Over the past few days, Egypt's powerful and popular opposition Muslim Brotherhood has been forced to issue public statements over media reports that indicated Supreme Guide Mahdy Akef had resigned and Deputy Mohamed Habib had taken over control of the Islamic group. Then, media outlets began reporting about a possible internal “rift” within the ranks of the group. Certainly, there was some disagreement among members, but the question that seems to have lost itself on all observers and analysts is whether a debate, however, heated, means a split is forming. Many reported a major break between the conservatives and the younger, more reform-minded leaders, headed by currently jailed Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh and leading senior member Essam el-Erian. Erian, who has become the Western media's Brotherhood lovechild in many respects, is looking for more of a senior role within the leadership ahead of next year's Parliamentary elections in Egypt. He is widely seen as the most popular MB member and has the ability to bring multiple sides together. But, the conservatives within the group, many of whom are among the elder generation that is attempting to maintain power internally, do not want to see him or Aboul Fotouh take the mantle of leadership. It is an internal struggle, Erian told me a few weeks ago, and “there is not split within the Brotherhood. I am part of the group and we have debates.” But, according to reports, Akef became so fed up with the conservative wing that he stormed out of a meeting on Saturday and allegedly said “I quit,” prompting local Arabic newspapers to lead with his so-called “resignation.” The sensational reporting that failed to look into a simple argument within the top authorities of the Brotherhood is erring and only creates more tension between the media and the Brotherhood. So often, local and foreign press argue that the Brotherhood is unwilling to sit down and discuss their policies and how the organization works. But, if media, namely the local press, is to misconstrue an event to be grander than it is, why would the Brotherhood's leadership feel the need to talk with reporters. Back to the question at hand. When does debate become a dispute? Or a split? For years, it seems the MB cannot avoid the annual media scandal that tells of the coming break of the Muslim Brotherhood. A few years back it was a book published by a former member who accused the leadership of not wanting change. Mohamed Habib, on a number of occasions, said that the Brotherhood is a democratic organization that often has heated arguments about the future of the movement. In the end, he says, “we all are part of this group and we abide by what the majority believes and wants.” This time around the debate centers on Erian. While the press continues to talk of a possible coming break within the group, the one man concievably able to split the organization has repeatedly agreed with Habib, saying that the Brotherhood works on consensus. The arguments that occur within the Executive Bureau or within the group as a whole should not be conveyed as a coming split, instead it should be shown as a debate to possibly move the MB toward a reformist and more inclusive agenda. Many are quick to point out the Brotherhood is an Islamist organization that would like to see Islamic law established in Egypt, but this is not to mean that idea of what a Brotherhood-run Egypt would look like cannot change. While the local media duke it out over whether there is a split within the Brotherhood, maybe it is time to start reporting on how the internal debates, often harsh and emotional, are creating a Brotherhood more representative of an Egyptian society that so desperately strives for change. BM
