Defective Paradigm Religions have had their kingdoms and empires. They all had a common feature--- that a god or gods ruled, not humans. It goes without saying that democracy then was in the realms of a farfetched myth. What could anyone have to say in a confrontation with gods? The people who were ruling were the actual gods whose dictatorship was holy. This pattern of government—a defective paradigm—governed many nations for centuries. The poor subjects of religious regimes lived in the torment of being too weak to oppose gods, or even question any of the often strange demands made of them by these gods. All they could do was to submit in fear, hoping to save themselves and, if lucky, perhaps please the gods. The Greek Cleisthenes fifth century BC introduction of the ideology of democracy did not shake these religious regimes. A new authoritarian era eventually emerged with the theory of the "Divine right of kings." This transformed the rule of human gods, to the rule of a monotheistic God's lieutenants. No big change had occurred. The leader's absolute supremacy was still enshrined in the theory. Democracy was still locked up in the minds of philosophers and thinkers. It did not dare leave that domain except to make its way into theoretical scripts, which, later on, might be published. Three waves helpful to democracy eventually swept the world, the aftermath of world war one in which many autocracies crumbled and the idea of a nation's right to self-determination emerged, followed by decolonization and then by the fall of communism in the late nineties of the last century. By the end of these waves the divine right to rule was on the retreat, allowing democracy to flourish in many places. The problem with religious rule has never really been with religion, but with those who use religion to make themselves ‘holy rulers.' They do this by twisting doctrine and bending statutes, taking advantage of peoples' ignorance and lack of awareness. They gain power by slaughtering democracy on the altar of a fake holiness. Brotherhood Democracy The 2012 democratic elections in Egypt brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Although the propellant of democratic elections was used, democracy was quickly abandoned afterwards. Subsequently, they frequently used the defective paradigm of religious rule to gain their ends. They never, moreover, hesitated to label anyone who disagreed with them, or opposed them, an infidel. How can anyone oppose those who know the way to heaven, who can guide them to it, who, so long as they are in the leading role, can guide the entire country on the right path? The term ‘infidel' in Egyptian culture is a very serious insult. With the kind of rule that prevailed under the auspices of the Brotherhood, it could also be a dangerous one. ‘Gods' lieutenants' were all over the state. Khairat Al Shater, for example, who was Deputy Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood, but held no formal governmental post, was acting in the capacity of a high official, meeting ambassadors and ministers and talking on behalf of the people and government. Towards the Minister of Defense at the time, Abdel Fatah Al Sisi, he adopted a very threatening tone. The words used and the tone employed in the on-line interview illustrate the attitude: http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/interview-defense-minister-abdel-fattah-al-sisi-part-2 It was the attitude of the Brotherhood---one of a supreme overlord. Their power, they claimed was conferred on them from above, by the Divinity, not by the votes of the people. The Brotherhood's religious regime dominated democracy. Egypt was taking a tailspin towards a new version of the "Divine Right of Kings", practiced by lieutenants, in the absence of a king. Original Aroma The Egyptian public rapidly realized that democracy was a heresy within the religious regime and they immediately rejected the regime. Egyptians may not, earlier, have fully enjoyed the sweet scent of democracy. They, nevertheless, missed the original democratic aroma in Brotherhood rule. Question: Why do we now come across people who think that democracy was ignored when the Brotherhood regime was ousted? Most probably they are people who do not fully comprehend that MB rule religious rule which is in conflict with democratic rule. They are under the impression that the Muslim Brotherhood is like all other political entities, seeking power, using political means only, in order to wield that power within a democratic framework. We hope they will reconsider this. Question: Are those who would support a Brotherhood regime aware of the Divine Right of Kings era? Would they prefer to be ruled in that way in Egypt or abroad? If the answers to these two questions are "yes," then it is obvious that they are against democracy. ‘Religious regimes' do not observe democracy at all; they never did and never will do. If these people seek democracy in the region-- the way most western countries are ruled-- then they can only reject the Brotherhood. No Way Threat has been a constant component of Brotherhood statements before, during and after the ousting of their regime. Egypt has witnessed the execution of many of these threats. Many atrocities have been carried out against civilians, the military, and the police. Public facilities have been attacked and some destroyed. Many people have fallen victim to the violence of the regime that has been ousted, but does not side with the public. Logically the Brotherhood regime could not have been seeking democracy, since all their violent actions were, and still are, directed against the Egyptian people. Could they really be looking for votes in a future election? Democracy is simply not in their methodology. They merely wanted to use it to gain power. Once in power, however, no democratic means whatsoever would get them out. There would be absolutely no room for democracy to do that, as ‘God's word,' in their flawed view, would have taken over. The infidels simply do not have a vote, or a say when god lieutenants rule. Democracy may be still distant, but Egypt is on the right track. No way can Egypt deviate; democracy that we lacked earlier was closer to what we dreamed, compared to what the Brotherhood brought. We were about to lose even the fantasy to have it one day if we did give in. Thanks to the vivid dream of democracy within, it is a conception with good tidings to live.
