Mohammed Morsi Declared Winner Of Egyptian Presidential Election
The candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood is the next President of Egypt, but the political future of Egypt itself remains quite murky.
After delaying the announcement from last Thursday, and a bizarre hour long speech by the head of the country’s elections commission, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi has been named the winner of the Egyptian Presidential elections:
CAIRO — Election regulators named Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood the winner of Egypt’s first competitive presidential elections, handing the Islamist group a symbolic triumph and a new weapon in its struggle for power with the ruling military council.
After an hourlong speech in which he detailed dozens of specific inquiries down to the ballot-box level, the chairman of the election commission, Farouk Sultan, announced that Mr. Morsi had won 51.7 percent of the runoff vote completed last weekend. The other candidate, the former general Ahmed Shafik, won 48.3 percent.
In Tahrir Square, where hundreds of thousands had gathered to await the result, the confirmation of Mr. Morsi’s win brought instant, rollicking celebration. Fireworks went up over the crowd, which took up a pulsing, deafening chant: “Morsi! Morsi!”
Mr. Morsi now becomes the first Islamist elected to be head of an Arab state. But his victory is an ambiguous milestone in Egypt’s promised transition to democracy after the ouster 16 months ago of President Hosni Mubarak.
After an election that international monitors called credible, the military-led government has recognized an electoral victory by an opponent of military rule over Mr. Shafik, who promised harmony with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. But Mr. Morsi’s recognition as president does little to resolve the larger standoff between the generals and the Brotherhood over the balance of power over the institutions of government and the future constitution. Under the generals’ plan, Mr. Morsi, 60, will assume an office stripped of almost all authority under a military-issued interim constitution.
Having dissolved the democratically elected and Brotherhood-led Parliament on the eve of the presidential vote, the generals who seized control after Mr. Mubarak’s ouster abrogated their pledge to hand power by June 30, eliciting charges of a new military coup.
After 84 years as an often outlawed secret society struggling in the prisons and shadows of monarchs and dictators, the Brotherhood is now closer than ever to its dream of building a novel Islamist democracy. And its leaders vowed to fight on for the restoration of Parliament regardless of Mr. Morsi’s win.
Although it was clear as early as Monday morning that Mr. Morsi had won more votes than Mr. Shafik, the weeklong delay in the official results stirred widespread fears that the military-led government might seek to name Mr. Shafik as a decisive blow in the generals’ power struggle with the Brotherhood.
Before the results were announced, the capital was as tense Sunday as on any day since the two and a half week revolt that brought down Mr. Mubarak. Army tanks and soldiers were deployed around the election commission, the Parliament and other institutions to prepare for possible violence. Foreign embassies warned their citizens to stay away from downtown. Banks, government offices and schools all closed early to allow students and employees to get off the streets.
His designation as president-elect will hand the Brotherhood and its allies a bully pulpit to use the struggle for power with the military. The Brotherhood has sought to rebuild the partnership with more secular and liberal advocates of democracy that came together in the uprising against Mr. Mubarak, and Brotherhood leaders have vowed not to hold any negotiations with the generals without the participation of the other groups in their so-called “national front.”
But on its own, the Brotherhood’s control of the presidency will do nothing to reduce the calm the fierce polarization of Egyptian society. On Saturday night, a counter protest that reportedly grew to over 10,000 gathered in a neighborhood with a heavy concentration of military personnel to demonstrate in support of the ruling generals, Mr. Shafik and secular government. Mr. Shafik, Mr. Mubarak’s last prime minister, has campaigned with the support of the old ruling party elite as a new strongman who can bring back order after the 16 months of chaos.
Earlier in the day, a group of secular political leaders and lawmakers who call themselves liberals had held a televised news conference to declare their support for the generals and the dissolution of the Brotherhood-led Parliament. The praised the shutdown of parliament as a victory for law and order, citing an unusually rushed court decision announced the day before. (The Brotherhood has respected the ruling but challenged its implementation.)
