In Egypt, Brothers and generals at loggerheads 

(MENAFN - Arab News) The Muslim Brotherhood's decision to field a candidate in the May presidential elections may be less an audacious bid for monopoly power over Egypt and more of a bargaining chip in negotiations to share control of the country with the military, analysts say.

The Brotherhood announced over the weekend that Khairat Al-Shater, one of its top officials, was entering the race as the designated candidate for its Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). That vaults Al-Shater into the status of front runner and may well leave the Brotherhood controlling both houses of Parliament, the body charged with writing a new constitution, and the executive.

While the Brotherhood has vanquished in elections the liberals and secularists who fomented the revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak 14 months ago, it still faces a powerful military that analysts say will not cede control of the country so quickly or easily to an Islamist-dominated civilian government.

"Each side feels the other will take total power The Muslim Brotherhood feels that the military in the last two months is trying to marginalize it, despite its overwhelming electoral victory," Hillel Frisch, a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Research Center of Israel's Bar Ilan University, told The Media Line. "In fact, I think the Muslim Brotherhood is interested in a partnership with the military."

The decision was a shocking about-face for the Brotherhood, which had earlier pledged to stay out of the presidential race in order to quell fears among many Egyptians and in the West. Liberal Egyptians worry that the Brotherhood will impose strict laws. In Western capitals, policymakers fret that Cairo may become a less reliable ally and break Egypt's three-decade-old peace treaty with Israel.

Liberals were, in fact, quick to attack the Brotherhood for breaking its promise. "The truth is that they are proving each day that power is their only goal," Ahmed Said, head of the Free Egyptians Party, said in a television interview after the news. He asserted that the Brotherhood acted when it found "that they can't control the government."

The Brotherhood has been locked in an increasingly acrimonious power struggle with the army, which has been ruling Egypt as the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (SCAP).

The Brotherhood's FJP swept elections for Parliament in December and January and then maneuvered to take 60 out of the 100 seats in the new constitutional assembly. Angry and upset, liberal factions are boycotting the constitutional process and going to court to try to block the Islamists.

Meanwhile, SCAP has demonstrated reluctance to cede control to the new, Islamist-dominated institutions. An army-appointed prime minister and Cabinet continue to run the country, and the generals have sought to influence the writing of the new constitution, mainly to ensure the armed forces remain independent of effective civilian oversight.

It was in this context that the Brotherhood sought to justify its flip-flop on the presidential run. "We have chosen the path of the presidency not because we are greedy for power but because we have a majority in Parliament that is unable to fulfill its duties in Parliament," said Mohamed Morsy, head of the FJP, over the weekend.

The Islamists and the generals struck out verbally at one another about eight days ago, signaling a new downturn in their relations.

The Brotherhood accused the army-appointed Cabinet of incompetence and hinted it would stir up trouble if the generals did not back down on ceding power. "The people are willing to move in order to revive their revolution and protect their ship from sinking," it said. SCAP responded with what it called "extreme indignation" at the Brotherhood.

The growing friction worries many observers of the Egyptian scene. Marina Ottaway and Nathan Brown wrote in a comment last week for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that the two sides could be headed for a "showdown" that could erupt into street confrontations or a coup d'etat.

"The real cipher is the SCAF," they said. "Would the military use the opportunity of the artificially-induced crisis to step in and impose a new process, disband the Parliament, and author its own constitutional text (or at least some clauses)? It has certainly not backed off in the war of words. And it has even decisively taken sides between secular and Islamist politicians."

The catch for the army, say many analysts, is that it cannot count on its rank-and-file troops to obey orders.

Frisch said he does not believe either side in bruising for a fight. Unlike most other Middle East and North African countries, Egypt has a long tradition of statehood that will deter either the army or the Islamists from jeopardizing. He said the Brotherhood would like to share power with the military to provide an excuse for not upsetting relations with the West and Israel as its supporters would like.

Nevertheless, he envisions a compromise that would keep the process of writing the constitution in the hands of Islamists and transfer power to an Islamists-dominated government even before May's presidential vote in exchange for withdrawing the Al-Shater candidacy. But, he warns, goodwill will not necessary end in an agreement.

It could go either way - it could end up with a compromise, which is what both sides are probably hoping for," Frisch said. "But it could easily descend into an all-out confrontation, which would plunge Egypt into a long-term civil war."