By Rami G. Khouri

The national political transformations unleashed across the Arab region become more interesting every day, as the reconfiguration of power structures moves through the turbulent phase between dramatic regime change and the more hard-to-cement stability of a new system of governance. As always, Egypt is mother and teacher, and it is where this tale is the most compelling and consequential.

In the past two days, we have witnessed another important turn in the political perpetual motion machine that is the relationship between the political and military powers in Egypt. On Thursday, the Muslim Brotherhood pulled out of an advisory council that the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had established to shape an appointed 100-member commission that will write a new Constitution. The Brotherhood believes the elected Parliament alone should appoint the commission, and sees the SCAF move as another attempt by the military to maintain its 60-year-old control of national power in Egypt.

The most fascinating thing about this development is the continuously evolving nature of relations between the men with guns and the men with God – the armed forces and the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember that in the months immediately after the overthrow of the Mubarak regime, it was widely assumed by many people that the SCAF and the Muslim Brotherhood would make a very natural partnership to govern Egypt. Well, that assumption has been proven wrong – at least for now.

The Brotherhood and other more conservative and militant Islamists (the fundamentalist Salafists) have openly challenged the SCAF in recent months, often joining with large secular turnouts in street demonstrations that sought – partially successfully so far – to act as a check on the power of the military men. So what is the reality? Are the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups allies or competitors of the SCAF? In other arenas, is the Brotherhood a radical or a moderate group? Does it want peace or confrontation with Israel? Will it work with or shun Americans and other Westerners who offer aid and advice? Does it shun or embrace pluralism?

The really important matter here in my view is not the political position of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is naturally evolving as it is forced to respond to initiatives to control power by the SCAF. More significant is the combination of the constantly evolving relationships among leading Egyptian groups, and how this situation is viewed by many people in the region and abroad, especially in the West. Simply stated, I fear that we are still witnessing a strong colonial streak among many in the West – especially in the United States – in how they view the Muslim Brotherhood during this phase of historic political change.

The main problem is that many people want to judge the Brotherhood on the basis of criteria that are important to the U.S., other Western societies, and Israel primarily, instead of acknowledging the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists or secular groups through the one criterion that should overshadow all others: their domestic and democratic political legitimacy with their own people.

It is telling in this context to contrast this with how many in the West view the colorful assortment of characters that, consecutively, become frontrunners among the American Republican Party presidential candidates. The only criterion that matters for political groups or individuals in the West is that they obey the law and gain legitimacy through popular support and votes. Their actual policies are secondary, and are ultimately validated or rejected by the voters. It seems that Westerners are judged by their legitimacy, but Arabs are judged by their policies. Is this some sort of fancy new political philosophy, or just a new version of old-fashioned racism and colonialism?

I say this because it seems that Arab Islamists are accepted as legitimate mainly on the basis of whether their policies are seen to be reasonable in the eyes of others – on issues like secular-religious balance, ties with the West, peace with Israel, attitudes toward Iran, and a range of domestic issues related to alcohol, women, minorities and other issues. There is a tendency to judge Islamists’ legitimacy and acceptability according to whether their policies line up with American values, broader Western concepts, and the concerns of Israel. Perhaps Islamists who want to be accepted in the West should join the Daughters of the American Revolution or the Young Zionists of America to smooth their way? Or be interviewed in Oprah’s magazine? Or what?

Comical, even farcical, characters like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Donald Trump and others of their amusing ilk are subjected to the sole test of legitimate incumbency – which is how politics should work. They may be dangerous demagogues or incompetent provincial clowns, or both in some cases; but that is all overlooked if they gain votes. Former President George W. Bush unleashed policies abroad that resulted in millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars of wasted or stolen money, fractured countries, new terror threats, and massive global political dislocation and distortion. Yet he is not held accountable because he passes the only test that matters in the U.S. – the test of electoral legitimacy.

In most cases, those same standards and criteria are not applied to the Muslim Brotherhood or other such political forces in the Arab world that come to power democratically. This is a new form of political-intellectual colonialism that is troubling, especially as it forms a core part of American society’s response to the heroic and epic wave of Arab liberty and democracy. No wonder so many Arabs are not interested in getting American assistance in democracy issues, if American democracy is so tinged with lingering colonial streaks.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.