The recent closure of the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in Amman by the Jordanian authorities has revived the grievances of the Islamic movement and reminded them of the major setback of Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood failed to hold onto power. They gained power after a long struggle and patience for decades and the worst thing is that they were removed from power and sent to jails.

The good thing this time unlike what happened after the setback in Egypt is that the incident in Jordan has opened the door for self-criticism and a call for the accountability of leaders who had pushed the movement into a clash with the regime in Jordan. The movement’s relations with the government moved from alliance to cold friendship and then to the current open disagreement. This made many leaders and activists from inside the movement criticize their historical leaders with bitterness for example the Secretary of the Islamic Action Front (IAF) Abdullah Farajallah.

Farajallah published an article on the website of Arabi21 accusing the movement’s leaders of ignoring “a real crisis the movement was facing” by considering the crisis to be sedition aiming scrutiny at the movement which is now above seventy years of age. He warned them away from turning the closure of the headquarters into a decision to make arrests and jails.

Many Islamists like Farajallah who are fierce opponents of the government this time expressed their anger against their leaders who are still under the influence of the culture of confrontations conspiracies sacrifices and detentions which is not good formula either for the movement or the nation.

Regardless of whether “Political Islam” is right or wrong or whether Arab societies need it or not there are wide audiences who believe in the mission of the Brotherhood movement see it as a saviour and are ready to vote for it in any election. But the problem for these supporters is that the leaders of the movement in some Arab countries whose performances are so poor has led the movement from one crisis to another harming the movement itself and the whole nation. Whatever the situation is we have to acknowledge that they represent a wide segment of society and in no way should they be excluded or ignored whether they are kept in detention or their offices closed.

Of course there are some exceptions such as Erdogan in Turkey Ghannouchi in Tunisia and Benkirane in Morocco. Comparing these successful experiences with those who have stumbled shows a positive relationship between better political performances and keeping some distance from the traditional Muslim Brotherhood political style. And the question is “Why do Islamists become creative out of the Brotherhood movement box and become stiff inside it?”

I will give my opinion here based on personal observations of the movement for quarter of a century as well as discussions with its supporters and its former leaders and independent individuals. The first reason could be that they gave priority to the older generation of leaders due to the patience sacrifices and resistance they showed in prisons. However is it enough to give them priority in leadership while ignoring qualified and experienced members simply because they were not detained? Such traditional leaders took wrong decisions such as the ones who became disasters in Egypt in 2013 and in Jordan in 2016.

The second reason is that the Brotherhood literature is full of speeches memories and poems that glorify rejection of temptations patience and resistance in prisons. But this should not be taken as absolute fate as imprisonment is not an advantage and could also be escaping from taking responsibility at critical moments when the whole country is at a crossroads. This is not a good way to evade politics and its requirements to bargain and make concessions. The idea of “everything or imprisonment” is valuing the culture of imprisonment and encourage tens of thousands of youth to show solidarity and resistance in prisons. This is negatively affecting the performance of the movement.

The third reason is an obedient culture and loyalty before qualification which is keeping innovators and skilled individuals away from leadership positions and paves the way for unqualified individuals as long as they share same values and principles with the traditional leaders. Gradually such individuals become representatives of the movement in parliaments and different institutions and take part in making critical decisions.

Why did the Islamic movement in Turkey Tunisia and Morocco succeed and yet fail in other places? The answer is simple- they valued their ongoing success on the ground without ignoring the reality of their countries.

For instance in Turkey the political elites including Islamists agree on civil state and democracy and jointly work to free the country from military domination. This gave the movement a political chance to manoeuvre even at the time of its founder Necmettin Erbakan who was closer to the traditional Brotherhood approach. In order to suit the situation and rectify their status the party evolved many times and was reborn with new names.

In addition to this the practice of democracy extended to the grassroots level to the municipalities and the selection of neighbourhood leaders creating further chances for members to become actively involved in leadership activities and gain experience. Erdogan himself was one of those. Erdogan became famous when he became governor of the Istanbul Municipality and the same applies to his current colleagues. This has made the leaders in Turkey professional politicians not religious figures or preachers. Leaders who deal with development projects with the daily demands of the people and make decisions- something the Brotherhood movement failed to do in other places.

This free space gave Erdogan a chance to present himself as national leader not only as a leader of a certain group and he managed to compete with even the founder Erbakan and later established a new party replacing the old one.

The Tunisian movement adopted an advanced ideology compared to peers in the Eastern part of the Arab World. It is not correct that it happened because its leader Ghannouchi lived in the UK for two decades. Not far from his home in London there were many extremist Salafis who were calling for an Islamic Caliphate Jihad and who fiercely stood against democracy and many people may not be aware that the ISIS ideology was made there in the 1990s. Ghannouchi refused this and adopted an advanced ideology which was inherited from Tunisian civil society founded by its Mufti Al Tahir bin Ashour early last century.

I remember the first time I became familiar with the term “Islamic leftist” was when I received some editions of a magazine published in Tunisia in the 1980s and I met the publishers who preferred to call the magazine 15/21 as a gesture combining the past and future: the 15th and 21st centuries.

In Morocco we can’t ignore the charisma of the leadership of Abdelilah Benkirane who never targeted openly non-Islamist political opponents but rather he criticised the traditional Sheikhs of the movement. He became independent from Al Adl Wa Al Ihsane group which was representing the traditional form of Brotherhood movement and presented himself as politician first and Islamist second acknowledging his loyalty to the Monarchy and the State. Thus he managed to gain support of a wide range of Moroccan society including the youth who wanted someone who could tell them about employment and living standards and the King Mohammed VI.

It is time to tell the Muslim Brotherhood in the East that reform does not start with changing the regime but with the replacement of your traditional leaders who are still far away from the political reality.