Free and democratic societies take chances. They guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, despite the risk that harmful, foolish, or depraved ideas may be promoted. They require due process of law before an offender can be punished, even though some who are guilty may go free as a result. They give citizens the power to elect their rulers, notwithstanding the strife election campaigns generate -- and the possibility that voters will choose officials who are corrupt or incompetent.
But there are limits. "Liberty and justice for all" does not require empowering even those who seek to do away with liberty and justice. In his famous dissent in the 1949 Supreme Court case of Terminiello v. Chicago, Justice Robert Jackson warned against interpreting the First Amendment so categorically as to fortify "right and left totalitarian groups, who want nothing so much as to paralyze and discredit . . . democratic authority." A commitment to liberal democracy is not an obligation to open the democratic process to parties that reject liberal democracy itself. Jackson cautioned the court's majority to "temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom," lest it "convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
It is important to guard against antidemocratic cancers that latch on to political freedoms in order to destroy them.
If even in America, where democratic institutions are old and firmly rooted, it is important to guard against antidemocratic cancers that latch on to political freedoms in order to destroy them, how much more important must it be in Egypt, where a democratic republic is still struggling to be born?
This is why the question of the Muslim Brotherhood -- officially banned in Egypt, but nevertheless the country's largest opposition group -- is so crucial.
The Brotherhood is the world's most influential Islamist organization, and Islamism -- the radical ideology that seeks the submission of all people to Islamic law -- is perhaps the most virulent antidemocratic force in the world today. In Daniel Pipes's phrase, "it is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism." Like other totalitarian cadres, Islamists despise democratic pluralism and liberty in principle. But they are quite ready to make use of elections and campaigns as tactical stepping-stones to power.
As with Adolf Hitler in 1933 or the Czechsolovak communists in 1946, Islamists may run for office and hold themselves out as democrats; but once power is in their grasp, they do not voluntarily relinquish it. Just months after Hamas, a self-described "wing of the Muslim Brotherhood," won a majority of seats in the Palestinian elections in 2006, it violently seized control of the Gaza Strip. More than 30 years after Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran promising representative democracy, the Islamist dictatorship he built instead remains entrenched.
In Turkey, where secular democratic norms were long enforced by the military, the Islamist Justice and Development Party, or AKP, won the 2002 elections on a platform of moderate democratic conservatism. Since then, however, the AKP has shed its moderate coloration. "The party has turned authoritarian toward the opposition," writes Soner Cagaptay, who heads the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Anti-government protestors are beaten up by security forces, opposition figures are wiretapped, and independent papers get slapped with punitive tax fines. . . . The AKP has effectively neutered the military. Not just high-ranking officers, but also the government's critics among academics have come under assault, ending up in prison."
If Egypt is to have any hope of a transition to a genuine constitutional democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood must not be treated as a legitimate democratic partner. For more than 80 years, it has been a fervent exponent of Islamic, not secular, rule; of clerical, not popular, sovereignty. Its credo could hardly be more explicit, or more antidemocratic: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
In 2008, the Muslim Brotherhood's supreme leader publicly called for raising young "mujaheddin" -- holy warriors -- "who love to die as much as others love to live and who can perform their duty towards their God, themselves and homeland." This week, senior Brotherhood figure Kamal al-Halbavi said his wish for Egypt is "a good government like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave."
Democracy is flexible, but even in the best of circumstances it is incompatible with religious totalitarianism. What the Muslim Brotherhood seeks is the very antithesis of democratic pluralism and a free civil society. Egypt's friends must not hesitate to say so, clearly and emphatically.
This article originally appeared in the Boston Globe.
(13) Avi, December 21, 2011 6:08 PM
We The People
This letter should be directed to the citizens of Egypt, and not the leadership of the World. It is up to Egyptians to decide if democracy is important, or simply the means to an end. The rise of Hitler and the Nazi party provides a perfect example. It is up to the Egyptians to learn the lesson, not up to the World to force it upon them.
(12) Anonymous, May 29, 2011 1:57 PM
Democracy for the sping revolutionaries ?
Obama upon leaving Poland cited them as an example of outstanding change to Democracy after many decades of Communist rule .Mr Obama ,there is nothing to compare you are dealing with Poles who have a long history of civilization developing an outstanding culture as against the Islamists who lived in the medieval ages up to recently and with the Brotherhood taking over they will regress to worse oppression and terrorism that they knew before the Spring Revolution .As usual you interfered to late and words accompanied to a handful of Dollars will not make them love you or the USA .
