Structured Response 3

Nasser’s regime effectively silenced the opposition to their power. He successfully silenced opposition through “A preemptive strategy combining repression, redistribution, and resocialization… and by playing economic, political, and ideological games”. He banned independent political groups, thereby threatening criminal charges on anyone who dared to voice opposition and create change. Surviving civil society groups were driven underground and not able to do much good. His regime controlled most major state institutions, such as schools, the media, and mosques. By asserting power over these everyday establishments, Nasser had power over the public. Even universities were under state control, and student unions were banned- thus silencing the voice of young, educated students.

Islamists have yielded such success at the ballot box due to the need for a change demanded by the people. Egypt was trapped in a pathological-like state of authoritarianism, and something dramatic needed to happen in order to break the nondemocratic order (Cook). Secularism had a bad reputation in the region partly because the dominant form of authoritarian state post-independence was fiercely secular. To quote Professor Hardig, “Arguably, a significant reason why Islamist movements have seen a rise in popularity is because they can point to the failures of the oppressive secular regimes.” Hassan believes that a peaceful emergence of an Islamic state would lead to democracy, and that was a widespread view among Egyptian citizens that has led to Islamists’ success.