Phase
II of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi’s declaration of sweeping
dictatorial powers was completed on Thursday night. That is when the
“constituent assembly” hastily completed a draft constitution that would
enshrine sharia principles as fundamental law.
Morsi grabbed the reins with a shrewd caveat: His dictatorship would
end once the draft constitution was approved by Egyptians in a national
referendum — which is to say, once the dictatorship had served its
purpose. Nearly three months ago, in my e-book Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy
(which is about to be published in paperback), I explained that Morsi’s
agglomeration of power — which was already underway only weeks after
his election — was just a placeholder. He is an Islamic-supremacist
hardliner whose ultimate goal has always been to impose sharia, the real dictatorship.
Remember the Brotherhood’s
notorious motto, which includes the proclamation “the Koran is our law.”
It is about to be. In effect, Morsi has used the West’s democracy
fetish to put a gun to his population’s head: Either democratically
approve anti-democratic sharia or accept the sharia-compliant rule of
your democratically elected Islamist despot. Some choice.
Naturally, secularists and religious minorities are grousing. This
has the Western media, once again, in full spring-fever flush. For our
intelligentsia, the Middle East is a wonderland where Islamists are
imagined to be “moderate” (even “largely secular”!) and — to hedge their
bets, on the off chance that the Islamists turn out to be, well,
Islamists — the population is imagined to be teeming with freedom-loving
Jamal al-Madisons who crave American-style civil rights. In reality,
supremacist Islam is the predominant ideology of the region. The Muslim
Brotherhood is strong because it is the avant-garde of the Islamic
masses. Non-Islamist democrats are a decided minority.
Of course, in a place like Egypt, with its population of 80 million
people, a decided minority can easily be masqueraded as the majority.
The West’s progressive media is good at that — ignoring tea-party
throngs while lavishing coverage on five-person Occupy protests as if
they were a groundswell. But, you see, the hocus-pocus works here only
because we’ve ceded all the leading institutions of opinion to
progressives for a half-century. Conditioned to see what they’ve been
told to believe, half of our population no longer sees through the smoke
and mirrors.
In contrast, the Islamists control and otherwise intimidate Egyptian
society’s influential institutions by vigorously enforcing sharia’s
repression of discussion and dissent. The public knows the tune is
called by the likes of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s
powerhouse jurist, not by Wael Ghonim and the young, tech-savvy
progressives beloved of the New York Times. In Egypt, the
conspiracy theories run against the progressives. The public won’t be
snookered into seeing an Islamist uprising as a “democratic” upheaval.
They’ll leave that to us.
The Times and the Brotherhood-smitten Obama administration won’t tell you, but Spring Fever
will: The constitution was always the prize. That is why the Brothers
pursued it with their signature mendacity. The story goes back to the
weeks immediately after Mubarak’s fall in early 2011 — back to the most
tellingly underreported and willfully misreported event in the “Arab
Spring” saga: Egypt’s first-ever free election.
With the trillion-plus dollars U.S. taxpayers have expended to
promote “Islamic democracy” and its companion fantasy that elections
equal democracy, you’d think you might have heard a bit more about the
maiden voyage in Arabia’s most important country. But no, the story
barely registered. That is because the Islamists crushed the secular
democrats. To grasp what happened on Thursday night, you need to
understand why. That first election, zealously contested in sectarian
terms, was precisely about Egypt’s future constitution.
Technically, the referendum concerned amendments to the constitution
in effect during Mubarak’s reign. Despite the “Arab Spring” paeans you
were hearing from Washington, Egyptian democrats knew they were weak. To
have any hope of competing with the Brotherhood’s vast,
long-established, highly disciplined organization, they would need time.
So they argued that before parliamentary and presidential elections
could take place, a new constitution should be written. That would take a
while and would put voting off into the distant future. The idea was
that as long as no one had been elected yet — as long as the Islamists
could not claim a popular mandate — the democrats would be in a better
position both to influence the content of the constitution and to buy
the time necessary to build party organizations that might contest
elections effectively. National Review
|
How do we contact you? Leave your email address, and please put in a search button.
By the way, most of your Military Related Links are not working.