If containment was the policy of the Cold War era, eradication seems to be the program of the current administration. Driven by the specter of terrorists in the Middle East, American foreign policy has lately assumed a more active, interventionist form. However, in Afghanistan and Iraq, this active intervention has not worked, reinforcing extremist positions rather than instilling democracy. To more effectively combat extremism and maintain stability, the United States should pursue a policy of containment and support for liberal—or at least Western-friendly—regimes.

Egypt, with a population of roughly 76 million individuals, is the most populous nation in the Arab world and a major player in Middle Eastern politics. It has significant clout in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and last year also attempted to serve as an intermediary between Israel and Hezbollah. While it is certainly not a liberal, democratic state, Egypt largely embraces secularism, pragmatism, and the West. Now that Iraq is not a major power player, a secular and friendly nation such as Egypt is necessary for maintaining the balance of power and checking Iran. If Egypt were to be led by radicals, like the Muslim Brotherhood, who espouse violence and want to implement their radical version of Islamic law—even against civilians—this balance would be disrupted and the United States and the rest of the world would face a very different, far more hostile Middle East. Such a transformation would likely destablize and endanger Israel and other American allies.

The possibility of such a radical transformation is very real. Egypt will soon reach an important crossroads regarding fundamentalism. Current president Hosni Mubarak turns 80 this year, and there is speculation that he will soon step down. In 2005, the Egyptian government passed a referendum that allowed for the popular election of a new leader after this happens. His son, Gamal Mubarak, seems a likely candidate for the popular election, but he is strongly opposed by many fundamentalists for his secularism. The Mubaraks have also been harshly criticized for attempting to install a dynasty in Egypt, passing on power as a familial inheritance. Despite this criticism, Gamal Mubarak should take the reigns once his father leaves in order to ensure that Egypt remains a secular and stable country, if not a true democracy, that is peaceful and friendly to the west.

Gamal Mubarak is by no means perfect. He has been accused of receiving the power and authority he wields in Egypt from his father, rather than winning them by his own merit and leadership. As a leader of the National Democratic Party (NDP), the younger Mubarak is also a major political player within his own party. Although this politico claims to not want the presidency, he recently met with President Bush in what many see as a “seal of approval from Washington.” Whether or not Gamal Mubarak deserves the presidency, he has both familial, political, and foreign backing, and is thus well-positioned to transition into power.

Although President Hosni Mubarak does enjoy general support, the strong, outlawed Muslim Brotherhood poses a serious threat if an open election were to be held. Members of the Brotherhood have run as independents on the platform that “Islam is the Solution.” While such an assertion is not troubling in itself, as Islam does indeed offer many positive moral lessons, many of the tools of the organization are troubling. The Brotherhood claims to have divorced itself from violence, but reporting by journalists for Newsweek and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) shows that despite their “peaceful coexistence” rhetoric, the Brotherhood “supports suicide bombings in Israel and offers inspiration for many violent jihadi groups.” Dennis Ross, former President Bill Clinton’s Middle East envoy, has offered additional criticism stating that despite the Brotherhood’s “assertion that it wants to engage in the political process in Egypt, the movement supports the use of violence in other areas.” The clear consensus seems to be that the reality of the Brotherhood’s interests are not necessarily peace and stability as they claim, but rather implementation of strict Islamic law and opposition to the West.

Additionally, a truly open election would be bad for Egypt as a nation. If Gamal Mubarak is not brought into office by the forces of political nepotism, the Muslim Brotherhood may gain enough support to win the election, as citizens might be driven to vote for the Brotherhood as a simple reaction to the Mubaraks’ perceived dynasty. In reality, however, a reactionary vote, much like the Palestinian’s vote for Hamas last year, would be supporting a radical Islamic regime—a decision they may later regret. In this case, voting for the alternative—the Muslim Brotherhood—in order to send a message to the Mubaraks would do far more harm than good. The result would likely be internal fighting as the entrenched political and military power is overturned. Rather than a sudden transition to democracy with an open election, Egypt needs to slowly undergo reform. The best way to do this while maintaining stability is through the continuation of the current power dynamic.

To aid Mubarak’s ascension, the United States and other western countries should ease pressure on Egypt to implement democratic reforms. It is in the best interest of Egypt, the United States, and the entire region for the elections to be guided by an interest in stability rather than the ideology of democratic reform. The current system is completely untenable, and democratic reform must happen in Egypt, but it must be measured so as to maintain the peace in an increasingly volatile region.

Shai D. Bronshtein ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House.