The Muslim Brotherhood's success at the parliamentary polls was the talk of 2005. Dina Ezzat explores the group's future Banned but tolerated, illegal but unavoidable, the Muslim Brotherhood took the 2005 legislative elections by storm. The 88 seats they collected were a huge leap from the mere 17 they had in the 2000 parliament. The figure was not too far behind the 130-odd seats that official candidates of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) picked up this year. That's the humble number secured by the NDP before -- in a desperate grab for a two-thirds People's Assembly majority -- it re-integrated dissenting members who had run independently. The Brotherhood's gains in the parliamentary elections' first two stages were so vigorous that the state was compelled to unleash the full force of its security apparatus during the third round, unconcerned about the negative ramifications and publicity. Even so, the group's success was unprecedented. Given the absence of any legal political umbrella, the Brotherhood's totals dwarfed the meagre results of established, legal political parties of the right, left and centre, whose total share of MPs is now less than one quarter of the Brotherhood's. This dramatic political duel began early in 2005, when the Brotherhood indicated an intention to run in the legislative elections as independents. Surprisingly, the state, which normally employs heavy-handed tactics against the group's members, seemed to give the green light. Sceptics argue that members of the organisation were suddenly allowed to run, campaign, lobby and appear on state-controlled TV, in a cynical effort to present the Brotherhood as a sole, highly undesirable alternative to the current regime; this dynamic was meant to worry the West, and especially the US, about the dangers of its increasing push for political reform, and the potentially alarming rise of political Islam that could accompany it. Proponents of the theory point to the successful marginalisation of all other opposition political powers prior to and during the elections, to the extent that many top figures, including Khaled Mohieddin and El-Badri Farghali, lost their long-held seats. Despite their gains, though, the Brotherhood remains in political limbo. Much talk has centred on the possibility that the group, with 88 of parliament's 454 seats, may be able to field a presidential candidate of their own; Article 76 of the constitution, however, stipulates that only legalised political parties with 65 parliamentary seats or more can nominate a candidate for the nation's highest office. The stipulations for independent candidates are far more stringent. A pressing question, then, is whether the group will opt to form a political party. To pursue that, the Muslim Brotherhood may have to give up its name, as well as long- standing slogans like "Islam is the solution". But even those concessions may not hamper their declared objective of establishing an Islamic state where their fairly orthodox interpretation of Islam will be applied. President Hosni Mubarak has repeatedly said he has no intention of giving his blessing to a religiously-based party, partly in fear of prompting civil strife between Muslims and Copts. Although this year the president made a few statements indicating tacit acknowledgement of the Brotherhood's "existence", he always rapidly added his concern about the group's militant past and its potential revival. In view of this and the strong reservations expressed by many a Coptic and secularist quarter in Egypt and the US, Mubarak has no reason to retreat from his firm opposition to the legalisation of an Islamic political party. Outlawed since the mid-1950s in the wake of an attempt -- which the Brotherhood denies -- to assassinate former president Gamal Abdel-Nasser, the group has still managed to maintain its status as an indisputable player in the nation's political landscape. Today, the group -- perhaps best known for its charitable social, educational, and healthcare network -- may stand as a potential challenger to the regime, but it is bogged down by a history -- since its founding by Hassan El-Banna in 1928 -- that has featured alternate bouts of confrontation and compromise with the state. It is in that light that the statements made by the group's Supreme Guide Mohamed Magdi Akef have been seen. Akef has been opaque, for instance, about the group's views on President Mubarak, and the idea of his son Gamal running for president. Over the course of the year, his statements have included support for the president that was later denied or watered down, prompting some observers to suggest that an under-the-table alliance between the NDP and the Brotherhood was at work. Alliance or not, in the assembly itself, the Brotherhood are likely to attract scrutiny for their views on issues like political prisoners, economic ties with Israel, religious curricula in schools and the role of women in society and state. Although only one of parliament's 19 sub-committees will be headed by a Brotherhood MP (the other 18 have NDP chairpersons), the Brotherhood will most likely give the government and the NDP a hard time on issues related to political and civil liberties, as they simultaneously try to expand their influence on the street. What's in store for the Brotherhood is now the question of the hour. They will surely be making waves in 2006, but are unlikely to really rock the boat -- at least not yet.