Indeed, it is kind of hard to see exactly what Morsi and his supporters have won here, at least in the short to medium term. Between the Supreme Court’s dissolution of Parliament and the SCOAF’s assumption of nearly all the important powers that had been granted to the President under the interim Constitution, Morsi will have little actual day-to-day power as President Egypt. He’ll be Head of State, of course, but the real power will still be in the hands of the Generals. In the meantime, Egypt still needs to put together a permanent Constitution and the military will no doubt have an important role in that process as well. As I’ve noted before, the military has been at the pinnacle of Egyptian society and politics since 1952 and it is quite unlikely that they are going to give that status up willingly any time soon.
What this sets the stage for, of course, is the possibility of confrontations between Morsi and his supporters and the military at some point down the road. If the military does become reluctant to give up power to the democratically elected leader of the country, how are the people going to react to that? And, if the people start protesting against like they did January and February 2011, will the military be as reticent to put the protests down with force as they were back then? There’s also the fact that nearly half of the people who did vote (voter turnout for the runoff election was approximately 50% according to the elections commission) voted against Morsi, so it’s not like he has some kind of overwhelming mandate. Also left unresolved is the status of Egypt’s Coptic Christian population, which has often been the target of attack by forces affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Will Morsi protect them, or victimize them? Finally, of course, there is the question of Israel and the peace treaty. the Muslim Brotherhood has been opposed to the treaty for decades but the military supports it emphatically (largely, no doubt, because they have no desire to get dragged into another conflict with Israelis who are not even more advanced than they were in 1973). There’s no doubt some concern tonight in Jerusalem, and elsewhere, about the future of the Sinai.
The reaction to Morsi’s victory was fairly jubilant in Tahrir Square, which was filled with thousands of Morsi supporters. No doubt the reaction would have been different had the commission declared Shafik the winner, largely because it was already widely believed in Egypt that the military would try to fix the election for him. So in some sense, Egypt likely avoids civil unrest in the short term. In the long term, though, it seems clear that we’ll see some kind of conflict between the military and those who want greater civilian control of the levers of government. How that resolves itself is anybody’s guess.
The Muslim Brotherhood is Islamist, and the trend in Islamist movements is that once they win an election, that tends to be the last election. (Apart from token gestures every now and then.)
And do you actually think that the candidate backed by the military and formerly allied with Hosni Mubarak would have been any more democratic? The thought is laughable
No, the real questions are, do we keep writing a billion plus check to the Egyptians, and also, who gets the check?
@Doug Mataconis: Democratic? Hell, no. But, I suspect, a lot more peaceful.
Were you an Egyptian Coptic Christian, would you feel safer governed by the Muslim Brotherhood or the military?
Were you Israel, would you feel more secure with a neighbor under a military junta, or a Muslim Brotherhood leader?
Talk to the people who spent time in his prisons about how “peaceful” Mubarak was.
@Doug Mataconis: You’re missing Jenos’ underlying belief : the rights of Egyptians are meaningless compared to how secure Israel “feels”.
@Phillip:
Oh I recognize it fully. The truth is that most conservatives would have been much happier if Obama had told Mubarak to use force to put down those protests in 2011 so that he could stay in power. The fact that such action would have further radicalized the people and led to Mubarak’s downfall anyway seems to escape them
@Jenos Idanian #13:
It is not our business (or Israel’s)to decide the political future of Egypt, that is for the Egyptians
@Doug Mataconis: Just opinionating, much like you. With a dollop of half-assed predictions, based on past events. Remember, Hamas is both the Islamic Brotherhood’s representative in the Palestinian Territories and the legally elected government. How’s that working out again?
As I understand it, our foreign aid is part of the Camp David Accords. If Egypt says it isn’t bound by them any more, then neither should we.
Oh, and one final point: Egypt’s new president has proclaimed that “Jerusalem will be our Capital, God Willing!”
That bodes real well, don’t it?
