Islamism, Secularism and
Democracy after the Arab Spring
2
The Islamist-Secularist Divide…
3
And What It Means for Transitions in the Arab World
4
Overview of the Data
Unique, Time-Series Survey Data in Egypt:
7 surveys, 13,200 respondents, social and political questions
Survey Data in Tunisia: post-election survey (in-progress)
Interviews with Egyptians and Tunisians:
Voters, party elites, scholars, journalists
Observation:
Elections and other events
Secondary sources
5
Key Questions
To what extent does the Secularist-Islamist Divide drive elections?
Voters differentiate parties and candidates primarily on a secular – religious scale
Discourse mainly – and increasingly – focused on religion during campaigns
Do deep-seated beliefs explain the polarization over religiosity and the
strong showing of Islamists?
Strong results for the Islamist parties do not represent deep religious values
Rather, strong showing represents primarily organizational capacity of Islamists
What are the implications for democracy-promoters?
Need to resist temptation to limit liberal freedoms, discourse
International organizations need to avoid shoring up secularists vs. Islamists
Need to emphasize iterative processes and seek ways to avoid entrenchment of early
winners (ex. Need for local level elections)
Voters don’t distinguish
Candidates’ Positions on Economy
Tarek Masoud, Ellen Lust, Jakob Wichmann, Gamal Soltan, “The
Presidential Election in Egypt – Who voted for whom, and why?”
but they do on Religion
Tarek Masoud, Ellen Lust, Jakob Wichmann, Gamal Soltan, “The
Presidential Election in Egypt – Who voted for whom, and why?”
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Egyptian Bloc
Continuing Revolution Alliance
Wafd Party
Free Egyptians Party
Nour Party
Wasat Party
Freedom and Justice party
Egypt National Party
Generally, Voters Differentiated by Religion
-0,8
-0,7
-0,6
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
-0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
The Continuing Revolution Coalition
Egyptian Bloc
Al wafd party The free Egyptians party
Al Nour Party
Al Wasat party
The Freedom and Justice party
NDP offshots
Socialist & religious
Liberalist & secular Socialist & secular
Liberalist & religious Socialist & religious
Liberalist & secular Socialist & secular
Liberalist & religious
Voters’ values of the parties differentiate on religious
-secular scale and not the economic scale
1 Voters differentiale placement of parties on the
religious – secular scale and not on the liberal-
socialist scale
2
Political parties voters’ values Placement of political parties
Source: Religious axis: (1)Religious leaders should not influence voters,(2)Religious leaders have a responsibility to direct voters to the right candidate,(3)Religious leaders should not
influence policies of elected governments,(4)Religious leaders should direct governments to policies which meet religious teachings. Economy axis: (1)Free economic competition should be
respected and the government’s interference in the economy kept at a minimum,(2)government has a big economic role, because competition does not serve the well-being of the public.
9
What Explains the Primacy of Religion in Politics?
10
I
It’s Not Just Values:
Egyptians voted more Islamist than their values indicate
The parties that voters place in the religious end of
the spectrum gained a majority of votes
1
…but it is only a small minority of Egyptians that
have the same strong religious values
2
Voters’ Political Values
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
8,9 %
5
2,8 %
3,7 %
4 3 2
37,5 %
1
27,8 %
Religious
9,2%
Secular 9 8 7 6
1,6 % Egypt National Party
Al Wafd
Egyptian Bloc
Revolution
Continue All.
Al Wasat
Freedom and Justice Party
Nour Party
Placement of political parties on a
religious-secular scale
% votes at
parliamentary
elections 2011
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Secular
26.1%
9
18.1%
8
16.3%
7 6
8.6%
5
12.1%
4
4.9%
3
4.4%
2 1
4.8%
Religious
4.7%
% of Egyptians
Source: Parliamentary survey 2, 4, 5 & 6. *Religious and secular values is defined according to the scores on the two variables: Agreement on the phrase "Religious leaders have a
responsibility to direct voters towards the best candidate“ and agreement on the phrase "Religious leaders should not influence decision of elected government“. Party’s placement is
based on how the voters place them on a scale from 0-10
11
Support and favorability towards the Islamist parties varies,
growing in the lead up to the election
The Islamic parties’ support grew during the
election campaign
1
Source: Parliamentary survey 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
The citizens’ view of the Nour Party also grew more
favorable during the election campaign
2
4447
31
2625
-29-30
-23
-34
-39-39
1617
8
-8
-14
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Unfavorable
Favorable
Late
December
2011
Early
December
2011
November
2011
October
2011
September
2011
August
2011
-25
14 Favorable
minus
unfavorable
52
42
3432
19
23
77
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Late
December
2011
Early
December
2011
November
2011
10
October
2011
September
2011
August
2011
Al Nour Party
FJP
12
While values appear stable over time:
Preferences for Islamic, democratic and strong state remain similar
7% 9% 10% 8% 6% 6%
September 2011
53%
38%
August 2011
55%
42%
56%
38%
51%
May 2012
39%
November 2011
46%
47%
October 2011
44%
46%
Strong state
Democratic- civil state
Islamic state
June 2012
Source: Parliamentary survey 1,2,3 4,5 & 6. Presidential survey 1, 2
13
Voters with religious values is a minority in all the major parties in Egypt
Source: Parliamentary survey 4,5 & 6.
