Brown laments analogy mongers but this is basic to analyzing complex situations. Then, he wants to point out parallels to Christian Democratic movements in 19th Century Europe as operating in quasi-authoritarian situations, true enough, but no one, Brown included, necessarily views Islamist Middle Eastern countries as eventually developing into mostly stable democracies as Western Europe did. Thus, I am not sure the models will help him or advance his analysis to as great an extent as he would like.

Brown does better address why democracy is so acceptable for Islamists, but as such, it works against his central thesis explaining the intricacies of a focused vanguard of religionists in elections. The very lack of commitment to liberal, democratic ideals, so characteristic of Christian Democracy, is what distinguishes the facade of Islamists in democratic elections. He perceptively points out how Islamists can not agree to liberal, Republican ideals and therefore are not working towards a functional, liberal democracy in any of the countries in question, most notably Egypt following the election of Muslim Brotherhood leaders Mohammed Morsi. The only constitution that counts is the Koran.

Most helpfully, he does point out that discussions of a constitution, individual liberty, the role of women, and the treatment of other religions, and minorities is governed by sharia law and thus any Islamist government is not likely to evolve as a liberal, Western-style system.