@Jenos Idanian #13: I’m not sure about their god, but I’m pretty sure their military isn’t willing.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Who cares? If it’s so important to you then put on an IDF uniform and declare your allegiance to Israel.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
No. I feel dirty having given traffic to breitbart in order to look into your claim, but they’ve combined two separate MEMRI videos. One of some Cleric addressing a large crowd at night (perhaps the tahrir square crowd last night (?)) who, according to MEMRI’s subtitled translation, makes that statement, and the second video is of the New President at some sort of Press Conference talking about Egyptian women.
@Jeremy R:
I found that MEMRI video of the cleric on youtube. It says the source is Al-Nas TV (Egypt) – May 1, 2012 and the cleric’s name is “Safwat Higazi”.
Last I heard, they still have very democratic elections in Turkey since the Islamist AKP has been running the country for quite a few years now.
Double sigh……
Juan Cole has a pretty good run down.
I read an article last year that said that for the Egyptian military, the advantage of the Muslim Brotherhood is that they’re “the devil they know” – it’s been around for decades, the leaders are familiar faces, the authorities have established infiltrators and spies into the MB network (and vice versa to some extent, I’m sure). So the military at least in the short term has an interest in making it all work. Long term – say 6 months from now – may be a different story.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
There’s an awful lot about the history of Islam that you really don’t get. Explaining it to you would be a waste of my Sunday afternoon. But I find it really funny that you think he was talking to you.
Murder, rape, steal, dominate, terrorize, lie, hold for ransom,blow up, torture,make stupid, and cut off a lot of heads. Nice history….
Name one positive thing Islam has given to the world?
@Phillip:
You’re giving Jenos too much credit. Morsi didn’t actually say it to anyone. Breitbart’s site had an intentionally misleading story that juxtaposed a months old video of an Egyptian cleric making the statement with an unrelated video of the current President at some press conference talking about Egyptian women. This has lead to rightwingers all over the internet claiming the the new President made the statement today (when in fact it’s old footage of a different person).
I don’t think a down vote is anything positive that Islam has given the world. Just saying…..
@G.A.:
Straight from the Christian playbook. Oh wait, who’s over there in your corner??? child-molesting priests, and more priests to forgive them and cover up for them and allow them to continue their child-molesting ways.
I’d rather not spend time on a soapbox, sir, so I”ll make this brief: I do not see religions like you do. You would rather whitewash the sins of your forebearers, and highlight the offenses of those you consider the enemy. I prefer not to operate in this manner, but it seems to be the only language you understand. I know there are better Christians out there than what comes from Rome, but such I do not find here. Tend your own vineyard. The vines are covered in thorns.
@Phillip:
I would presume that we continue to conform to our commitments under the accords to which we are a party as long as the other parties live up to their commitments under those accords. Do you suppose something else?
@G.A.:
If I didn’t know better, I’d say this was intentional irony.
I don’t believe that the catholic church has much if any thing to do with Christianity…and would never white wash what I say about them.
And I was asking what (Islam) as whole has given to the world besides what I sited.
There is the Word of God and those who follow it, then there is the word of Muhammad and his interpreters.
So if you don’t want to look at it this way you won’t be able to answer my question.
Me…I can hardly tell anymore, my memory is going fast and all the new thing I am learning are not helping.
And right now I am trying not to come across as the self addled certified retard that I am and can be when I write lazy and emotional.
Ya, I can see that I need to try harder I read my crap too…
@G.A.: Yes the Islamist attempt to shove their 1500 year old mythology down everyone’s throat but how is that different the the Christianists is this country trying to shove their 2000 year old mythology down everyone’s throat? Organized religion is by it’s very nature un-Democratic.
@G.A.:
Lets see, how about our number system. How about all of the documents of western civilization which they preserved while the Christians were busy burning them.
@Ron Beasley:
I fear the irony of your comment may be lost on you. Ibn Rushd’s translations and commentaries on Aristotle were rejected by the Arabs even as they were embraced by Western Europeans.
This is not to say that I accept the “positive thing…Islam”, etc.” narrative. Far from it. I think it’s balloon juice. Thomas Jefferson included a translation of the Qur’an in the ethics section of his library (that formed the basis of the Library of Congress).
