As expected, the so-called Egyptian Revolution has thrown up unexpected results causing a panic in western capitals not to mention quickly degenerating into Islamist-Secularist and Muslim-Christian conflict. Wait till Syria is ‘liberated’. What will follow in Syria will be infinitely worse than Egypt. Be that as it may, it is important for all to realise that now the best course of action is to make the best out of a bad situation. Let us first take a few things off the table. The idea of a secular democratic Egypt, which is neutral to religion, is a non-starter after the recent polls as the poisonous tree planted in January is now bearing fruit. The choice is between a mildly theocratic state and a religious dystopia, which is very much in the realm of possibility. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis hold up to 65 percent of the seats in the legislature-cum-Constituent Assembly. The Muslim Brotherhood with its Islamic roots in Rashid Rida and Hasan al-Banna has evolved into a relatively mainstream party. Yet a reader in Pakistan is more likely to identify the Brotherhood with moderate Jamaat-e-Islami rather than a mainstream party in Pakistan. Unlike the AKP, which had to play within the rules set by the Turkish establishment to come to power, the Muslim Brotherhood is now riding the Islamic tiger to parliament. Therefore, it is naïve to expect them to transform on their own into an inclusive political movement. There is, however, one very important consideration. There is an alliance of convenience between the Muslim Brotherhood and the secularists for whatever their differences, nothing is quite as acerbic as the battle over common turf of religion, which is what the Brotherhood is engaged in with the Salafis. Unfortunately for the secularists though, given their poor showing, they would be junior partners in this alliance. As things stand right now, two truths are self-evident in terms of what the Egyptians want: 65 percent of the Egyptians want an Islam-oriented government but by the same token 75 percent do not want a Salafi straitjacket. This means a definite role for Islam and perhaps a role well in advance of what the Egyptian constitution already envisages. In other words, the final settlement between the Muslim Brotherhood and the secularists will attempt to find that elusive balance between the idea of a modern democracy with an Islamic flavour. We in Pakistan have toyed this with very limited success since the passing of the Objectives Resolution. What could be that elusive permutation? It would be to have a state that gives equal rights of citizenship to all its citizens and adopts a simple repugnancy clause saying that no legislation can be repugnant to fundamental rights and Islam. Here, the most important gain for the secularists will be to ensure that the determinant of repugnancy to Islam is the mainstream constitutional court and not some body of ulema or a specific Shariat Court. Secondly, by placing certain fundamental rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech as absolute and unfettered even by religious consideration would ensure that the irreducible minimum of a modern democratic state would be achieved and an open society, albeit one that respects Islam and establishes its church, would become possible. Other than the intra-Islamist conflict, there are some external factors at play that may allow Egypt’s secularists to play the same role that Pakistan’s religious Right played in the 1970s. Despite their numbers, it is the Brotherhood that needs the secularists and not the other way around — not just as a bulwark against the Salafis but also as a link and contact to the capitalist west trade, which is what Egypt will have to depend on to create a vibrant economy. It is here that the secularists can, as a small minority, still manage to secure a more inclusive and pluralistic Egypt. The secret weapons in the secularist arsenal are the Nubians and Copts. The secularists must bargain a consociationalist compromise on their behalf to allow them to live as equal sons of the Nile. This means seeking a mandatory share in power, economic life and society. Most importantly, all minorities should be exempt from the application of Islamic law. Lessons may be drawn from the experience in Malaysia and Indonesia to this effect. In Malaysia, for example, parts of Islamic law are strictly enforced for Malays but not the Chinese or Indian minorities. Indonesia has sought to solve the religious question by making several state religions. For Egypt it would not be a bad idea to also officially adopt the Coptic Church in addition to Islam. Yet the single most important thing the newly elected Egyptian legislators can do for their country is to learn a lesson from Pakistan’s downward spiral 1977 onwards in terms of religious pluralism and harmonious interfaith coexistence. May that be a lesson to all spring chickens around the Arab world. The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website http://mylaw.net and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and http://pakteahouse.net. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com