BEIRUT

Commentary

What values drive the Arab movements of revolt?

The self-immolation a year ago of Tunisian street vendor Mohammad Bouazizi triggered a wave of protests that spread across the Arab world, forcing out dictators in Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

What values are driving these movements, and what kind of change do their adherents want? A series of surveys in the Arab world last summer highlights some significant shifts in public opinion.

In surveys, 84 percent of Egyptians and 66 percent of Lebanese regarded democracy and economic prosperity as the goal of the “Arab Spring.” In both countries, only about 9 percent believed that these movements aimed to establish an Islamic government.

For Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, where trend data are available, the Arab Spring reflected a significant shift in people’s values concerning national identity. In 2001, only 8 percent of Egyptians defined themselves as Egyptians above all, while 81 percent defined themselves as Muslims. In 2007, the results were roughly the same.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, however, these numbers changed dramatically: Those defining themselves as Egyptians rose to 50 percent, 2 percent more than those who defined themselves as Muslims. Among Iraqis, primary self-identification in national terms jumped from 23 percent of respondents in 2004 to 57 percent in 2011. Among Saudis, the figure jumped from 17 percent in 2003 to 46 percent in 2011, while the share of those claiming a primary Muslim identity dropped from 75 percent to 44 percent.

There has also been a shift toward secular politics and weakening support for Shariah (Islamic religious law). Among Iraqis, the percentage of those who agreed that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated increased from 50 percent in 2004 to almost 70 percent in 2011.

Finally, an analysis of a nationally representative sample of 3,500 Egyptian adults, who rated their participation in the anti-Hosni Mubarak movement, showed that participants were more likely to be younger single males with higher socio-economic status, users of the Internet, newspaper readers, urban residents, and believers in modern values and free will. Religiosity did not predict participation, while religious intolerance reduced participation.

These figures seem at odds with the results of Egypt’s recent parliamentary election, in which the Muslim Brothers and the Salafists together gained about 65 percent of the popular vote. It remains true that religion is an important factor for Egyptian voters, as 66 percent of those surveyed “strongly agree” or “agree” that it would be better if people with strong religious belief held public office; and 57 percent consider a government’s implementation of Shariah “very important” or “important.” Nonetheless, nationalism trumps religion. Fully 78 percent agreed with the statement that it would be better if more people with a strong commitment to national interests rather than with strong religious views held public office.

How, then, to explain the inconsistency between the survey data and Egypt’s election results? First, the Islamists benefited from years of political organizing and activism, and thus were better able to mobilize their supporters, whereas the liberals, who led the uprising against the former regime, lacked nationwide organization and had little time to translate their newly acquired political capital into votes.

Second, the liberals’ priorities were misplaced. Instead of pushing their agenda forward among Egyptians, they focused on the wrong enemy, spending invaluable time organizing rallies against the army.

Finally, the election outcome is not as bad as it appears. Liberalism has been under continuous attack for decades from religious extremists and religious institutions, and liberal organizations were stifled by oppressive rules. If the Mubarak regime had fallen under the banner of political Islam, Islamists would have been in a much better position to advance exclusivist claims over the revolution and the country.

But it was liberals who delivered Egypt from authoritarianism. This, in turn, brought legitimacy to liberalism and generated the powerful feeling of nationalist awareness among Egyptians. As a result, support for Shariah declined and national identity soared. Insofar as political discourse is focused on national rebuilding and freedom, Islamists, in Egypt and elsewhere, will face an uphill battle.

Mansour Moaddel, a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, has been principle investigator of several Middle East surveys between 2001 and 2011. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).

 
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on January 10, 2012, on page 7.

Recommended

Advertisement

Comments

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)

comments powered by Disqus

Advertisement

FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE

Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here