Muslim Brotherhood and its objectives
Like any other ideological party, the Muslim Brotherhood perhaps does not know the meaning of a democratic state, but at the same time never stops bragging about election results. Implicit in its intention is the desire to dominate and marginalize others. It exploits religion to repress people and lead them as though they are a bunch of fools. A member of the Brotherhood can be made to do anything if he is asked to do so in the name of religion.
This blind obedience to religion is one of the most important components of the movement. Yet it has failed in its experiments. In Gaza, they reached the Parliament and the government, but proved to be repressive. Since the ordinary citizens unfortunately believe them, all the wrongdoings and sins committed by the Muslim Bothers seem forgivable. They contradict themselves by saying that Islam is the solution and also that democracy is the solution. They do not believe in democracy because the members of the organization submit themselves totally to the supreme leaders.
Some may even wonder as what kind of religious interpretation they follow that demands a member to be committed so much to the supreme leaders that he or she cannot make any decision without prior consent. They implement decisions without giving them a thorough rethought and yet project themselves as good people. But defectors and others know very well the problems within the movement and even suspect that some of the members belong to the Freemason movement.
In Tunisia, just a few days ago, thousands of people took to the street calling for the removal of Rachid Ghannouchi who tried to exploit the West by pretending that he embraced some democratic and civil changes.
Members of the Nahada Party too have demanded that Ghannouchi stops interference. There are signs of defections within the party as many rejected his domination, his constant orders to ministers and attempts to harm liberal parties. Ghannouchi is a clear example of the situation the Muslim Brotherhood is in. At the Washington Institute, he said that the end of dictatorship paved the way for pluralism in Tunisia. He pledged that Islamists would never impose anything on the Tunisian society especially policies that constrained liberty and freedom. And yet at a meeting with an Islamist group he said that his mission was to get rid of the liberals from the society. When demonstrations against the anti-Islam film were held that targeted foreign embassies, he held the Salafi groups responsible. That was a clear attempt to demonize the Salafists and put the blame squarely on them.
In Egypt, Khairat Al-Shater, a businessman and former deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, is controlling the state. He has amazing power within the movement as he has control over even President Muhammad Mursi. Prior to Gaza war in 2008-09, Hamas struck a 20-year truce in Geneva. Tel Aviv demanded Khairat Al-Shater's personal attendance at the secret meeting. Today, President Mursi is trying to grab power although he was elected by a slim majority that does not really reflect the strength of the movement on the street. President Mursi did not care about the Egyptian people and issued his edict making himself an absolute leader.
The way Washington dealt with Mursi and his constitutional edict is interesting. Statements issued by the American Embassy in Cairo were more explicit than those of the State Department in Washington. In Egypt, the embassy said that the country was on the brink of a new dictatorship. It also added that the Egyptian revolution took place so that power is not concentrated in the hands of one person or one group. The West did not listen or pay attention to the voices of the political forces in Egypt and therefore the Egyptians did not have any choice but to call for the ouster of Mursi.
The Jordan experience is also similar. Muslim Brotherhood rejects the call for dialogue with the regime as they are looking for power-sharing especially after the control of Hamas in Gaza. In fact, it was the Brotherhood that cut off the Egyptian gas from Jordan and also rejected the Iranian offer to provide Jordan with free oil for 30 years. Against this, the Jordanians have no choice but to think of the long-term objectives of the Brotherhood after the latter sent half of their budget to the Brotherhood in Egypt. The Jordanian street had to change its tone after it found out that the Muslim Brotherhood secretly supports a regime change in Amman. For this reason, Jordanians called for the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a radical change on part of the Jordanian street that used to have some sympathy for the Islamists.
These developments pushed some rational members of the movement in Jordan to reject the directions of the movement that were influenced by the Egyptian movement. Some resigned and others tried to pull the rug from under the feet of the movement by presenting a moderate and national initiative focusing on gradual reform. This may compel the movement to rethink its approach and take part in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Ahmed Shafik, the former Egyptian prime minister under the Mubarak regime, said that the constitutional edict was nothing but a Brotherhood colonialism out to destroy the state institutions. This puzzles political researchers. With no previous experience of governance, the ruling leaders seek to have a total subjugation of the people.
In countries run by the dictatorial regimes, there were laws to protect the movements/revolutions as a means to justify dictatorship. In Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iran and Russia, many were executed under the pretext of saving the revolution. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is practicing the logic of being the custodian of religion. Fears of Egyptians are the same as those of the Syrians who are demanding dismissal of the dictator who has already killed over 50,000 Syrians. The Syrian Muslim Brothers constitute some 45 percent of the Syrian opposition. This pushed some to fear that this might pave way for Brotherhood dictatorship in a post-Assad Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood thinks that it is capable of controlling the political authority in the Arab countries and of establishing a government for the group. This will not happen at all as the practical experience exposed them.
The problem of Brotherhood leaders are that they are obsessed with the teaching of Hassan Al-Banna as if they are timeless universal laws. The reality is different and their concepts are in conflict. They will soon get a shock when they are exposed, because they are liars. When they got loan from the World Bank they said that the latter agreed to the Egyptian conditions and the loan was in conformity with the Islamic finance system. The fact is that they got the loan with the same conditions as were during Mubarak's era.