Egypt Mk. 3

[ljkeane]

Good, I'm glad to see some acknowledgement that the pursuit of the promotion of individual liberties is not as simple as promoting a democracy.

Er what? Apartheid was characterised by deliberately disenfranchising the majority of the population. I don't see how that is 'promoting democracy'?

[Guest Raids]

Er what? Apartheid was characterised by deliberately disenfranchising the majority of the population. I don't see how that is 'promoting democracy'?

It would probably help clarify what I'm saying if you consider the example I gave in the post where I made the point that you are arguing against instead of the previous one.

[Inigima]

Er what? Apartheid was characterised by deliberately disenfranchising the majority of the population. I don't see how that is 'promoting democracy'?

The government that instituted apartheid was elected, and apartheid was a central plank of their platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1948

[ljkeane]

The government that instituted apartheid was elected, and apartheid was a central plank of their platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1948

It won an election in which the black population wasn't yet officially defined as unable to vote but due to the significant obstacles to their voting was effectively disenfranchised anyway.

[Yoadm]

Then that is what is going to happen. It's then up to the US and the EU et al to negotiate and stop just looking after their own interests, perhaps?

That's a bit of an empty statement. Every country looks to its own interests. Thing is, the interests of opposition groups are not aligned with those of the west, regardless of what the west does. It aint that simple as saying "well, if the west puts a nice face, all will be well".

Gross over-simplification. Several factions worked together to overthrow communist rule. A lot of stuff that is political everyday stuff in parts of Estern Europe are things I really don't agree with, at all. Oppression serves nobody except the most powerful elites. Keeping it in place will definitely not serve anyone, long term.

It's not an oversimplification. The opposition in Eastern europe was far more aligned with the values you have. The opposition in Egypt is anything but. You see struggle against dictatorship, and your liberal soul screams 'justice'. You just have no idea what the Egyptian version of Justice is. Not all things are the same, and the opposition is hardly a bastion of democracy.

Sure, you can argue that Egypt is more like Iran, or you can argue that it's more like Eastern Europe. I think it's more like Eastern Europe for several reasons:

1: The Iranian revolution was a conservative backlash against too much westernisation. This doesn't seem to be the case among the Facebook generation in Egypt.

2: Since people are very aware of how Khomeini grabbed the power, I don't think Islamic extremists are ever going to be overlooked as a serious contender to power again, which seems to have been the case during the Iranian revolution. Today, Muslim extremists have taken on the role of the big bad commie Soviets of the cold war period. Osama et al are the bogeymen of today's world.

3: There were huge worries about what happened in Eastern Europe as well, with Margaraet Thatcher pleading Gorbachev to not tear down the wall. Worry and fretting are pretty normal things in times of instability.

1: Much of it is. Mubarak is hated, amongst many things, because he is cozying up with the west, and because of the peace agreement with Israel. He would probably have been stronger internally had he had a more Iranian or Syrian stance (which themselves are hardly the same) towards the west.

2: For you, not for the Arab street. The Muslim brotherhood is very popular. The riots are disorganized. Even if they succeed, they do not have an organized group leading them. One will carry the flag of leadership eventually. Either the MB or another opposition groups. I worry that they are far less pragmatic than you think.

3: There was worry before the Iranian revolution. Turned out to be correct. This brings me back to my first point, that the opposition grouups in Egypt are very different than those in Eastern Europe.

[Datepalm]

 The Jordanian government just got fired. Hm?

[The Iceman of the North]

Seems like the organizers of the 'million man' demonstration in Cairo today missed their mark by a significant number, maybe a whole million.

[Usotsuki]

His Majesty King Abdullah II on Tuesday asked Marouf Al Bakhit to form a new government to replace the cabinet of Prime Minister Samir Rifai.

"The new government will have the task of 'taking practical, swift, and tangible steps to launch a real political reform process, in line with the King's vision of comprehensive reform, modernization and development.' In the letter of designation to Bakhit, the King said the new cabinet should proceed 'with confidence to bolster democracy, and move ahead with nation building that opens the scopes for broad accomplishment to all dear sons of our country and secure them the safe and dignified life they deserve.'

Busy week.

[Padraig]

That's what I said: Facts OR a logical assesment of the situation.

That logical assessment of the situation is an opinion piece. Its as much based on the authors fears and experience as it is based on facts. He might be right but either way, its worth noting what his background is.

Pad responded in a sense that 'if it was inevitable better now than never'.

Only because the people on the streets are (seemingly) not made up of extremists. Better now than never is not a rule. It just seems to apply in this one case. (And this doesn't mean that things wouldn't go awry yet. It may...it may not).

I don't see any way Mabarak can change things back to where they were. Change is going to happen. Egypt never saw great prosperity because of things like corruption. Hopefully that can be fought now.

[Yoadm]

That logical assessment of the situation is an opinion piece. Its as much based on the authors fears and experience as it is based on facts. He might be right but either way, its worth noting what his background is.

Using the same coin, I'm not going and saying "well you are a liberal, so naturally you will judge it based on your own bias". Bringing up someone's ethnic background as if that is evidence of anything is even worse.

His assesment is no less logical than yours or mine, apart from having more experience on the issue. His logic is sound, his background is irrelevant. He might as well have been a christian or Muslim writing the piece.

Only because the people on the streets are (seemingly) not made up of extremists. Better now than never is not a rule. It just seems to apply in this one case. (And this doesn't mean that things wouldn't go awry yet. It may...it may not).

