MB in Jordan and Egypt
Abstract
This paper compares two political actors, Egypt and Jordan Muslim Brothers [MB], including their vision, environment, agenda, and resources. The comparison helps to find out whether the MB in Jordan and Egypt appeal to the political agenda of their respective environments. Answer to the question, on the other hand, guides in assessing whether the political groups have goodwill for the people or propagate selfish agendas and, therefore, why they fail. Egypt and Jordan MB are similar in their vision and goal. However, they vary in their environments. Findings indicate that their visions and plan do not appeal to the political contexts and the public in respective nations. They lack the political goodwill and need to serve the public and instead seeks to have Muslims as the monopoly ideology. The paper concludes that political actors fail in support and objectives because they lack support from the public and ruling class because of their selfish interests.
Jordan Muslim Brotherhood / Egypt
Introduction
Political actors, including groups and individuals, rise to address social, economic, and political deficiencies within specific jurisdictions. The actors can manipulate the public because of the perception of the state results from constructed symbols from political actors. Regardless of the political agendas, political actors rise and fall. An example is the case of the Muslim Brotherhood [MB], a transnational Islamic organization that has formed political parties in different nations like Egypt and Jordan. The respective political parties gained popularity to the extent that in Egypt, they worn a presidential position through Mohamed Morsi in 2012 (Vannetzel, 2017). Both Jordan and Egypt MB raised to positions of being legal, political parties (Piscatori, 2019). However, they have since fallen with the respective countries considering them as illegal and terrorist groups. This paper seeks to find out whether the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and Egypt appeal to the political agenda of their respective environments, including the political class and the public. The question is essential to assess whether the political groups have goodwill for the people or propagate selfish agendas. Answers to the question will achieve the goal of finding out why political movements fail to attract extensive support and achieve their objectives leading to failure?
Comparison Between Jordan and Egypt Muslim Brotherhood
Vision
Both MB in Egypt and Jordan share a universalist vision. Egypt MB has been the mother as a source of direction for the Jordan MB. However, the Jordan MB has dissociated itself as an independent group following Egypt’s declaration of MB as an illegal and terrorist group. Regardless of the separation, the shared vision remains. The two actor’s vision is to have an Islamic state where the Shari’ah law controls both secular and religious matters (Vannetzel, 2017). Followers believe in a unified community of people, especially Muslims, as the foundation and source of the group at the begging in Egypt and which informs the current vision. They believe that Muslims and all human beings are supposed to be united as God wanted and as their religious faith teachers.
The unity which Jordan and Egypt MB consider and which informs the need to an Islamic state is spiritual about the Quran about the community of faith (Piscatori, 2019). However, more support to the unitary vision through Islamic law comes from the idea that Muslims have a shared sphere of knowledge that is capable of uniting all people if they subscribe to Islamic. Apart from the scripture and fiqb treaties, members of the groups subscribe to historic scholarly work of pre-eminent figures, for instance, Ibn Tufayl. They aim at having everyone in Jordan and Egypt joining the community by subscribing to the Islamic scholarly knowledge and scriptures (Piscatori, 2019). Following the belief and teachings, the two political actors argue that the Muslim law is capable of uniting all people, creating the need for an Islamic state where Shari’ah law is in control of the nation in all spheres.
Environment
Egypt and Jordan MB works in two different political environments, which include Polycentric and Monocentric, respectively. A monocentric political environment is in which the state is in control of the nation’s authority and political power. Jordan is a monocentric environment because of its parliamentary monarchy system. Following the Monarchy leadership, the political environment in Jordan is paradoxical, where the right with conservatives who are Islamists form a friendship and collaborate with leftist and nationalist parties (Hussainy, 2012). Jordan MB operates in an environment where it cannot formally challenge the head of government or contest for the position (Hussainy, 2012). There is, therefore, no political party, loyalist or opposition have held power, formed parliamentary majority or government.
Unlike in Jordan, MB in Egypt operates in a polycentric political and republicanism environment. With a semi-presidential system, political parties have more powers in how the government works through their opposition and loyalty orientation to the sitting president or prime minister. Political parties in Egypt can influence government decisions and raise to power through presidential candidates. However, they have limited independence following much control form the government since 2013 (Dunne & Hamzawy, 2017). The Egyptian government has always undermined such political parties, especially those opposing its ideologies through strategies such as internal division and labeling them as corrupt. It means that similar to Jordan, Egypt MB has a challenge in advocating its vision as long as it continues to oppose the government.
Agenda and Resources
Jordan and Egypt MB share the same agenda of reforming the society from western and liberal ideologies towards Islamic values (Vannetzel, 2017). They focus on having their leaders in high political positions so that they can impact Muslim doctrines. In Egypt, MB is against and criticizes developmentalists states, which rose after independence siting their ineffectiveness, especially in uniting people (Vannetzel, 2017). The group in Jordan, on the other hand, is against the monarchy and dictatorial leadership. Their similarity appears whereby they oppose elite political leadership that does not provide real democracy and includes all people in the two nations. Following the criticism, MB in the two countries focuses on political, religious agendas where Islam becomes the basis of politics and law. The agenda connects with their vision to have Muslim leadership, which will allow Islamic values as the basis of politics and law.
Both Egypt and Jordan MB, on the other hand, share the same resource of having a large following. The two nations enjoy large numbers of Muslims subscribing to the political parties since their ideologies resonate with those of majority members of the faith (Vannetzel, 2017). However, their ideologies in service to the community also serve as a reliable resource that attracts more elite members. In Egypt, MB is very influential in selecting members of the parliament by developing symbols to the public about the characteristics of the right leader. Their endorsement on leaders with success in elections makes them influential to access government support. However, Jordan MB does not enjoy its ideologies as a resource due to the monarch leadership that labels it as a terrorist group.
Conclusion and Summary
This paper sort to find out whether the MB in Jordan and Egypt appeal to the political agenda of their respective environments. Findings indicate that both political groups are against the political ideologies of the ruling class and some citizens who do not subscribe to the Muslim religion. The groups do not have goodwill for the people since they seek to dominate political leadership through their vision to have an all Islam society with everyone following Muslim laws and teachings. Failure to appeal to the ruling class, some citizens, and selfish interests have made the two political groups fail in their objectives. The study, therefore, concludes that political actors fail to attract support and their goals due to selfish interests that do not appeal to the nation’s political environment.
References
Hussainy, M. (2012). Policy Paper: The State’s Contribution in Financing Political Parties in Jordan. Retrieved from https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/amman/09595.pdf
Piscatori, J. (2019). Conceptualising the Umma: An Introduction. The Muslim World, 109(3), 193-208.
Vannetzel, M. (2017). The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Virtuous society’and State Developmentalism in Egypt: The Politics of ‘Goodness’. In Development as a Battlefield (pp. 220-244). Brill Nijhoff.
Dunne, M. & Hamzawy A. (2017). Egypt’s Secular Political Parties: A Struggle for Identity and Independence. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/31/egypt-s-secular-political-parties-struggle-for-identity-and-independence-pub-68482