Commentary: When the law is -- and is not -- the law It may be unclear who benefits from maintaining the anomalous position of Muslim Brotherhood MPs but, writes Galal Nassar, it is clearly not in Egypt's interest In the parliamentary elections 88 members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood won seats in the People's Assembly. The puzzling thing is that the MB contested the elections in full view of the authorities that banned it. How can a group that is legally banned field candidates and be allowed to use slogans identifying itself to all and sundry? How is it that such a group is allowed to hold rallies and say things that breach the prohibition on the use of religious slogans in politics? Who allowed the MB to run openly in elections? No one seems to know. Some people are pleased to see the MB being integrated into the country's political life. Others are less ecstatic. All, though, are puzzled, by the way this is being done. There has been no official explanation for the MB's implicit admission into political life. The law has not changed and there has been no suggestion that it is about to be changed. The MB is not a political party. That it is acting as if it is represents a major shift in the country's political life. Not surprisingly many suspect that the National Democratic Party and the MB have made some sort of a deal. If such a deal has in fact been made its aim is to undermine the presence of Egypt's legitimate political parties. Political, racist and religious groups are banned in other parts of the world. Such prohibitions need not undermine democracy, so long as the overwhelming majority of the nation agrees to the ban. Germany prohibits Nazi and neo-Nazi groups. Italy bans the fascists. France has banned several groups and parties, and there are those who want to see the extreme right-wing National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen similarly prohibited despite the fact that it attracts a far from negligible amount of popular support. Nations ban parties that espouse the intolerance that impedes progress. The essence of modernity is the acceptance of others and openness to the outside world. This acceptance and openness are qualities possessed in no great measure by fundamentalists. The world is undergoing transformation, one that is on par with the transformations that accompanied the industrial revolution and the technological revolution that followed. If we are to benefit from these changes then we must embrace the values that come as part and parcel of the transformation. If we burden ourselves with a religious establishment that rejects all sorts of things because they are insufficiently divine we will be unable to keep up with the times. If we all agree that parties espousing a religious ideology and propagating religious slogans such as the MB are acceptable, then we should lift the ban on all religious parties. We should allow Christian parties to appear. And if we are ready to do that then we are ready for other types of parties purporting to represent the interests of other minorities and sects. The risk is clear, for the country could be divided along sectarian lines. Some people would say that this is nothing new, that sectarianism already exists. This may or may not be the case. But what is certain is that the dominance of any single religious current in Egypt will act only to exacerbate already existing problems. "No charter and no constitution, only the word of God and the prophet," ran one of the MB slogans used in the recent campaign. It is sufficient, is it not, to tell you something about the nature of this banned group? Some people argue that the MB is a reality in Egypt and as such its existence must be acknowledged and it should be integrated into the political arena. We also have crime in this country, and yet we continue to fight it, and no one is arguing that criminals be integrated into the political scene. There is bribery and corruption, which we are supposed to oppose. Not every reality is worthy of acceptance. Criminals go to prison for assaulting individual members of society. How much more important, then, to ensure that groups that are dangerous to society as whole, that have a propensity to usurp public rights, are not granted acceptance? Political Islam usurps not just the rights of people divine prerogatives. Such groups give themselves the right to judge other people's beliefs, which is a right only God possesses. Furthermore, the MB shares many of the most criticised traits of the current regime which has an old guard that is calling all the shots and insisting on doing things the old way. So is the MB's old guard that is doing nothing about financial and administrative corruption within the group. Some say that the fundamentalists have as much right to power here as the neo-conservatives in the US. But the US has a legacy of democracy that we do not have. The US has mechanisms for self-correction that we lack. The US has strong civil and political forces that are powerful and active enough to get the country back on track. US liberals are already fighting against legislation passed following 9/11 that jeopardises the rights of Muslim and other minorities. In our part of the world the rise of fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian, is far more ominous for we lack the corrective mechanisms. We have a law in this country. And when you have a law you have to respect it. We cannot have a law and implement it selectively since doing so sends us sliding down the slippery Machiavellian slope of selective morality. The MB is accustomed to secretive machinations which is why it has always ended up antagonising the regime. The MB has incurred the wrath of successive governments. The government of Ibrahim Abdel-Hadi clamped down on the MB before 1952. Gamal Abdel-Nasser turned against the MB in 1954 and in 1965 arrested everyone thought to be linked with it. Since Anwar El-Sadat's assassination in 1981 the government has periodically rounded up MB members and sympathisers, and not without reason. The MB needs to turn itself into a political party. To do so it will have to tone down its religious ideology and allow all Egyptians to become members regardless of faith. It will have to operate as a purely Egyptian entity rather than a branch or the centre of a cross-border movement. Its finances will have to be subject to audit, and it can maintain no military wing. These are the regulations Egyptian law applies to parties without exception. So long as the MB fails to comply it will remain an extra-legal group. The MB has a plan to take over the country by adopting a step-by-step approach. The MB wants to establish a religious state and make Egypt the centre of an Ottoman-style caliphate. This much is explicit in the teachings of Hassan El-Banna, the group's founder. It has been reiterated by followers over time. What the MB wants is to conquer Egypt from within. The government and the People's Assembly need to take a stand on the 88 parliamentarians who won their seats through campaigning on MB slogans. Either the ban on the MB is lifted, in which case the MB should proceed to form a political party with a clear agenda, or the ban stays, in which case critics of the MB should file lawsuits against the presence of MB members in the parliament. Egypt belongs to all its citizens, regardless of their creed. We can have a secular state, and we can have a modern state but first we must have the courage of our beliefs. We need to remain steadfast on the path of reform. We need to uphold our own laws. And we need to remain committed to equality, justice and freedom, the crux of all true religions.