The Freedom and Justice party
75%
25%
Al Nour Party
60%
40%
Secular values
Religious values
Egyptian Bloc
94%
6%
Al wafd party
88%
12%
14
To some extent, this is an issue of identity:
1%
2%
100%
Citizen of the world
Saedi, coastal
A human being
Arab
Egyptian
Muslim or Christian
What is the first word you
would use to describe yourself
2% 2%
43%
50%
9%Strong state even though not democratic
Civil state 37% Islamic state 54%
10%
37%
52%
Civil state
Strong state even though not democratic
Islamic state
Source: Parliamentary survey 3
15
But the Center is the Largest Group of Egyptians
Party
preference
Mixed
Secular political
values and voted
FJP and Nour
Consistent
Islamist
Religious political
values and voted
for FJP and Nour
Consistent
Secular
Secular political
values and voted
for secular party
Mixed
Religious political
values and voted
for secular parties
Political Values
Secular Religious
Secular
party
Islamist
party
Segment Definitions
Source: Parliamentary survey 4,5 & 6
51%
Mixed
Consistent Secular
Consistent Islamist
19%
30%
Size of Segments
16
Why Did Islamists Do Well?
17
Catering to Populations in Need:
Car ownership, as a poverty indicator,
shows that a fewer percentage of
Islamic party voters own a car
1
Islamic party voters have lesser education
than non-Islamic party voters
2
Source: Parliamentary survey 4, 5 & 6.
No
Car owner
Islamic
party voter
91%
9%
Non-islamic
party voter
86%
14%
17%13%
44%
39%
Islamic
party voter
19%
29%
Non-islamic
party voter
17%
22%
High and Upper
Highschool
Illiterate/
barely read
College
Below High
School
Rural
Urban
Islamic
party voter
64%
36%
Non-islamic
party voter
52%
48%
Islamic party voters are
living more in rural areas than
non-Islamic party voters
3
18
Islamist are more politically active than secularist
No
Yes
Secular
98%
2%
Mixed
98%
2%
Islamist
98%
2%
No
Yes
Secular
94%
6%
Mixed
92%
8%
Islamist
89%
11%
The segments have joined
political parties to the same extent
1
Islamist were more active in
protests
2
Source: Parliamentary survey 4,5 & 6
19
With superior organizational resources at their disposal
Source: Presidential survey 1
Islamic parties mobilized
more volunteers for their
campaigns
1
Islamic parties have four
times as many active members
2 The Islamic parties have a
greater share of full time staff
working in the parties
3
11.900
Islamic parties
25.000
Non-Islamic
parties
Non-Islamic
parties
24.500
Islamic parties
100.000
Full time
Part-time
Non-Islamic
parties
38%
63%
Islamic parties
75%
25%
Total number of campaign volunteers Total number of active members Type of staff in parties
20
Conclusions and Implications
Discourse
Conclusions
• The discourse of the campaigns
were increasingly religious
• Need to resist supporting efforts to
limit liberal freedoms, discourse
• Emphasis on media freedoms,
freedom of association, political
parties laws, etc
Implications
• Transition politics
fundamentally shaped by
religious-secular divide
• International actors need to avoid
temptation to shore up secularists vs.
Islamists
• Undermines secular forces
• Reinforces the divide at the expense of
democracy
Transition
Politics
The Centre
• Egyptian electorate has a large
center
• Respond to the needs of the center
• Need to emphasize iterative
processes and seek ways to avoid
entrenchment of early winners
• Roles of local level elections
21
Conclusions from the Data
Transition politics fundamentally shaped by religious-secular divide:
• Religion was the main dividing line in the elections and the voters are primarily able to
differentiate the parties on a secular – religious scale
• This is partly related to a divide in identity, between Egyptians focusing on Egyptian national
identity and those focused on Muslim identity.
Ideological competition not reflecting deep-seated beliefs:
• The strong results for the Islamist parties should not be interpreted as religious values
running deep in Egyptian society, as only a small segment of 19 % harbour strong Islamist
values.
• The largest group in Egypt is clustered around the middle having not strong preferences for
either a secular or an Islamist state.
Organizational capacities a key factor in explaining Islamist current success, but fluid:
• Islamist parties had superior campaign strategies and organizational capacity
22
Implications for Transitional Politics?