How does it not apply to this case? It is especially relevant considering the situation in the middle-east. It is also relevant since there is a large amount of extremism within Egypt at this time, far more than ten or twenty years ago. The timing of a revolution dictates who will come on top in the end, and what his policy will be. "Better now than later" is, imo, an empty statement that does not take into account the results, merely the present.

[Datepalm]

 Quote of the day, from the ruling party, apparently straight faced:

"Two million protesters don't represent the Egyptian people"

(Runner up from Erdogan, adressed to Mubarak: "None of us will live for ever")

[Guest Raids]

It won an election in which the black population wasn't yet officially defined as unable to vote but due to the significant obstacles to their voting was effectively disenfranchised anyway.

Oh yes that is interesting. Well don't worry. I'm sure Coptic Christians and women will be well-represented under the new regime.

Let me be clear - weighing all of that, I still think we should support real and meaningful democratic elections in Egypt, even though it will continue the trend of less and less female representatives and probably no representation for the Coptic minority. And I don't think losing representatives is akin to losing the right to vote. But these are all indications of the ways in which democracy is not perfect, and things that everyone should think about and try to manage when a regime change is occurring and a new government is being set up.

That is the overall point that I am making - there are competing concerns, and many of them run in direct opposition to open democracies. None of us live in pure democracies.

If you want to continue to nitpick my example, go ahead, but I think I've made my case that there are plenty of imperfect governments that have called themselves democracies. And I shouldn't have to aruge to anyone that oppression of the minority is an inherent problem in a democracy.

[Guest Raids]

 The Jordanian government just got fired. Hm?

To put a finer point on it, I take it everyone is in favor of toppling Jordan's constitutional monarchy also, and sees the firing of the government as a sham effort by a dictator to make his government look responsible to the people?

[ljkeane]

If you want to continue to nitpick my example, go ahead, but I think I've made my case that there are plenty of imperfect governments that have called themselves democracies. And I shouldn't have to aruge to anyone that oppression of the minority is an inherent problem in a democracy.

And the oppression of the majority is the defining feature of the alternatives.

[Eyelesbarrow]

 The Jordanian government just got fired. Hm?

I wonder what country is next.

From an AP report:

King Abdullah's move comes after thousands of Jordanians took to the streets — inspired by the regime ouster in Tunisia and the turmoil in Egypt — and called for the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai who is blamed for a rise in fuel and food prices and slowed political reforms.

With food prices expected to increase more this year, I wonder how this will play in other countries where discontent to governments is high. We've seen this in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Jordan. Of course, food is not the core of the protests, but it's such a populist issue - ordinary folks immediately feel its effects - and therefore a convenient enticement to get people out on the streets.

[Guest Raids]

And the oppression of the majority is the defining feature of the alternatives.

Actually no. A constitutional republic with representative democracy does pretty well at allowing for both the democratic spirit and the proteciton of minority rights.

ETA to Eye: "In a heartbeat, a thousand voices took up the chant. King Joffrey and King Robb and King Stannis were forgotten, and King Bread ruled alone."

[Datepalm]

To put a finer point on it, I take it everyone is in favor of toppling Jordan's constitutional monarchy also, and sees the firing of the government as a sham effort by a dictator to make his government look responsible to the people?

No sure. Abdullah is a less obviously dictatorial figure than Mubarak (he was in episode of Voyager, for fucks sake) but a lot of the underlying issues - unemployment, unequal growth, lack of democracy, etc - are there. (my immediate thought is that when a monarch calls for democratic reforms a more obvious move is to fire himself and not his government though.) 

With food prices expected to increase more this year, I wonder how this will play in other countries where discontent to governments is high. We've seen this in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Jordan. Of course, food is not the core of the protests, but it's such a populist issue - ordinary folks immediately feel its effects - and therefore a convenient enticement to get people out on the streets.

Syria massively raised basic subsidies a few days ago. Nice and obvious, at least.

[Happy Ent]

No sure. Abdullah is a less obviously dictatorial figure than Mubarak (he was in episode of Voyager, for fucks sake)

I approve of this argument.

[ljkeane]

Actually no. A constitutional republic with representative democracy does pretty well at allowing for both the democratic spirit and the proteciton of minority rights.

:lol: Lets just assume when people talk about democracies they actually consider the US one. But ok, the feature of the alternatives to democracies and constitutional republics (which still do fine at oppressing minorities occasionally) is the oppression of the majority.

[Padraig]

Using the same coin, I'm not going and saying "well you are a liberal, so naturally you will judge it based on your own bias".

You should. :) That's completely relevant. You are right that one shouldn't dismiss an article based simply on the background of the poster but one shouldn't be blind to it. My reaction to the article was simply "that seemed rather sensationalist, I wonder where he was from. Oh...there you go". Checking his background supported by assessment of where he was from.

It is especially relevant considering the situation in the middle-east. It is also relevant since there is a large amount of extremism within Egypt at this time, far more than ten or twenty years ago.

I'm not sure has extremism increased to be honest. Egypt was fighting wars 40 years ago. Anyhow, if it has increased, my worry would be that it would only continue to increase given the corrupt dictatorship. (I've said this before). Then we wouldn't be arguing about who may seize power. We'd know. Mubarak has failed to turn Egypt into a secular country (not that he tried).

1: Much of it is. Mubarak is hated, amongst many things, because he is cozying up with the west, and because of the peace agreement with Israel. He would probably have been stronger internally had he had a more Iranian or Syrian stance (which themselves are hardly the same) towards the west.

Do we know this? I'm doubtful.