well, they want an Egyptian model. See here for instance:
http://www.rferl.org/content/interview_with_muslim_brotherhood_leader_essam_el-/24305890.html
I don't think the MB is hostile to the Turkish model but they don't want to even deal right now with the idea of a secular state where a religious party can have influence. Too close to the current debate on the constitution, identity, etc. and they would risk being outflanked by those Salafists who want the Saudi model, i.e. "the quran is our constitution"
I think you're right about the fear of radical flanking from the salafis. Back when they had to prove they could play the democratic game they had to sing another tune, I guess. Also the terms on which the "secular state" is being debated have changed because of the salafi influence and fearmongering about whether article 2 will be removed.
@Issandr El Amrani
When the Egyptian revolution started we had a debate whether this revolution will turn Egypt into an autocracy like Iran.
I feared for the worse while you tried to convince me that Egypt will remain secular, or at least not drift into the extreme.
Apparently I was right. A pity.
Reading that interview I have to say it suggests more continuity with pre-rev MB discourse than discontinuity. The last question almost seemed a throwaway and any Egyptian worth his/her nationalist salt would have to say "we can do it better." the substance of what he said is very AK party.
Wolf, I doubt I argued that Egypt would remain secular, because it was not secular under Mubarak. All of the above non-secular aspects of the future constitution apply to the old one. Still don't see signs of anything extreme (although I suppose you would argue a downgrade of relations with Israel is extreme, but I think it's a good thing.)
I do see as the incitement for as an extreme thing, but I am not talking about that.
From what I understood from your post the MB give the tone in any discussion about the future of Egypt. You also said that the MB are getting THEIR tone from the extreme Salafists, as they are constantly making sure that their ideas won't be "too liberal".
So the conclusion is that the tone in Egypt will become more and more extreme as the Salafists gaim more popularity by the MB consents to the them.
I meant to write:
I do see as the incitement for *war as an extreme thing, but I am not talking about that.
Would you say Egypt is at the brink of a choice between ethical perfectionism exemplified by Salafism and possible stance that MB might take in favour of a moderate/consensus-seeking politics?
The central tenet of secularism is not "equal distance to all religions". It is social peace and general agreement on political institutions. To this end, secularism may require the state to enhance some religious policy. Who can regard England, Norway or Italy as non-secular although these have constitutionally established churches?
Egypt was secular under Mubarak since, f.e., when a constitutional dispute that involved religion arose, final judgment was delivered by judges who were trained in positive law (please correct me if I'm wrong). High Court frequently asked for "opinion" from experts in Sharia law. Such "opinion" certainly carry moral weight, but in the end, sovereign right is exercised by secular courts...