Allow Islamists the Chance to Gain Power in the Middle-East? Perhaps.

This week’s Egyptian elections to parliament’s upper chamber witnessed typical electoral intimidation by government security forces, killing one and sparking violent clashes across the country.

President Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party once again made sure its candidates won contested seats, even though the government has already done its best to marginalize the main opposition, which in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, by outlawing the group and forcing its members to run as independents.

Yet these efforts were apparently not enough, and many government-sponsored polling stations refused to allow Muslim Brotherhood supporters to vote even as fifteen year olds—eighteen is the official voting age—reportedly bragged about casting votes for the NDP.

While the Bush Administration has publicly backed a democratic reform agenda in the Middle-East, pledging to “end tyranny in our world”, it has largely turned a blind eye to pro-democracy advocates in Egypt and still supports Mubarak via a massive aid program—over one billion dollars a year—as Egypt is second only to Israel in the amount of annual aid it receives from Washington.

Although this is nothing new, the circumstances in Egypt do raise the question: given the popular support the US loses in the region as a consequence of its sponsorship of Arab dictators, is it worth it to support authoritarian leaders and refuse Islamic parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood access to the reins of power?

Many observers would undoubtedly say yes. As the world's most recognizable endorser of democracy, backing authoritarian leaders certainly does not enhance American credentials, but the alternative is much worse. Another Islamic, anti-American regime usurping power in the Middle-East and possibly providing a safe haven for fundamentalist terrorists is a nightmare. Indeed, a popular criticism against democracy promotion in the region is the possibility that parties like Hamas or Hizbollah could win elections and turn the region even more unsympathetic to American interests.

However, it is unlikely that if the Egyptians and other subjugated peoples in the region, such as those in Jordan or Tunisia, were free to vote in fair elections, the result would be the election of fundamentalist terror-sponsors. The Muslim Brotherhood parties across the region are, at the end of the day, rather moderate. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood renounced violence years ago and says that it although it does favor Islamic law; it will abide by the democratic process.

Instead of resulting in the spread of radical fundamentalism, the democratic process would most likely decrease the popular support for these groups and moderate their views. The popularity of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood largely stems from their myth of being the only opposition to an oppressive government and the true protectors of the Arab street.

This perception is then given teeth by the charitable actions of many of these groups, handing out assistance to the poor and subsequently winning their backing. It is unsurprising that these parties are popular. Given their charity and incredible organizational ability; they are the only credible alternative to the harsh autocratic regimes in the region.

Furthermore, the myth is perpetuated by the fact that they have never had the opportunity to govern. It is easy for the opposition in politics to gain popularity by railing against the existing government—especially in a dictatorship when criticism is almost always warranted—because it does not have to make difficult decisions and be accountable to the public, traits which are associated with being in power democratically. Since they have never had the chance to rule, they have never been tested.

Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood and similar parties the chance to govern would likely shatter these positive perceptions. Governing means displeasing some people and engendering unpopularity, and forces political groups to prove their worth through results rather than perceptions. And after experiencing first-hand that Sharia law, if implemented, is not its savior, the populace will ideally vote out these parties and in doing so force them to moderate and improve their platforms if they wish to regain power—that is usually what democracy does.

This is not a neo-conservative manifesto, nor does it predict a rosy picture for democracy in the region. Promoting democracy should be an overall goal for the United States, but not through force, and not if it is sure to cause harm to long-term interests. Even if free and fair elections were held across the region—in and of itself, extremely difficult to bring about—victorious Islamic parties could then refuse to adhere to democratic ideals and impose their own form of dictatorship through Islamic law, á lá Iran.

But keeping Islamic parties out of the political process increases their support and adds to their mystique, and can also lead them to adopt extremist tactics—terrorism. To be sure, democracy is not going to happen overnight, yet engaging with moderate Islamic parties such as the Brotherhood and pressuring autocratic regimes to open up the political process to them in the mean-time should be a component of US policy in the region.

The status quo is certainly unstable, and the region is a powder keg. There is indeed some truth to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s oft-repeated statement that “For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither.” Supporting unpopular authoritarian leaders creates animosity towards the United States, which fully shows itself after the autocratic regime is deposed, and can have disastrous results. However, military intervention has not done the trick either.

Regionally, we have seen what can happen when the US seeks to impose democracy at the barrel of a gun—Iraq. And we have also seen what can happen when the US unconditionally backs an authoritarian leader who is then overthrown—the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. Thus, even with its potential flaws, allowing moderate Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood a shot at the democratic process could turn out to be the least bad option.