With the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his Tunisian counterpart Zine E AbidineBen Ali, the political landscape of the Middle East has shifted permanently. From Tunis via Algiers to Cairo, Amman and Sana’a, the people of the region are presented with an unprecedented opportunity for democratic change. This change, however, should not be restricted to Arab regimes, but must equally apply to Western foreign policies. As calls for democracy from the Mediterranean gain momentum, a unique window of opportunity has opened for Western governments to modify their stance – most notably concerning how to engage politicized Islam.

On the face of it, current mass protests have neither been led nor fuelled by Islamic groups. Protesters have rallied through the social media of the internet rather than through traditional recitations of the Holy Quran at the community mosque. This has given rise to widespread speculation that political momentum in the region has ultimately shifted from Islamic groups to a newly emerging young and secular middle class. This interpretation, however, might soon be proven only partially accurate.

In Tunisia, the revolution of the young urban elite has for the time being concealed the fact that the Islamists Renaissance party is likely to emerge from the fringes of illegal sub-activity to that of a leading political force. While this is unlikely to transform Tunisia into a stronghold of radical fundamentalism, the Islamic movement under the leadership of Rachid Ghannouchi is expected to fare well in democratic elections scheduled for this summer. Ghannouchi has returned after 22 years in exile and was welcomed at Carthage airport by thousands of enthusiastic supporters. 

In Egypt, the low-key approach of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the uprisings should not conceal the fact that the Islamist opposition has not disappeared. In fact, the Brotherhood can be expected to play an important role in a democratic Egypt long after the protesters from Tahrir square have returned home. A first indication of this was seen in the last days of the revolt prior to Mubarak’s resignation, as a notable rise in the group’s participation was observed. Representatives of the Brotherhood not only participated in talks with the government but also supported protestors in their confrontation with pro-government thugs. Despite allegations brought forward by the Mubarak regime and Western observers from the political right, the Brotherhood is unlikely “to overtake the process”, as US-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mused on Saturday. Likewise, it is practically inconceivable that the Brotherhood will lead the country “into the direction of Iran”, as Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu warned last Monday in the Israeli Knesset. However, the Muslim Brotherhood’s future role should not be underestimated. While far from prepared to take over government responsibility at this point in time, the Brotherhood represents the only political movement with established professional institutions and a broad support base. An opinion poll by the Washington Institute on Near East Policy from February 2011 finds that current support for the Muslim Brothers is less than 20 percent. However, given the pitiable shape of secular political parties and the absence of a professionalized, alternative leadership, the results of elections scheduled to take place within the next nine months are likely to differ significantly.  After all, political influence in a democracy does not merely relate to absolute strength, but rather is based on the ability to translate relative strength into a tangible and tenable political voice. This may very well be a political game very skillfully maneuvered by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

A similar development is in the making in Jordan. While protests in the Hashemite Kingdom have not been driven by the usual oppositional suspects, it is the Islamic Action Front that has transformed political disillusionment into political capital. This last week has seen the first ever official meeting of the Movement with the Jordanian King. Also, the newly appointed Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit ended years of an unofficial boycott last week by including former Islamist leader Abdelrahim Akur in his cabinet and by requesting that the Action Front officially participate in government. While observers interpret the Islamists’ refusal to do so as an indication that future governments will be able to sideline the Islamists, the justification for their refusal is noteworthy. Party leader Hamza Mansour did not refuse government participation out of hand but called for parliamentary elections as a necessary precondition to engagement. The Action Front boycotted November elections due to what was perceived as a rigged electoral process. Refusal to join the Government at present is thus not an attempt to avoid political integration, but rather a call for a genuine and legitimate political process that would provide for a more politically prominent role for Jordanian Islamists.

While far from driving current regional trends, Turkey has emerged as a key player in the current transitions. The Justice and Development Party under Tayyip Erdogan has inspired Islamist groups throughout the region. In Tunisia, leading opposition forces and Islamist leader Ghannouchi recently met with senior Turkish diplomats to discuss the possibilities of a strategic partnership. Ghannouchi has explicitly stressed that the Justice and Development Party is an ideal political model. Equally in Cairo, protesters have turned to Turkey for guidance. A speech delivered by Erdogan to his party’s parliamentary group was reportedly aired live in Cairo’s main square – a fact that led the Turkish daily Zaman to declare that “Turkey is in Tahrir Square”.

In view of these changes, the question of how to deal with politicized Islam inspired by Turkey’s moderate Islamists is likely to forcefully re-emerge in the coming months. How will Western governments react to a growing representation of Islamic forces in Amman, Cairo and Tunisia – given previous resolve of isolation and exclusion?

Here, the case of Palestine should serve as a warning. The Western-imposed political and economic boycott of the Islamic Resistance Movement following Hamas’ electoral victory of 2006 highlights the need to question established policy dogmas. International refusal to accept Hamas as a legitimate political player has paradoxically failed to weaken the Islamists. Rather, it has functioned to further weaken the influence of diplomatic engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and serves to further foster the political divide between West Bank and Gaza. While the boycott of the Gaza-strip is as politically counter-productive as it is quite simply unjustifiable from a humanitarian point of view, it has become a politically sustainable stance, given Gaza’s limited weight in terms of political leverage. This Western approach towards Gaza, however, simply cannot be repeated vis-à-vis Cairo, Amman or Tunis.  

Given the potential that politicized religion continues to play in vast parts of the Arab world, a process of “genuine democracy”, as hailed by US-President Obama on Saturday, seems unlikely without a parallel process of at least partial political Islamization. This Islamization may very well take shape with representation of Islamist parties in government following the example of Turkey or with a increasing role of Islamists as “loyal oppositions”. This, however, should not lead to further alarmist policies of boycotts and embargoes. Rather than interpreting regional trends as a potentially devastating blow to the status quo, Western governments should view the resultant government representation as an opportunity to maximize future stability though broadening the support base for political processes.

Thus, change in the Arab world should not be confined to regime change on the ground. Rather, a policy change in the capitals of the West must ultimately accept Islamist parties as what they are: political realities that are viable but not all-powerful. This re-orientation which moves beyond hysterics should not be embraced simply as a moralistic approach, but rather serves the interests of those seeking long term stability. As current developments have proven, stability established and enforced against the will of the people can indeed falter rather unexpectedly.