
Khaled Elfiqi / EPA
The upcoming election showdown between Islamist Muslim Brotherhood stalwart Mohammed Morsi (L) and former Mubarak-era minister and military loyalist Ahmed Shafiq has been described as a "worst-case scenario" by analysts across the political spectrum. Is that a correct assessment?
ANALYSIS
CAIRO -- Former Mubarak-era minister and military loyalist Ahmed Shafiq and Islamist candidate and Muslim Brotherhood stalwart Mohammed Morsi will run against each other in Egypt’s upcoming presidential run-off election, officials announced on Monday.
Out of a field of five serious contenders who ranged from moderates to Islamists to secularists, the showdown between these two has already been described as a “worst-case scenario” by analysts across the political spectrum.
Some analysts are already calling for voters to boycott the run-off elections scheduled for the middle of June, the argument being that by withholding their vote Egyptians can delegitimize the process that led to this outcome. Also, the argument goes, by boycotting the vote a citizen can deny the winning candidate a strong mandate to govern.
Other commentators are simply reducing the run-off vote to a choice between security, which is Shafiq’s mantra, and the imposition of Islamic law, Morsi’s pledge.
So is Egypt facing a depressing return to the Mubarak-era or a drastic plunge into the sharia law-era?
Not necessarily either of these scenarios.
The results of the election, and the upcoming run-off, can be interpreted much less pessimistically. Instead of the bleak assessments being peddled now, Egypt may instead be entering an era where compromise, coalition-building and power-sharing are part of the political lexicon.

Marco Longari / AFP - Getty Images
A man demonstrating in Cairo's Tahrir square on May 29. His sign reads: "The revolution continues... No to candidates from the old regime...No to the Muslim Brotherhood....STOP".
Runoff could take Egypt's voters on one of two very different paths
There are a few facts that need to be considered when analyzing the recent vote.
Fact one: The majority of voters who went to the polls did not want Morsi or Shafiq to be president. The figures indicate Morsi garnered 24.4 percent and Shafiq 23.3 percent. The rest of the candidates split the remaining 52.3 percent of the vote.
Simply put, more people wanted someone else to be president than they wanted either one of these two candidates.
Fact two: By garnering almost as many votes as the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, Shafiq and the grassroots organization he built and mobilized over a few months has become a major cause of concern for the long-standing political force.
Egypt's next president to be an Islamist or Mubarak's former premier?
Fact three: A majority of Egyptians have grown weary of Islamist politicians in an very short period of time. In fact, the majority voted for either staunchly secular candidates, Shafiq, Amr Moussa and Hamdeen Sabahi, or Aboul Fotoh, a moderate Islamist who promised not to mix religion and politics and also enjoyed the support of idealist secular youth.
In essence, this election has proved that while the Muslim Brotherhood may be the dominant force on Egypt’s streets, that doesn’t mean they are the most popular political force.
Voters lined up in Cairo to choose from five leading candidates: a socialist, two Islamists, and two with ties to former President Hosni Mubarak. NBC's Richard Engel reports.
While they are still considered the best-organized and funded political organization in Egypt, the recent results probably rattled the Muslim Brotherhood’s cage while helping them understand that they need coalitions too. In other words, the election results prove that there are forces capable of competing against the Muslim Brotherhood.
For 16 months, a debate has raged over the country’s political future. Should it be a presidential or parliamentary system? Should it be an Islamist state? Secular? Capitalist? Socialist? The candidates tried to define themselves assuming these were the metrics the voters used.
But the results of the first round of voting showed that Egyptians en masse have yet to answer a central question about the country’s future: Do they accept change and the uncertainty and chaos it brings, or will they choose stability and the stagnation it breeds?
For the past year and four months, everything that has unfolded in this country can be seen through this prism – a choice between change or stability.
Egypt's next president to be an Islamist or Mubarak's former premier?
From deadly street protests, to military trials, to parliamentary elections -- every time Egypt’s revolutionary movements have tried to shove the country towards radical change, forces just as eager to slow the pace of change have pushed it back from the edge.
