To drive my point home, I will have to give hypothetical examples. The first example is of a professional player like Lionel Messi, who joins a new soccer team where the players tend to ignore him in the pitch and put him in situations that make him commit mistakes over and over again in ways that force the coach to take him off the pitch. How will the fans view the player then? What will observers and commentators say about him?
The second example is of an expert hired by an organisation to carry out reforms inside the organisation. As the expert takes over, workers in the organisation agree to ignore him and give him a hard time. Do you think this expert will manage to achieve any success? Will his employers be satisfied with him?
These two examples can be easily applied to the cases of Egypt and Tunisia, two countries that have one thing in common, which is that Islamists have managed to reach the driver’s seat in them after their popular uprisings brought long-standing autocracies to an end.
An unexpected scenario has occurred in both Egypt and Tunisia after the downfall of their autocratic regimes, namely the political rise of the two nations’ Islamists. Some people were optimistic. Others, however, were pessimistic.
Islamists have managed to win elections in both Egypt and Tunisia. But this has made the opposition angry. This opposition is in ceaseless protest. It does not give the opportunity to the election winners to put either their political or economic vision to effect. It does not offer them the space or time to run public affairs.
Hardly had a year passed since Islamists mounted Tunisia’s saddle and less than a year since Islamists got into the driver’s seat in Egypt, protests have become ubiquitous in the two countries.
I hear with astonishment some intellectuals saying Islamists have failed miserably in the two countries. I always ask whether these Islamists have been given any chance to rule at all? Islamists have been in power in both Egypt and Tunisia for a very brief time, after all.
Islamists have been working in both the countries under enormous pressure. They have to succeed under all this pressure and also under the legacy of corruption and economic ruin they have inherited from the deposed corrupt regimes of their countries.
I am sure that Egyptians would have taken to the streets now to demand the overthrow of their ruler even if this ruler had been Omar Ibn Al Khattab, the most powerful and most influential caliph in the history of Islam.
The opposition says Islamist parties want to take over everything in the state, but my question is that is there anything wrong with this? Is not it necessary for a party in power to make use of its own human capital in order to put its vision to effect and push things forward in the country? Islamists want to make sure that the presence of other unlike-minded people will not sabotage their master plan for reforming things in their countries.
Democracy has sufficient mechanisms for bringing about a change of government. If people are not happy with their president or government, they can easily remove the president or government by going to the polling stations and voting against them. No revolutions are needed here.
Revolutions always aim at change. After the change is made, however, people should wait until they see whether the action taken by elected people meets their aspirations or not.
What is happening in Egypt and Tunisia at present, in my view, only aims to serve the personal interests of some people.
As for the people in both countries, they have to realise that governments need time to prove whether they are good or bad. Nobody will lose anything from waiting. Impatience, however, can lead to disasters.
