Egypt's protests reveal deficit of trust in Muslim Brotherhood

Open defiance of Egypt's president in street protests shows how much the Muslim Brotherhood needs to leave Islam outside the door of democracy.

Mohamed Abd El Ghany/Reuters
A protester opposing Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi throws stones towards riot police during clashes in Cairo January 29. Egypt's Army chief said political unrest was pushing the state to the brink of collapse.

Five days of protests in Egypt, with dozens of people killed and entire cities in turmoil, have revealed a whopping deficit of public trust in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic group that dominates the leadership of this young democracy of the Arab Spring.

In cities like Port Said, the protesters have displayed an open defiance of President Mohamed Morsi’s orders on a curfew and state of emergency. Egypt’s Army chief warns of the state collapsing. And indeed, many Egyptians now talk of splitting up the Arab world’s most populous state.

The triggers for this upheaval were the second anniversary of the fall of Hosni Mubarak and a court sentencing 21 people for the deaths of 74 people after a soccer match last year. But below the surface of this dissent lies a deeper struggle. It is one trying to define the source of legitimacy for Egypt’s new leaders, or the kind of sentiment that cements trust between a government and its people.

As it has slowly risen to power in the past two years, the Muslim Brotherhood has broken many promises about the role it would play in representative government. Its flip-flops and power grabs in forming a new regime have only added to a worry among democracy advocates that Mr. Morsi would define his authority from Islam, or sharia law, rather than from constitutional rights and secular pluralism.

Even within the Brotherhood, a decades-long debate on reconciling Islam as a revealed religion with liberal democracy has yet to be settled, resulting in splits and high-level defections. A younger generation in the group wants to rely on persuasion to gain support while an old guard sticks to al-sama’ wa’l-ta’a, or “hearing and obeying.”

Now an Islamic movement founded by an Egyptian schoolteacher in 1928 faces the kind of protests that brought down a secular dictator. Protesters even chant the same word used in 2011: “Leave.”

Many Egyptians, or at least those in major cities, appear to be worried that their country might follow the path of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, in which Islamic leaders cite holy writ for secular authority more than they do public polls or election results.

The current protests show Egyptians trust democracy itself but they want more checks and balances on the power of elected leaders. Distrust is built into any democracy as a way to prevent the abuse of power by a few even if the system itself requires public trust.

“Trust is a kind of shorthand for a whole range of expectations and emotions about the content of our public life,” writes British philosopher Marek Kohn in a 2008 book, “Trust: Self-Interest and the Common Good.”

As in personal relations, trust in government requires a great deal of openness and equality. Those traits are not well practiced within the Brotherhood’s strict hierarchy. It will need to adjust quickly if it wants to win back the support of Egyptians.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.