NBC's Richard Engel spoke with former President Jimmy Carter to talk about Egypt's elections and the country's future. The Carter Center has been in Egypt monitoring the presidential elections.
So, as people call for change, just as many have overcome their apathy and said "not so fast."
When the change appears to lean in favor of the more powerful Islamist parties, it becomes more palpable for many to slow change down.
And with around 48 percent of voters now behind Morsi or Shafiq, 52 percent are now up for grabs. So what is clear is that for Morsi or Shafiq to win the presidency, they will have to win the hearts and minds of the remaining voters.
Now the questions is – what can the two candidates do to secure this group’s support?
In Egypt's elections, politics is a new family affair
For Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, the message from the electorate is clear: The Brotherhood is beatable, Egyptians are tired of the Islamists’ meteoric power grab, and want to see the MB reach across the political divide and move to the center. Morsi’s Islamist base of support is not enough to win the elections so he must moderate his party’s policies to win the support of cautious and skeptical revolutionaries, many of whom are liberal and likely secular, but nonetheless pro-revolutionary and pro-change.
In contrast, Mubarak’s last prime minister Shafiq, has tapped into a core of the population who wants stability and is more afraid of Islamist politicians than of a return to Mubarak-era policies and practices.
And Shafiq can’t win the Presidency without recognizing that the new balance of power depends on the young, who are overwhelmingly pro-revolutionary, either as Islamists or secularists.
Watch World News videos on msnbc.com
Shafiq played the fear of uncertainty card well in the first round, but he will have to show voters that he can deliver reforms, change and democracy as well as security and stability. In other words, Shafiq’s core of staunchly secularist and anti-change, pro-stability loyalists are not enough to win the final round of elections.
So the core supporters of these two camps are not enough to win them either an all-out majority, which leaves a central question: Which candidate can overcome his shortcomings better?
Will Shafiq show undecided voters that he will bring reforms, security and democracy? Can Morsi convince voters that the Muslim Brotherhood will commit to a civil secular pluralistic state?
The candidates will have a month to sell themselves to the voters -- and the voters will have a month to decide just how they envision Egypt’s revolution playing out.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- 'War criminal': UK ex-PM Blair heckled while testifying
- Couple kept boy, 11, in coal cellar as punishment for raiding refrigerator
- UN Security Council condemns Syria massacre that left more than 100 dead
- A baby made in India: a couple's dream comes true
- Two Americans held over death of student in Japan after Nicki Minaj concert
- UN Security Council condemns Syria massacre
- Iran state TV: We'll build second nuclear plant
- Video: Intrigue behind arrest of Pope’s butler
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world


OH Thank Heavens President Carter is on the case. Is there such a vacuum of leadership in this country that he will speak for Americans? Aaaahhhhh, springtime in the middle east.
He gave Iran to the radicals, I guess he can repeat his incompetence so we have two radical Islamist states.
No the CIA and British did that in 1953, Iran just changed to a different set of radicals in 1979.
Shafiq is probably the better choice, so long as he's willing to give up power once he's voted out again.
Can voters force candidates to compromise in Egypt run-off? Yes, of course they can. They ousted their long term President/Dictator. Before the haters start making anti-Muslim comments here, remember that Egypt has a big Coptic Christian population. Don't trash everyone because of some bad apples. Power to the Egyptians who gave us many things we use today.
Yes....there were, but the numbers are dwindling fast, You ask why?
http://elmaqar.org/cg/?q=node/262
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/world/middleeast/02egypt.html?_r=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiol9cPm-4g
We now are all hamas.
It would be interesting to see what compromise looks like. Been so long I forget.
That thought crossed my mind, too. And we're in America.
Second thought was, I would leave the country if the muslim brotherhood guy wins because I'm female and unwilling to be habitually trod upon. However, I am not Egyptian, so my opinion of him and his henchmen is irrelevant. People should vote. If they don't vote, they will just suffer the consequences.