I’m just saying that the actual history is far more complicated than the imagined history.
@Dave Schuler:
It always is, which is precisely why small minds always prefer the imagined history, whether it be about Islam, our founding fathers, etc.
@Ron Beasley:Lets see, how about our number system. How about all of the documents of western civilization which they preserved while the Christians were busy burning them.
Let’s see… The Arabic numbers were introduced around 500 AD, about 70 years before Mohammed was born, so that’s out. The document-saving was a very long time ago; nowadays, book-burning is far more common in Islam than pretty much anywhere.
Pedophile priests? The Church was at least ashamed of it — that’s why they put such effort into covering it up. Please, find someone who actually defended the molestations.
On the other hand, atrocities are committed in the name of Islam pretty much every day, and you’ll have no trouble finding Islamists ready, willing, and downright eager to explain how it was all in accordance with the commands of Allah and Mohammed.
And that’s the key point — we’re dealing with the here and now, and what Christians did centuries ago, and what Muslims did centuries ago isn’t really that relevant. Today, the book-burners, the “convert or die” fanatics, and the homicidal maniacs are predominantly acting in the name of Allah, not Jesus.
In brief: Yeah, Christians did heinous things in the past. They outgrew it.
Muslims are doing heinous things today. They aren’t outrgowing it.
Christians? Say who you mean,Some that says they are Christian, some one who is close to Christian, some pagan ritual cult, some mysticism mix cult, on and on..And Democratic is a fuzzy word that needs to be discontinued in its use.
Things have been done that are very wrong in the name of The creator God and His Son And The Holy Spirit and their teachings and prophecy and laws and commandments.
Different from the teaching and commands and law of Muhammad and what has been on behalf of that….
Number system. ok I won’t make a joke need to research that.
But please say catholic or what ever sect/cult/Royal bloodline when you mean to say that they did something.
If you want to play the “No true Scotsman” game, then no Muslim every hurt anybody either.
Amen brother…
No I want you to understand that I see things somewhat more clearly and that there is a difference between the liberal stereotype(indoctrinated) of all “Christians” are followers of the Good book and that Islam teaches what it teaches and the terrorists are the true believers.
Man how did we even get to this argument?Oh ya I was attacked with rules for radicals….
@Dave Schuler:
(No snark intended) I suppose that I tend towards the analysis that the Israeli-Egyptian peace deal is, in part, paid for in the yearly billion + we send to Egypt. I suppose also that a fair amount of that billion plus went into the pockets of both Mubarak, his family, his friends, and his top military brass and cabinet. I suppose that Mubarak had some control over where this money went, but obviously, we’re not handing the check to a vegetable. I suppose I wonder where the money has been going, and where it will go, and whether that is an arrangement that Egypt’s democratically elected leaders will want to continue. I suppose they might be ameniable to continuing to honor the peace terms, should the billion plus (the largess appears to go towards military purchases from u.s. defense contractors link) be spent on things that actually help the Egyptian people (or go into Brotherhood coffers).
I thought it was a fair question. Would you care to offer a more nuanced analysis?
@G.A.:
Funny how only liberal stereotypes can be indoctrinated, eh? (Snort) As Pelton said, “the strongest adherents to a religion are their worst advertisments.”
@Jeremy R:
I suppose I was being too snarky, the point I was making was the way that some people hear the political rhetoric that goes on in cultures that they won’t even deign themselves to understand, and they take it as pure gospel… it presumes that everyone else’s politicians are as honest as they are un-American. It also displays an enormous ignorance of Islamic history.
Um since you seem new, I used to be a liberal and I don’t belong to a religion but I study them and how they brainwash, and their history, and their effects..As a litte more then a hobby.
I was a hardcore atheist who hated what I thought was Christians like I assume many here do from their writings.
When I was like 7 the opening to the Creature of the Black Lagoon messed me all up.Then I kind of grew up on my own and secular.
Now, I don’t hate anyone and I am a true believer and if you want to label me a Christian I guess you could say I am a creationist student of all I can sit still for…
@G.A.:
Are you for real suggesting that you’re such an expert on religions that we should take your word that only liberal ideas are indoctrinated re:religion? Absurd, really.
