Pat Nolan's Comparative Journalism Hour: Morsi Election Edition

Today we’ll look at how the international media has been reacting to the election of Mohammed Morsi (“Mursi” in the Arabic media) as Egypt’s first democratic president. He was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Since the announcement, three distinct perspectives have emerged: those coming from Egypt itself, those coming from the wider Middle East, and those coming from the West. My English-language bias prevents me from viewing some of the wider, particularly Eastern, perspectives. The bias, one of selection, also provides me with a skewed view of Middle Eastern and Egyptian reporting—where English journalism typically favors a secular (non-Islamist) perspective.

From the West

Here we have two main themes popping up. The first is a skeptical examination of what this means for European and American foreign affairs. The New York Times’ front-page piece looks at what Islamism (the central tenet of Morsi’s platform) means and who this guy Morsi is (an American-educated engineer). The piece also raises the big question being asked in Egypt: is democracy dependent on secularism?

The second theme is that of the Arab Spring’s narrative. The Guardian, likely searching for a happy conclusion to the whole “civilizing of the Muslims” arc, frames the story as a climax. It’s not irreverent, just a bit simple-minded.

From the Middle East

In Iran, the Tehran Times expresses particular interest in the election statistics. This would make sense in a country with a setup similar to one held during Mubarak’s reign: a dictatorship under the semblance of democracy. The question is one of transparency and institutional integrity.

Predictably, Israel is asking “what does this mean for us and our conflict?” While similar to the U.S. perspective, the Israeli population is more apprehensive, and therefore more educated. Fear has a way of keeping us up to date. A piece in Haaretz adds to the democracy vs. secularism debate by pointing out what an Egyptian paper has dubbed a paradox. Morsi’s election meant a win over the military. However, unlike the archetypal military dictatorship credo “shoot first, diplomacy later,” many in the West have taken to suggest that an Islamist civilian democracy would be less peaceful than a secular military dictatorship.

From Egypt

Again I’ll note that despite the reportedly overwhelming popular support of Islamism, most English-language papers seem to lean slightly to the secular side of things. The State owned media outlet Al Ahram is interested in the drama that played out between the opposition military council (SCAF) and the Brotherhood in the days leading up to the declaration of a winner, and what that means when it comes to defining what roles the president will have. The SCAF has been in control since the overthrow of Mubarak.

The young Daily News also looks at the SCAF and its opposition-affiliate Shafiq (Mosri’s main competitor, and former Mubarak deputy). These folks are anti-SCAF and anti-Islamist. These were the educated and ambitious elites updating us from the frontlines of the revolution. A well written editorial puts forward three reasons for optimism: Egyptians have found their voice; Islamists, by making a power-grab, have discredited themselves; the young will outlive the old—the revolution will outlive the traditionalists. 


--by Pat Nolan