As the religious tide turns

By Gordon Robinson

A welcome wind of democracy recently blew across Egypt as its military's stranglehold on power was loosened by Mohamed Morsi's election as president.

This was an example of real people power (as opposed to Jamaica's hyped version), proving more potent than military might. Fears of a military coup as the public counting of votes showed Morsi winning proved unwarranted. The people kept a peaceful yet powerful vigil in the streets that sent a loud and clear message to the army that Egyptians wouldn't tolerate military rule by force. Not this time.

The New York Times reported: "The generals showed a measure of respect for ... some core elements of electoral democracy by accepting the victory of a political opponent over their ally, the former air force general, Ahmed Shafik," but readers can rest assured that the Egyptian military's "respect" for "electoral democracy" is as real as Joan Rivers' face.

These are the same generals who, to quote the same New York Times report, "... shut down the democratically elected and Islamist-led Parliament; took over its powers to make laws and set budgets; decreed an interim constitution stripping the incoming president of most of his powers; and reimposed martial law by authorising soldiers to arrest civilians. In the process, the generals gave themselves, in effect, a veto over provisions of a planned permanent constitution." All this only two weeks before election.

DEVIL AND DEEP BLUE SEA

So tension between military rule and the democratic movement will continue, but a giant step was taken towards democracy on June 24. However, reactions from Washington will likely be muted. Wholehearted support for Mohamed Morsi won't be forthcoming anytime soon.

Why? For Washington, the choice in the Egyptian election was between the Devil and the deep blue sea. The Devil won. This election marks the first time an Arab state will be headed by an elected Islamist. He's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose more than 80-year fight for an Egyptian Islamist democracy; against imperialism (especially by the British); and against political and social injustice was fraught with vicious anti-Brotherhood propaganda sometimes fuelled by their own poor choice of allies.

This unusual movement won't fit any convenient stereotype. It wants democracy, but not American-style based on Old Testament mores. The Brotherhood's ideal democracy is based on Islamic values, yet doesn't require theocracy for it to flourish.

This will test the USA's political maturity to the hilt. President Obama, whose personal history most qualifies him to pass this test, must face it in an election year while fending off pusillanimous propaganda that he's Muslim.

I long ago warned Jamaica this sort of turnaround in Egyptian politics was imminent. In a column headlined 'Divinity, dogma and damnation' (February 27, 2011), I attempted to debunk US propaganda that the Muslim Brotherhood was planning world domination and exposed malicious attempts to link The Brotherhood to al-Qaida by way of Al Taqwa Bank, whose shareholders included Osama bin Laden's family members. The hype surrounding the initial investigations into that bank's operations faded away when nothing was found and the absence of charges against anybody associated with Al Taqwa somehow didn't merit the wide publicity that preliminary raids attracted.

ISLAM SPREADING WINGS

I pointed out then that the Brotherhood, despite some sinister early associations (including with Hitler) which were driven by "the enemy of my enemy ... " rather than any symbiotic ideology, didn't seek world domination any more than did Christianity, but both institutions, naturally, wanted to spread their religious dogma as far and wide as possible. Both used similar means to that holy end.

I also warned that Islam was more likely than Christianity to succeed in spreading its faith. Why? Islam's more pragmatic approach to procreation through polygamy as opposed to Christianity's prudish constraints and perpetual, irrational fear of matters sexual should ensure a Muslim-dominated world within this century. Christianity's reluctance to address sexual issues realistically is especially ridiculous as the surplus of educated women over their male counterparts increases exponentially. Even Reverend Ronnie was recently moved to remark: "I wonder who they're going to marry."

Some Christian sects are so blindly obtuse about sexuality that they rail against homosexuality and contraception based, inter alia, on resulting non-procreation, while embracing celibacy rules which ensure identical results and also attract homosexuals and paedophiles to their ranks. The ludicrous result is a condemnation of homosexuality by words but an embracing of it by deeds (rules). Again, I congratulate the Reverend Ronnie. By avoiding full membership, he's ensured he contributes more than his fair share to his faith's future.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.