I don’t need to think about what they “are” I’ve been exposed to so many from a lifetime of growing up in a fairly genteel fundamental church, not one that anyone (even homosexuals) would feel unwelcome in at all, but wouldn’t agree with gay marriage and the like. I was raised into it, I bought into it, I went further into it than most would consider. I still feel my highest calling is to live a life as an imitation of the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth, as written. I was not indoctrinated with this, indeed I’d probably be branded a heretic or apostate in most churches though. To sum up, I know more good Christians than bad, by far. But I do not dismiss the countless horrors and atrocities committed in the name of the church or of Jesus as irrelevant when discussing what some radicals to some religions may do. Whatever your studies of Islam may be, there are millions of people who completely disagree with your interpretations. I reject your assumption of superior understanding.
For what it is worth, I totally believe you. At times, your rhetoric may leave some room for doubt, but my overall impression is that hate is not motivating you.
You mean they have the same history as the rest of the human race? Shocking…
@Phillip:
Sure. It’s going to support the Egyptian military and the Egyptian military, consequently, has an incentive to uphold the agreement. That hasn’t changed just because the president of Egypt is Muslim Brotherhood and may be part of the reason the presidency was stripped of its power.
Interesting that some of the same people who might question the patriotism of other Americans seem to care more about the national security of Israel rather than the national security of our country…oh, and if the argument is that Islam is bad while Christianity is good, once Catholicism is stripped out, that is a rather weak argument…
@Dave Schuler: I agree Dave – I was kind of shooting from the hip on that one.
@An Interested Party: Bingo!
@G.A.: I really think you are seriously in need of some psychiatric help.
jenos:
Oh, and one final point: you’re spreading baloney, as usual. And even though Jeremy pointed this out to you shortly after you posted it, you had the chutzpah to show up again later, posting more baloney, without lifting a finger to withdraw and apologize for your false claim.
This is what you do, routinely. I’m amazed that you think that you can behave this way and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is not a fool.
At csmonitor.com there’s an article (“Egypt has a new president: Let the fear mongering begin!”) describing how Fox and Breitbart both participated in spreading this false claim. And you did your part, too. I guess you’re proud of yourself.
I study its books and its history.I have teachers that understand it and who speak it’s language.
No my whole point is I seem to more then most here on many things about religion and worldviews and I want you to find out for yourself and not just go with the flow.Plus my knowledge therefore my opinion is evolving:) if that helps any.
ya but like in their bibles and on the lips of their Holy men that understand what is written in them and on the hands of their true believers…
Same to you:)…
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Seems like someone forgot that entire Bosian Genocide thing… Not to mention that the Holocaust took place is a supposedly Christian Country.
The thing is Jenos, that in both these cases, where arguably Christians were in the majority/oppressor category, we allow for nuance, seeing cultual factors as the cause before one touches on Religion (and to be sure, at least at the beginning of each event, Religion was used as a method to begin the culls).
But as usual, when Islam is involved in any way, then it’s always the problems of Islam.* Culture can never come into it. And the fact that there are countless nations and locations that are predominantly Islam and no such violence occurs is thrown out the window.
Welcome to Bigotsville. Population: You.
( * – BTW: If this was probably 100 years ago, I suspect you’d be talking about the Juh-ews in the same way, given that the parallels between the style of Anti-Islamic reasoning and rhetoric of today and the Rampent Anti-semitism (i.e. protocols of Zion) of a century+ ago.
@mattb:
And before I get categorized as someone who just throws out titles to shut down discussion… let’s go to the tale of the tape:
Give your continual tendency, when to comes to discussions of Islam and Muslims, to always take the worst possible view, ignore facts that disprove your position, and generally advocate for the idea that Islam is/has been/always will be a religion of violence and that it’s followers are inherently suspect, to pretend that there is a single or universal islam, and defend a wide range of ignorant and bigoted positions… well I think we can safe dub thee a “bigot” on this particular topic.