By the end of the first two stages of the parliamentary elections the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) had won 76 seats. This is an outstanding achievement and comes with certain responsibilities. The MB is still officially banned but as the main opposition group it now has to provide the nation with a clear manifesto. The MB has posted a programme on its website according to which it is intent on the "remaking of man". This sounds frighteningly similar to the ambitions of the fascist regimes that came to power in the first half of the 20th century and the totalitarian regimes that emerged in the second half. As the goal "remaking of man" is at best ambiguous, yet it is central to the MB's programme, the rest of which resembles the ideas posed by the National Movement for Change and the Judges' Club on how to turn Egypt into a parliamentary republic. Aside from its pledge to turn the nation into believers, the MB embraces the same liberal ideas shared by much of the opposition. The attempt to "improve" Egyptians comes up again when the MB addresses economy. The MB wants to fight corruption through "education" and an awakening of conscience. This hardly constitutes a policy statement. Instead of proposing specific legal and institutional reforms, the MB promises to improve the nation so it can detect and expose corruption. The MB's approach to privatisation, capital and bureaucracy is hardly original. It has no specific plans for the future. We do not know, for instance, whether the current Egyptian government apparatus of six million people is adequate or if the MB seeks to hire more. It would come as no surprise if the MB turns out to be in favour of big government. Its programme does urge "major public projects", something the ruling National Democratic Party has always done. The MB is all for privatisation. But then it wants the government to launch major projects aimed at securing self- sufficiency in essential commodities. This sounds somewhat socialist, doesn't it? And we've done it already. In the socialist past we ended up with a crushing, top heavy bureaucracy. The MB tells us the nation should save and engage in private initiatives. Yet it appears to reserve the right of the state to interfere in all aspects of public life. How are such contradictions to be worked out? How does a state that is constantly re-educating and reshaping its citizens boost development, investment and create jobs. How does it balance its budget? These are questions the MB programme studiously avoids. All we know is that the government should spend more on everything while keeping taxation at a "fair" level. The icing on the MB cake are proposals for an active foreign policy with all the military and security spending that entails. Again we don't know where the money is coming from. The MB may have fared well in elections. In terms of policy it is still as vague as ever.
