There are a lot of reports of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates being involved in the Egyptian riots. This should come as no surprise, since the Muslim party has become the beacon of opposition in Egypt despite its illegality. There are concerns that if a revolution were successful, the result would be a regime based on religious principles rather than liberal-democratic values. Given the political history of the Middle East, such a prognosis is fair. But such regime change is not necessarily something to be feared.
This is not the first time the Arab world has seen waves of protest. Ironically, when they first occurred back in the early-mid 20th century, it was secularists and socialists who wrested control from monarchists. Arabs looked to the modernism of the West as an example for all nations and sought to emulate Western liberal reform at home. While many of these movements were successful, they were co-opted and controlled by autocrats such as the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, who imposed secularist autocracies. While religious autocracies also arose, such as the Saudi dynasty and the Taliban in Afghanistan, this did little to tarnish the perceived link between secularism and oppression.
The result of this is a perceived divide between secular, undemocratic governments and religious, popular opposition. This is not always clear cut and certainly in the early 20th Century definitions and allegiances were much more fluid. However, being autocratic, those who consolidated power tended to stamp out any moderate opposition, or absorbed most secular movements. This resulted in the dichotomy of Egypt before January, where Mubarak's government was set up in opposition to the Muslim brotherhood, with the smattering of liberal intellectuals barely affecting the political landscape. Such a pattern is present in Libya, Jordan, Algeria and Yemen, with local variations on the theme.
The problem for Washington, London and other would-be chess players is that they are given an immediate choice between stable tyrants and perceived religious fanatics, and back the former in the hope that the stability will keep fanatics out of power and allow for some degree of modernism. The autocrats, reacting to the perceived threat of a radical opposition and emboldened by foreign support, crack down on any hint of political disagreement. Meanwhile, the religious opposition becomes the rally-point for anyone with a political grudge, further spooking foreign onlookers. This is why there is such hesitation at the developments in Egypt: The supposed freedom marches are haunted by the specter of religious association, and there are unspoken fears of an Iran-style religious dictatorship.
Unfortunately, due to the antagonism of opposition and tension created by the police state, religious revolution becomes a delayed inevitability. I sincerely hope that Egypt becomes a liberal, secular democracy. However, the fact is that the most credible and powerful political force, bar military, is the Muslim Brotherhood.
Whether such a result would be an improvement remains to be seen. Given the popular nature of the protests, there is a probability of increased democratic participation and human rights, even if they are based on Islamic principles. An Iran-style theocracy is also a possibility, depending on how bitter the power struggle becomes. The best thing that America could do is send impartial observers and manage fair elections. The religious opposition will of course seize power, but any attempt to subvert the popular process will revert to the powder-keg scenario present under Mubarak.
The point, more broadly, is to stop seeing Middle-Eastern politics as a struggle between secular autocrats and religious nutjobs. As shown by Iranian and Egyptian events, antagonism strengthens the influence of religious political movements. Fostering democratic reform is much more effective than staving off and emboldening Islamic revolutionaries.At this point, Islamic government is an unavoidable step on the road to liberalism. I have hope for the people of Egypt and the Middle East more broadly. I fear, however, that the misguided attempts by foreign powers to defend secularism will do more harm than good.