Acclaimed economist Samir Amin believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is not an Islamic party, but a reactionary right-wing party that exploits Islam for its direct, pragmatic interests. Amin – one of the world’s most prominent economists– presented, through his post-revolutionary books, a new view regarding Egypt’s contemporary history, a view that does not divide the Egyptian twentieth century through the July 1952 Revolution; rather, it sees the historical movement as a mere political ebb and flow.

Acclaimed economist Samir Amin believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is not an Islamic party, but a reactionary right-wing party that exploits Islam for its direct, pragmatic interests. Amin – one of the world’s most prominent economists– presented, through his post-revolutionary books, a new view regarding Egypt’s contemporary history, a view that does not divide the Egyptian twentieth century through the July 1952 Revolution; rather, it sees the historical movement as a mere political ebb and flow. With one wave, national demands of independence, democracy and social justice flow – these demands, according to Amin’s view, are the criteria of the ebb and flow – then with another long wave, these demands ebb.

The historical theory of the movement of waves, according to Amin, helps to understand the direction of the history in Egypt and the region in the coming period.

The interview was conducted before the recent developments surrounding the Constitutional Declaration and the constitutional referendum:

Mr. Amin, what do you think about what is going on now in Egypt?

I am not pessimistic, but I also do not hold mythological illusions about the Egyptian revolution since it has achieved nothing so far. Experience proves that the regime has not changed, the impoverishment of the Egyptian people is still ongoing and so is the struggle through social protests and demonstrations.

I believe that we in general are still subject to the illusions of the box and this will continue for a while. People have started to realize that the Brotherhood will change nothing. The important fact that was confirmed after January 25, 2011 is that the Egyptian people are brave and will not be afraid to ignite a second and a third uprising, which, I believe, will take place but this time with more awareness regarding the desired alternative.

What do you mean by the “illusions of the box”?

Mass movements usually start with a minority, but this minority is capable of engaging the majority. The Egyptian experience in January and February, 2011 is still conspicuous; the movement started with few numbers compared to the population of Egypt, then kept increasing until there were 15 million demonstrators all over the country.

As we know from history, however, this moving minority needs a period of time to crystallize its independent organizations and alternative project, and build its capacities to forge strategic alliances and realize its goals. This needs time and may take years; in such a case, early elections become the way to stop that movement. President Obama declared this project during the last days of Mubarak when he said that Egypt needed a short transition period to be ended with elections leading to legitimate system, since the only legitimacy resulted from the ballot box. This means destroying the minority’s ability to engage the majority, as well as manipulating the fragile, vulnerable and non-politicized minority through whoever can control it.

This plan was implemented successfully through the March, 2011 referendum, the parliamentary elections and then the presidential elections. Thus, the current regime has grown to hold semi-legitimacy, the only legitimacy acknowledged by Western countries, at the top of which is the USA.

But the question is: Do the Egyptian people consider the box the only source of legitimacy? I believe the answer is no. The masses now realize that the movement has legitimacy it acquires from its goals, such as the democratization of society, endowing the social reform with a social dimension and also a national one through restoring Egypt’s honor, and establishing a new state able to be active in its internal and external environment. The American-Israeli-Gulf project aims at eliminating the possibilities of the emergence of this project in order for Egypt to stay – as it has been for so long – a decadent state for a while in the near future.

The box, hence, is not the only source of legitimacy. On the other hand, the source of the Brotherhood’s power is the poverty of the masses and their continuous impoverishment through charity processes accompanied by Islamist discourse. In this way, they can gain the votes of these poor classes. So, the Brotherhood has a substantive interest in the continued impoverishment policies, and their talk about social justice means in their lexicon, charity only. They allow excessive enrichment and the accumulation of fortunes through their own interpretation of Quranic verses. The funds coming from the Gulf help them firmly establish their project, where Qatar finances the Brotherhood while Saudi Arabia funds the Salafists under the auspices of the US, the official sponsor for the implementation of this scheme.

Where, do you believe, is the Brotherhood leading Egypt?

Since February 2011, I have written that the American scenario of the Egyptian situation is more like the Pakistani scenario; a parliament with Islamic majority, backed by an Islamic military in order to implement the American project.

It suffices to compare between Pakistan and India to learn the result of the hegemony of political Islam. Before 1948, Pakistan was not poorer than India; on the contrary, it included regions that were considered the richest lands in the Indian subcontinent. Today, however, India – despite all my reservations regarding the Indian model – has been able to realize a dramatic development thanks to secularism and democracy.

Another model of the Islamists’ rule is in Somalia where it has led to the destruction of the state. Now, there is no state in Somalia; rather, there are centers of power that, according to studies, have amounted to 35 state lets.

The third model is Sudan, through and after Hassan al-Turabi’s policies, the south third of Sudan has seceded even though the goals of the Liberation Army of the South from the outset were not secession, but a democratic, secular state for all the Sudanese. And now comes the turn of the west of Sudan – by the way inhabited by Muslims – which means we are facing a new case of state disintegration in Sudan.

Why does the US support this scenario?

The main objective of the US strategy is to prevent the rise of Egypt so as to keep it a state whose capital is begging to foreign countries. The American aid for the armed forces aims at sabotaging the offensive and defensive force of the army, and the continuous flow of the Gulf funds aims at strengthening the regime and the trading pattern rather than the developmental pattern or building factories.

From a political perspective, Egypt in this project is the state that helps and sides with the American policies in the region. It supported the American intervention in Iraq, the destruction of the Iraqi state and transforming it into ethnic states, and it currently supports the same policies regarding Syria.

It is therefore subject to the Zionist project of eliminating the Palestinian presence in the occupied Palestinian territories, and even expanding beyond the borders of Palestine. I believe that the Israelis’ ambitions in Sinai are still in place and might be renewed.

Here we find three powers whose joint interest lies in preventing the rise of Egypt, namely, USA, Israel and the Gulf countries because the rise of Egypt – in the sense of a national, developmental state – means that it will play a leading role regionally, if not globally. In such a case, the Gulf role, which is backed by oil money and the reactionary Islamic discourse, will vanish and the expansionist tendencies of Israel will face resisting forces. Consequently, the American project of controlling the region – already achieved through various forms in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. – will cease.

When do you believe this scheme began?

The formation of the regime started to change under Sadat to become more like a triangle whose vertex was in Washington and whose base was the military and the reactionary, right-wing and political Islam, in order to implement the American agenda in the region. This was a strategic plan developed by (Henry) Kissinger and (Zbigniew) Brzezinski, and (Anwar) Sadat started to implement it when he brought the Brotherhood’s leaderships back from the Gulf and released the other arrested leaderships to face the Nasserites and the leftists and complete his main goal, which was dismantling the Nasserite project aimed at building a national, developmental state.

Under Sadat and Mubarak, the armed forces were the cornerstone in the ruling troika and the forces of political Islam were subject to them. The Islamic discourse is the only political discourse that has been in place over the last 40 years. What some see as a competition between the military and the Brotherhood is not true; there is a competition to get the largest piece of the cake but not to dislodge a player away from the game. Now, the balance of power has changed in favor of political Islam, without setting aside the army leadership since it will remain as it is; enjoying all the privileges and the fortunes it has accumulated throughout the past years.