(11) Bobby5000, February 17, 2011 2:20 PM
How do you propose to exclude a party in a democracy
Much of what you say makes sense, but I do not know how this will be done. Do you have a democratic election where someone unilaterally determines who will run. Who? If your saw the recent New York gogvernor's race, you saw standard parties and some crazy one's too, including "the Rent's is Too High" party. Already there are questions about elections and the suggestion that the new miltary president will want to run the election, and choose election monitors. Do you ban all Islamic parties, or just the Brotherhood. I would think that election monitors would be a start. One question is whether a framework for democracy could be established with safeguards for free expression. To those skeptical about such an idea, doesn't that have a better chance than telling the Egyptians that the Israelis do not want certain parties to run and that eligible parties must be pre-qualified by the Knesset. One must be careful with attacks on Islam. 60 years ago, a Christian country, Germany, proposed to exterminate Jews and others. Historically, Jews have lived and prospered in Arab countries and Spain saw centuries of prosperity and free thought until the Christian regime returned. We then saw the Christian Spanish Inquisition and torture of Jews
(10) Jacenty Domanski, February 14, 2011 8:03 AM
The real democracy.
Daniel Pipes has its own liberal interpretastion of democracy. USA from years is absolute nit democratic country. Its try by force impose other very week countries it's point of view, and build One Worl Order, world governemt instaled by them for others with out their wish. The concept is not far from communist conception. based on above with real demicratic view also Muslim Brotherhood has equal righ to do so for the world.
(9) Joanne, February 14, 2011 1:58 AM
The Media are already calling them "Moderates"
Will they never learn? What is to be gained by trying to paint terrorist organizations as "moderates"? Does the press not get it that white washing those bent on the eradication of the rights and freedom of worship of others cannot, by its own definition, be "moderate"?
(8) ruth housman, February 13, 2011 11:27 PM
This "brotherhood"
What you are saying is that this is not a brotherhood, but a cover, for hatred, for enmity, and for obscene use of power, to promote a world view that is not about the equality and brotherhood of a peoples, but rather its exact opposite. I feel that this change in power in Egypt could be the harbinger of something very good to come, and yet, the notion of forces that are not good, taking the place of a government that deserved to fall, well, this is a crazy notion, and if this happens, then a movement of people promoting change, people who were oppressed, will be a really nonsensical story, and very dangerous. I need to feel that the destabilization of what WAS in Egypt could lead to something more, meaning the institution of a democratic way of being, the elimination of the terrible poverty and injustice that has prevailed within Egyptian society. I think we need to watch this situation carefully to see what ensues, but surely, Egypt needs to be a major player in the Middle East because it's a question of borders and boarders, and displaced peoples everywhere. And peace depends on something else happening. Something to pave the way.
(7) David Elkins, February 13, 2011 5:27 PM
another perspective
Folk wisdom is not a meaningless term. "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
(6) Anonymous, February 13, 2011 3:35 PM
What do you do....
What do you do when someone tells you that they are going to kill you? You believe them!
(5) Frank Adam, February 13, 2011 2:54 PM
The other Enlightenment restraint on Liberty
The US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights are all part of The Enlightenment movement that was as much against kingly abuse of office as the Protestant Reformation had been against clerical abuse of power. Nevertheless both saw conditional social limits to freedom and all staates have inherited treason laws. This was summed up and flagged across Europe as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man given at the time the US were small overseas, while France was the biggest population and power in Europe and French the international language - literally lingua franca. Art IV never mind subsequent court cases, reads: "Liberty is the freedom to do what does not harm others and has boundary stones only to prevent denial of enjoyment of these rights by others."
(4) mike, February 13, 2011 2:00 PM
American styled democracy-not for eveyone
the American view of the world unfortunately has been to prop up corrupt dictators who we could buy off then get set up for the eventual violent change in the regime which will bring in an even worse and anti-american regime. the answer to stability ,however, is not to try to push our governmental model on to these countries who truely have no real ability or desire to have a lasting democracy. as it was previosly written that hitler was elected by the germans. as a superpower (at least for now) we need to develop a foreign policy which is much more effective and does protect our and our democratic allies. this stupid idea that every situation can be instantly cured by giving people the right to vote (most elections are rigged) is not it.
(3) r i c k, February 12, 2011 8:04 PM
the religion of hate can not look for peace with us
never let them to get more land or rights
(2) Anonymous, February 11, 2011 9:03 PM
This is true
Muslim brothers are very dangerous, they change their plans according to the situation, they change their declarations along with different political environment, they can even lie to escape confrontation...etc. They are preparing to what is called "KHELAFA" to start the holly war, by which they remove Christians & Jews from the world, or even Muslims who oppose them.
(1) Sharon, February 10, 2011 10:27 AM
Arab culture antithetical to democratic thinking
Obviously, the Muslim Brotherhood is not going to solve anybody's problems, and surely uncertainty about peace with Israel will result. But what most people don't understand is that Arabs are not interested in democracy. Ironically democracy can not be imposed on people who don't want it, even if they would be better off. It is no coincident that most Arab countries are ruled by dictators with varying levels of religious components. People get the kind of governments that they deserve. Education could help, but how can it be imposed, if it is not sought?