It’s every bit as important as what’s there.
Amr Hamzawy of the Carnegie Middle East Center writes:
[T]he citizens’ protests in Egypt were driven purely by domestic demands. No signs read “death to Israel, America, and global imperialism” or “together to free Palestine and Iraq.” In the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Suez the only slogans heard demanded change, freedom, social justice and a stop to corruption in Egypt—they weren’t mixed with regional matters. Egyptians are rediscovering that politics, before anything else, is concerned with citizens’ living conditions within the borders of the relevant nation-state.
[T]here was a complete absence of the ideological rhetoric that has dominated Egypt’s political and public space for many years. While the Muslim Brotherhood youth and some of their leaders participated in the protests, there were no signs saying, “Islam is the solution.” Similarly, activists from small leftist organizations attended, but the usual denunciations of global imperialism, colonialism, and Zionism were absent.
I think anyone who ventured out with such signs at this point would be an object of ridicule at best.
Are fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover justified? It’s probably just as wrong to assume it won’t happen as to assume (as some are doing) that it will. But it’s worth keeping in mind that the Brotherhood is in its own way as much a part of the hoary Old Guard in Egypt as the Mubarak regime. My sense is that the Egyptians out in the streets braving the rubber bullets, water cannons and tear gas are not looking to the past for leadership and solutions, and would have a low tolerance for those seeking to impose them.
