Argument

The Islamist Flirtation

Mohamed ElBaradei's growing ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood call into question his commitment to liberal reform.

Politics can offer some strange second acts. Just ask Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate turned would-be presidential candidate who is now flirting with joining forces with Egypt's main Islamist party.

Since leaving his post as director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in December, the 67-year-old diplomat has dipped his toe into electoral politics in his home country of Egypt. While still notional, ElBaradei's possible candidacy in the country's 2011 presidential election has galvanized Egypt's long-moribund political opposition.

Still, ElBaradei's presidential bid is an exceedingly long shot. After all, Egypt's political system is jury-rigged in favor of President Hosni Mubarak -- and the Mubarak dynasty. Hosni himself, ailing and in his 29th year of rule, is likely to continue in office for the time being, with power eventually devolving to his son and heir apparent, Gamal.

Outsiders will have a harder time than ever challenging this lockhold because of constitutional changes instituted three years ago that restrict candidacy to those chosen by Mubarak's party and those belonging to a recognized party for at least five years. ElBaradei does not currently meet either criteria.

But ElBaradei has an even more fundamental problem: lack of a constituency. Despite his domestic appeal -- he is the son of one of Cairo's most decorated jurists -- ElBaradei's absence from Egyptian politics since the late 1970s has led many to see him as a carpetbagger. So even if the former IAEA chief could somehow pass electoral muster, he is likely to find himself more symbol than statesman.

All of this is to attempt to explain why ElBaradei has begun a dangerous flirtation with Egypt's main Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood. In late February, ElBaradei met in Cairo with the heads of several political factions to form the "National Coalition for Change," an umbrella group of opposition parties from across the Egyptian political spectrum. Notably, the Brotherhood -- the world's most influential font of radical Islamic ideas -- also participated in the meeting, and its leaders have since endorsed ElBaradei's efforts. "ElBaradei's and the Brotherhood's call for political and social change converge," Mohamed Saad el-Katatni, chairman of the Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, recently confirmed to reporters.

For ElBaradei, such outreach might simply be good retail politics. After all, with control of one-fifth of the seats in Egypt's parliament, the Brotherhood -- though still formally banned, and routinely persecuted, by the Mubarak regime -- wields considerable political clout.

Still, political participation doesn't necessarily mean moderation. The Brotherhood's long-awaited political platform, unveiled publicly back in October 2007, laid out a radical, exclusionary vision that marginalized women and non-Muslims and advocated the establishment of a religious authority with oversight over all governmental activity. The following year, an internal election within the movement strengthened the party's hard-liners. More recently, conservative factions within the Brotherhood have been accused of carrying out a "purge" of the movement's reformist wing -- a charge confirmed by the installation of ultraconservative cleric Mohamed Badie as the organization's supreme guide in January. If the Brotherhood is joining a coalition committed to political liberalism, it's clearly not for ideological reasons.

Instead, the Brotherhood may be joining forces with ElBaradei out of necessity. In recent weeks, the Mubarak regime, anticipating a serious electoral challenge in parliamentary elections this year, has launched a renewed crackdown on the movement, decimating the organization's leadership and thinning its ranks. As a result, the group is scrambling for its political survival, and any ideological agenda is on hold for the time being. ElBaradei's political coalition offers the Brotherhood an attractive way to remain relevant without giving in too much to Mubarak.

So Egypt's newest political player now faces a significant conundrum. ElBaradei's vocal commitment to greater pluralism and better governance already has managed to do what years of politics as usual in Cairo has not: energize the lethargic Egyptian "street" and present a viable alternative to the Mubaraks. But if, in his bid for relevance, the nuclear-czar-turned-candidate makes common cause with the Brotherhood, he might just end up playing an unexpected role -- savior of Egypt's Islamist opposition.

-/AFP/Getty Images

Argument

Time for a New Nigerian President

A former government minister tells the inside story of how trickery, corruption, political plots, and a power vacuum are tearing apart this West African giant.

The return of Nigeria's long-absent President Umaru Yar'Adua to the capital city of Abuja in late February has thrown the West African country into a dangerous existential crisis. The president is still apparently incapacitated, but his cadres are certainly not -- and they are doing all they can to remain in power. Yar'Adua's henchmen now threaten not only the constitutional succession process, which had placed provisional powers in the hands of Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, but also Nigeria's very stability. Ethnic violence in the city of Jos broke out in early March amid the current governance vacuum, leaving hundreds dead; worse could follow if the political stalemate isn't resolved soon. The stakes for the country's 150 million people couldn't be higher.

Yar'Adua's inner circle has shown itself quite adept at spreading falsehoods -- misinforming and misleading Nigerians into mass violence if necessary -- to preserve its hold on power. Since the crisis began, the presidency has been framed as if it were a rotating office, traded every eight years between the supposedly Christian South and Muslim North. Yar'Adua's cabal has used this idea to whip up primordial sentiment, persuading the country and the international community of an invented North-South chasm and concealing a selfish agenda under the aegis of preventing a Muslim vs. Christian religious divide. It is a clever ruse to prevent Jonathan (who is from the South) from succeeding Yar'Adua (who hails from the North). And the reduction of Nigeria's complex political problems to such clichés and sound bites, obediently repeated by diplomats and media helps propagate the myth that politics has to be governed by regional rivalries. According to that false tradition, Yar'Adua (or someone from the North) must remain in power.