• Secularists – domestic and abroad – tend to view “Islamist
takeover” reflecting deep-seated, values
• Fear of spreading message and power prompts support for
illiberal and anti-democratic policies
However,
• Illiberal policies have potential for inducing preference
falsification that strengthens Islamist parties
23
Moving Forward: Recognize Fluidity and Keep the
Playing Field Open
• Need to resist supporting efforts to limit liberal freedoms, discourse
• International actors need to avoid temptation to shore up secularists
vs. Islamists, focus on liberal/democratic vs. illiberal, anti-democratic
• Counter-productive
• Not necessarily more liberal, democratic outcomes
• Respond to the needs of the center
• Need to emphasize iterative processes and seek ways to avoid
entrenchment of early winners
• Roles of local level elections
• Emphasis on media freedoms, freedom of association, political
parties laws, etc
• Push toward mult-issue elections
24
Appendix
25
Only minor difference in the evaluation of state institutions
10% 8% 11%
23%21% 19%
17%
13% 13%
Very poor
Poor
Mediocre
Good
Very good
Secular
41%
17%
Mixed
42%
17%
Islamist
38%
13%
7%4% 7%
12%12%
13%
5% 9%8%
Very poor
Poor
Mediocre
Good
Very good
Secular
38%
35%
Mixed
38%
36%
Islamist
38%
38%
13% 16%20%
29%30%
28%
16%
16%15%
Very poor
Poor
Mediocre
Good
Very good
Secular
27%
9%
Mixed
29%
8%
Islamist
33%
10%
Islamist are more negative
towards the judiciary
1
Islamist are slightly more positive
towards the SCAF
2 Only minor difference on
evaluation of Sharaf’s second
government
3
Source: Parliamentary survey 4,5 & 6
Evaluation of judiciary Evaluation of the SCAF Evaluation of the Sharaf government
26
Appendix: islamist, mixed and secular Dependent (0=islamist) and (1=mixed + secular)
Independent
Coeff. Sign Income: Does the family own a car? -,182 ,396
Urban/rural -,492 ,000 ***
Education -,019 ,845
Age ,202 ,015 **
Dependent variable 0=islam, mixed=1 and secular=2
Independent Coeff. Sign Urban/ Rural -,161 ,000 *** Edu_rec -,011 ,649
Age_rec ,071 ,000 *** Income: Does the family own a car? -,116 ,017
**
Dependent (0=islamist+mixed) and (1=secular)
Independent
Coeff. Sign Income: Does the family own a car? -,395 ,006 ***
Urban/rural -,422 ,000 ***
Education -,036 ,621
Age ,194 ,001 ***
27
Overview of Egyptian Surveys
Date of collection, number of respondents and contents
Parliamentary survey 1
Survey
• 5 – 17 August, 2011
Date of collection
Parliamentary survey 2
Parliamentary survey 3
Parliamentary survey 4
• 11 – 22 September, 2011
• 10 – 26 October, 2011
• 7 – 17 November, 2011
• Current issues
• Future prospects
• Political participation and election
• Political competence
• Political system
• Political parties
• Presidential candidates
• Values
• Trust
• Identity
• Social networks
Contents
• 2400
Respondents
• 2400
• 2400
• 1200
Parliamentary survey 5
Parliamentary survey 6
Presidential survey 1
Presidential survey 2
• 1 – 8 December, 2011
• 17 – 27 December, 2011
• 1200
• 1200
• 1200 • 19 – 22 May, 2012
• 6 – 11 June, 2012 • 1200
28
Content
Depth of the divide
Ideology and religion 2
3
Who are the Islamist and non-Islamist? 4
Introduction and survey data overview 1
29
Support for Islamic parties has grown over time
Source: Parliamentary survey 1,2,3 4,5 & 6. Presidential survey 1, 2
Islamic party
Non-Islamic party
June 2012
71%
29%
May 2012
66%
34%
November 2011
70%
30%
October 2011
45%
55%
September 2011
45%
55%
August 2011
39%
61%
30
Content
Depth of the divide
Ideology and religion 2
3
Who are the Islamist and non-Islamist? 4
Introduction and survey data overview 1
31
Islamists are more rural and younger than secularists
Rural
Urban
Secular
50%
50%
Mixed
60%
40%
Islamist
68%
32%
13% 12% 14%
Illiterate
Secular
55%
31%
Mixed
57%
31%
Islamist
54%
33%
Primary
school to
middle
diploma
College
and above
15%18%
24%
51+
31-50
18-30
Secular
39%
37%
Mixed
38%
43%
Islamist
38%
48%
Islamists live in rural areas
1
No differences in education level
2
Islamists are younger
3
Source: Parliamentary survey 4,5 & 6
Top Related