Jack Shenker in the Guardian on how Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood have entered into symbiosis, each needing the other to legitimise itself:
The group was formed in 1928 and is still officially outlawed. Hundreds of Brotherhood members have been jailed in periodic crackdowns, yet it is from the existence of the Brotherhood, and the regime’s perceived ability to suppress its influence, that Mubarak has derived much of his legitimacy in international circles.
This, combined with the fact that the Brotherhood’s current leadership has often devoted more of its energies to “dawa”, or social evangelism, than overtly political projects, has led many analysts to accuse it of a symbiotic relationship with the government it claims to resist. At crucial moments of popular public tension with the Mubarak regime in recent years, such as the killing of three people in the Delta town of El Mahalla El Kubra in April 2008, and during an attempted general strike one year later, the Brotherhood has opted to take a relatively non-combative stand towards the authorities.
“The Mubarak regime was adept at inflating the influence of the Brotherhood and painting them as a threat to Egyptian society and to the west,” said Anani. “It was the pretext for Mubarak’s rule, and it was a lie. I think that if Egypt held free and fair elections tomorrow the Brotherhood would not get a majority; it would enjoy a significant presence in parliament, but the overall makeup of seats would be pluralistic.”
Alex takes speculation a bit further and wonders who exactly managed to flood Cairo with Mubarak supporters when his own party couldn’t:
This does, by the way, make you – or me, at least – wonder exactly which organisation was able to put a significant mob on the streets at the drop of a hat, when the NDP had spectacularly failed to mobilise any sign of mass support for days on end. Military dictatorships with religious stylings are far from unknown – that was, after all, the fix Jaruzelski tried to impose on Poland after 1981, mixing more Catholicism and nationalism in with his communism but keeping the security state more in place than ever. And I can well imagine someone – someone, quintessentially, like Tony Blair – hailing cooperation between an Islamist movement and Central Security as being just the kind of faith-based initiative that contributes, helpfully, to shared norms for the new reality. As usual with Blair, it’s the secular left that is his real enemy.