This is not only disingenuous but dangerous. Since Yar'Adua's return, Jonathan, who became acting president in early February, has faced constant obstruction and undermining by the Yar'Adua cabal. The president's press secretary, for example, has continued to issue his own statements, referring to the acting president not in that role but as vice president. And until their firing last week when Jonathan dissolved the cabinet, Yar'Adua's ministers were fighting tooth and nail to stay in office, clinging to the rents and patronage that came with their posts. Knowing that the law and the Nigerian Constitution were not on their side -- in Nigeria, an ill and incapacitated president must be formally and permanently removed from office through the constitutional process -- their only recourse was the age-old yet often effective strategy of playing off North-South tensions.

As a result, politics in Nigeria have come to a dangerous standstill. The nascent amnesty deal in the Niger Delta has failed to progress, and the rebel group the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta has carried out several "warning" attacks. The 2010 budget was delayed three months and only recently passed. Civil servants are threatening to go on strike. And electoral reform, promised three years ago after flawed 2007 elections has hardly budged. Protesters marched in Abuja March 31 to demand the current electoral commission chairman not be reappointed. Things have gotten so bad that Nigerians are finally taking to the streets, demanding an end to the succession battle and a return of attention to the business of actually governing Nigeria. (Finally, the Senate just approved Jonathan's cabinet nominees.)

There is also a more direct human cost to all this; look no further than Jos, where the perpetrators of the recent violence took advantage of the power vacuum presented by the current political struggle. These ethnic militias, like much of Nigeria, assume that the president is permanently incapacitated; were he not, would he have snuck into Abuja as he did? Yar'Adua returned not with a homecoming parade, but with an unauthorized military deployment in the middle of the night.

The political mayhem and the ethnic tensions fomented by the Yar'Adua faction have pushed Nigeria closer than ever either to a repeat of the country's 1967-1970 civil war, in which the southern Biafra region sought to secede, or the return of military intervention. In pushing so hard on the North-South divide, Yar'Adua's supporters risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; if regions are told they will be the "losers" of a constitutional transition, they might pick up arms to defend their position. Military leaders resolutely believe in the integrity of the Nigerian state, so if the country were to approach the brink of disintegration, they would likely step in. Goodbye, Nigerian democracy.

What's needed now is a clean sweep of the administration to remove potential troublemakers, which Jonathan has begun with his cabinet shuffle. But the first matter to address is a comprehensive and public assessment of Yar'Adua's health and his ability to carry out the duties of his office. This is an area on which the international community must come to Nigeria's assistance with any intelligence gathered from Yar'Adua's three-month hospital stay in Saudi Arabia.

From there, what's needed is the strict observance of the constitutional succession process to lawfully replace the ailing president with the acting president, as established under Section 144 of the Nigerian Constitution. This requires the cabinet to pass a resolution with a two-thirds majority affirming the president's inability to govern, a confirmation by a medical board appointed by the Senate president, and the swearing-in of the acting president as substantive president of Nigeria. If this process is manipulated or obstructed by Yar'Adua's loyalists, the two houses of the National Assembly must remove the president through impeachment for gross misconduct, incompetence, abuse, and corruption in the discharge of his office. The grounds for doing so are clear: Yar'Adua's supporters have refused to allow an independent medical assessment of his condition, and the president, if he is conscious, has failed to transfer the powers of his office to Jonathan, in contravention of the law.

Nigeria needs political support, partnership, and encouragement to undergo this existential challenge -- and understandably perhaps, we have exhausted the patience of many of our people and allies. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson already gave an early indication of American support for a constitutional transition in a Feb. 24 statement: "We hope that President Yar'Adua's return to Nigeria is not an effort by his senior advisers to upset Nigeria's stability and create renewed uncertainty in the democratic process." Similar statements from British, Canadian, and EU officials have been helpful in strengthening the acting president. More of this support from the international community is needed.

But we all need to use a fresh lens when looking at Nigeria. Backroom deals in which political elites negotiate the fate of Nigeria's 150 million people are a relic of the past -- or they should be. The North-South power rotation, or "zoning" arrangement, that pretends to offer stability to Nigeria's ethnically diverse population has morphed into a convenient justification for self-centered politicians.

Nigeria is too big and has too much going for it to be allowed to fail. Despite the political crisis, the green shoots of real democracy are appearing across the country. Some state governors, such as Raji Fashola of Lagos and Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers are beginning to deliver services to the people. Civil society is stronger than ever, empowered through new technologies, including text-messaging and social-media organizing. The international community must respond to what Nigeria could be -- and not remain captive to memories of its recent past. Nigerians must not be constrained by those who have a vested interest in the old way of doing business.

STR/AFP/Getty Images