It might be too soon to assess the outcome of the Islamists' governance in Egypt and Tunisia, after they earned a majority in pluralistic elections whose formal and legal integrity were above any suspicion. One could even say that this governance during a transitional phase pushed the Islamists in both countries to focus on the upcoming stage, its permanent constitution and elections, rather than on the deterrence of the livelihood, economic and social problems which prompted millions in the two countries to rebel against the former regimes. And while the experience of the Islamists in Sudan - who came to power via a military coup - ended with the known disaster and the experience of the Islamists in Morocco - who are governing underneath the tent of the palace - did not carry successful solutions to the aforementioned problems, the Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia relied on political performance and propaganda in the face of their possible challengers. This was seen in the drafting of the constitution for the next stage and will be felt in the upcoming elections, as they believe that the confrontation will be with the movements of the civil state and the parties calling for it. This may be where the slip-up of these Islamists resides, after they announced they were in favor of the state of the law, plurality and the peaceful transition of power via popular elections, considering that these are principles supposed to be governing the work of the movements advocating the establishment of a civil state. Hence, the alliance during the transitional phase should be with them instead of provoking problems with them, in order to instate solid constitutional foundations guaranteeing the state of the law and the peaceful transition of power, and prevent the monopolization of the authority and the return of dictatorship and tyranny. However, for reasons which might be related to political opportunism, to attempts to woo factions opposed to the civil state, or to ideological positions towards the movements advocating it, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahda in Tunisia perceive the other Islamic movements – regardless of their formations and inclinations and including those calling for the toppling of the civil state – as being their natural allies. At this level, the MB and Ennahda both fueled the mystery surrounding their positions vis-à-vis the extremist Islamic movements, especially the Salafis with their various inclinations. Tolerance towards peaceful political action is one thing, but tolerance towards the principles of the establishment of a civil state is a completely different thing. The first is a right that should be guaranteed for all, while the second encourages the undermining of the civil state and prevents its movements from enjoying their right to peaceful political action. In that sense, the ruling parties in Egypt and Tunisia lost the spirit of the struggle which they staged against dictatorship and tyranny, and the slogans they raised to establish a state of the law, in order to a earn a few votes from the Islamists of the other movements in upcoming elections. In parallel, it became clear that the Jihadist movements in both countries were revitalized, not only due to the collapse of the former tyrannical regime, but also to the tolerance of the new one, whether through the pardoning of elements convicted in terrorism cases or the abstinence from deterring the Jihadist and Takfiri ideologies and containing the action of their advocators. The hardliners thus exploited this policy to the extreme, and reports started to emerge about the reformation of the Jihadist groups in Egypt and the attempts deployed by some to carry out terrorist operations inside the country. Moreover, reports are talking about the Salafi groups in Tunisia playing the role of a parallel police corps, thus attacking the citizens' freedoms at the level of their clothes and behavior. And while light was only shed on these groups following the attacks on the American missions' premises in the context of the exploitation of the reactions to the offensive film, and following the fall of dead and the United States' pressuring of the authorities in Cairo and Tunis to react, these authorities are to blame for having allowed these extremists to operate and move freely. There is another conclusion regarding this new reality, i.e. that the threats affecting the authority of the Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia are coming from the extremist and Takfiri movements, not those of the civil state. Moreover, this threat will keep lurking as long as electoral interests and the search for votes continue to govern the behavior of this authority and as long as the efforts are focusing on distancing the civil movements from any participation or influence. This ought to change the political priorities of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ennahda at the level of their relations with the other political movements.