From the article:
The writer presents a false dilemna. Stability in no way needs to breed stagnation. Rather, it is a fundamental condition for a healthy society. People who romanticize instability or chaos have never lived with it and its ills for long, if at all.
The muslim brotherhood has never said it would abide by an an election in Egypt. Nor anywhere else where it is possible to force a population under and subdue it with islamic sharia law. They have no respect or tolerance for any other system. The crowds which gather to demonstrate their support for the muslim brotherhood make it clear they will not except anything other than islamic law and not allow non-muslims in Egypt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QI3wG3loKlA
I think to believe otherwise is simply wishful thinking.
I think the most important thing about this election is that the will of the majority of Egyptians prevail. This may the be the first time Egypt has had an election that was not "managed" by the party in power. Its probably for the best that the winner not have a majority, and be forced to reach out to people beyond his base. The one thing people there seem to agree on is that Mubarek had to go, beyond that they are trying to create a democracy that works, which is not going to be easy. If Egypt succeeds, and some sort of working government determined by real elections results, the whole Muslim and Arab world will move towards the kind of system that is evidently working in Turkey already. I'm not sure if a party that touts sharia can coexist with a more free and open society than existed under Mubarek, but this is up to the Egyptians. In any event, once again, the best that can be hoped for is a result that divides power and requires compromise among different groups.
Problem is the numbers of Muslim Brotherhood types in the Parliment. Doubt seriously that many Egyptians, especially women and the young educated folks want to end up stuck in an oppressive Islamist state. If the Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins, and with the majority of MB in the Parliament, well, perhaps Egyptians may want to start over. Neither candidate is good for the country...sounds a wee bit like over here.
we are the American Muslims and are American is save but not that who is war monger for there show to watch there tv show to see Muslims by killing the games of FCC so American have face it and war monger is deadly Paine of there cancer but still wanna war on Muslims don't you blame American for the thing you do Egypt.are one of the greatest moral friends and always be in the Name of Allah InshaAllah Sadly, that is who everybody is, not just Americans. The US system, like many other systems, facilitates human depravity. Predatory capitalism gives the illusion of a high standard of living, but only if one wants to give up the human emotions of compassion and caring.
Jesus Christ. the world is ending in a year and a half. If we don't blow it up ourselves sooner. Can't we just play nice till it all ends?
jungeskhan:
Your opinion was gobbeldygook until the last two sentences which leads me to believe you copied them off a web site of the Muslim Brotherhood. If you don't like it here, you may leave. Today.
Reaching out huh? Would that be like the way the Democrats and Republicans reach out and compromise to get the peoples business done?
Uh-oh... Run while you can Egyptians.
I think that, given the recent goings on in Washington, D.C., America is the last place anyone should go to for advice about how to compromise anything.
Recall what the gentleman who just defeated Sen. Dick Lugar said when asked about compromise, "I believe in compromise as long as the other side agrees with my side."
The people of Egypt are corrupt, unmotivated, and uninspired. Compromise all you want, it isn't going to make any difference.
How did they build those pyramids?
Giant Legos.
We Americans preach Democracy and it's often not pretty nor is everyone happy with it's outcome.
It's funny how we complain when someone else follows our lead and we don't like thier choice.
As usual in lesser developed countries, like Russia, democracy is not the issue...power and manipulation is...
Lets keep that sort of stuff out of the US with thorough voter ID....
I guess the US has become a lesser developed country becauswe we are certainly being manipulated by the powers that be. And we just sit here and take it. Vote out all incumbants!
Silly rabbit, we can't keep our own politicians from dirty dealing, graft, corruption, voter fraud, vote tampering, you name it. It is happening. Right here in the USA. Why don't we try doing something constructive about that here. Then we can expand to helping other countries.
Curious Bob
? Russia, Voter ID. What does that have to do with Egypt? Roll another one and get back to us with something resembling reason.
Give Egypt a little time and perhaps they will develop a two party system; one that represents the military, the extreme religious right and the very wealthy and another to represent the rest of the people. Caution, money trumps.
I can only wonder if the Egyptians have heard of superpacs?