Skip to main content
Support
Article

Scholar Studies Islamist Electoral Participation in the Middle East

Wilson Center Fellow Samer Shehata looks at Islamist politics in Egypt, Morocco, and Kuwait, and describes why elections do matter, even in undemocratic regimes.

Do elections have significance in non-democratic regimes where the voting is not free and fair and when the outcome is often known ahead of time? Georgetown University Professor Samer Shehata is spending a year as a Wilson Center fellow researching what such elections mean for the candidates, opposition parties, and citizens in such regimes, focusing on Islamist parties in Egypt, Morocco, and Kuwait.

"Islamist participation in elections has taken on greater prominence recently," Shehata said, citing the successes Islamists have experienced at the ballot box in Egypt in 2005, in Morocco in 2007, and in Kuwait in 2006 and 2008. He also cited the Shi'ite parties Dawa and the Supreme Council, both vying for power in Iraq, and the rising popularity of Hezbollah in the Arab world.

"The ideas of democracy, of democratic participation, even if not implemented, have become hegemonic around the world." Shehata said authoritarian leaders favor holding elections, even if they intend to manipulate the outcome, given the weight of historical precedent and to try to gain a sense of legitimacy.

"Elections do provide peculiar moments of opportunity, even in politically restrictive environments," he said. "People can engage in politics even in semi-authoritarian regimes." In such an environment, he said, opposition candidates and parties often disseminate their message more widely, gaining exposure and greater sympathy among the population, while reinforcing the notion that the regime is non-democratic, a statement in itself. In this way, opposition candidates can reach their objectives even if they are not the party in power.

While some Islamist parties seek to incorporate Shar'ia (Islamic law, based on the Koran) in their politics, some of these parties have broadened their scope. Shehata said the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Party of Justice and Development in Morocco have a more progressive outlook, also focusing on social services, job creation, and better governance.

Some Islamist parties may not accede to the presidency, but succeed in playing a role in national institutions. Shehata said Muslim Brotherhood picked up 88 parliamentary seats in Egypt's 2005 elections, and Islamist groups fared well in Kuwait's and Morocco's recent legislative elections.

Violent, extremist groups generally lack mass support in the Middle East, he said, but some groups have gained popularity that have armed wings but also participate in elections and promote social welfare in their communities. He cited the 2006 victory of Hamas in Palestinian legislative elections as an example.

In this case, democratic elections brought an unexpected outcome. The Bush Administration, while it touted democracy in the Middle East through its Freedom Agenda, deemed the Hamas victory an unfavorable outcome, and refused negotiations with Hamas or aid to Gaza. Shehata called this thinking hypocritical and said that, perhaps with engagement, Hamas's behavior could be modified.

"Elections in non-democratic states are important and we should not neglect them," Shehata contended. "Moderate Islamist groups who believe in participating in elections are popular and influential actors and will have the greatest influence on the future of the Middle East."

Related Links