A core of activists still come to Tahrir Square, but the real game is farther afield, where Islamist parties have mobilized tens of thousands to get out the vote and monitor polling stations.
For Americans, it is hard to imagine that religious parties could win almost 70 percent of the Egyptian vote. But I served as an official election observer earlier this month, and it is hard for me to imagine how they could not. Islamists have grasped that the game has moved beyond protests to the mechanics of elections, and their supporters are motivated, organized and energetic. By contrast, the secular liberal parties are virtually absent from the countryside. Judging from posters, billboards, bumper stickers and banners, the two major Islamist parties have the field almost to themselves.
Although Egypt’s rising Islamist politicians are seeking to take power from the military, the army has generally supported the political process by guarding polling stations and maintaining order. But the army’s legitimacy is now fading due to its brutal treatment of protesters. While it had initially approached the elections with professionalism and fairness, raids on civil society and democracy groups in recent days represent a real departure. As the army’s image declines, high voter turnout and strong poll results are enhancing Islamists’ legitimacy.
This is but a prelude to the real battle, which will come in the spring as a new Parliament is seated, constitutional revisions begin and a presidential election campaign kicks off. Egypt is also likely to be running low on foreign exchange reserves, tempting the government to devalue the pound and spur inflation.
Elected politicians and the army will both be working to set the rules by which Egypt will be governed. Each side is likely to take things to the brink, reminding the other of its strengths and ensuring that it gets the best deal.
Many in Israel and America, and even some in Egypt, fear that the elections will produce an Islamist-led government that will tear up the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, turn hostile to the United States, openly support Hamas and transform Egypt into a theocracy that oppresses women, Christians and secular Muslims. They see little prospect for more liberal voices to prevail, and view military dictatorship as a preferable outcome.
American interests, however, call for a different outcome, one that finds a balance — however uneasy — between the military authorities and Egypt’s new politicians. We do not want any one side to vanquish or silence the other. And with lopsided early election results, it is especially important that the outcome not drive away Egypt’s educated liberal elite, whose economic connections and know-how will be vital for attracting investment and creating jobs.
Our instinct is to search for the clarity we saw in last winter’s televised celebrations. However, what Egyptians, and Americans, need is something murkier — not a victory, but an accommodation.
_______________________________________________________
Jon B. Alterman is director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The New York Times.