The violence in Cairo â violence instigated by agents provocateurs hired by the Mubarak regime, is shocking and dismaying. After the people took to the streets en masse, and quietly and peacefully forced Mubarak to announce his eventual exit from power, to see those same protesters shot at, stabbed, beaten, run down on horseback and camelback, crushed by rocks, and burned by Molotov cocktails is inexpressibly sad.
Graeme Wood's description of the fighting in Tahrir Square is heartrending: "Each side threw so many stones that they were practically unpaving downtown Cairo, and in moments when they were not throwing stones they were breaking them against the curb into smaller stones that they could throw further. ⦠The protesters pushed back the pro-Mubarak crowd. Some of their charges (it really looked like a Civil War battle charge designed to overrun an enemy position) were so intense that I feared for the pro-government crowd's safety. That worry rapidly vanished. The pro-Mubarak group turned out to have great strategic depth, reaching all the way back to the Nile and beyond, and with sheer numbers it pushed forward, gradually rushing past the protesters and me. â¦Â a trickle of captured protesters came out, each surrounded by at least a hundred screaming Mubarak supporters, and being beaten so intensely that I couldn't see their faces, only a circle of waving sticks and fists, raining down on whatever unfortunate was at the center."
As the day rolled on, the agents provocateurs seem to have tired, and pro-democracy protesters fought back and forced the thugs from the streets, protecting those they capture and unmasking them as plainclothes police. This was inexpressibly powerful. The protesters who took the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, and Suez last week, seem to be holding those streets tonight, and doing so with the grace and honor you would expect from such a proud and honest people. There's nothing I can do but hope against hope that their strength against this brutality, and the dignity with which they've comported themselves, will soften Mubarak's heart, or at least convince the military to accept that their job is to protect the people of Egypt, not the bloody-handed regime that is holding the nation back.
Just as regular floods once fertilized the plains along the Nile and fed one of history's greatest empires, this flood of democratic sentiment pouring through Egypt's cities can only be to the nation's (and the world's) greater good, and can only do harm to those who stand in its way.
- Log in to post comments
By advised, that the Army has very close ties with the American Army. They train with US military help, use American weapons and planes. They are closer to Western culture than might be suspected.
The US has some influence with them to side with democratic movements, and avoid violence. The Army can be vital to any group or the society as a whole in transitioning to a more democratic society.
And by the way, the most important Democratic value is to switch to a government and society really ruled by law with freedoms authorized and applied evenly. The graft and corruption undermine everything.
Without this, elections are meaningless, and one dictator follows another.
Good luck in Egypt!
I'd be wearing a helmet. A few pepper-shakers for the charging camels would be a smart move, too.
Iggyman, please don't be obtuse. The Muslim Brotherhood has very little influence, except that due to a party that has been braver than many in trying to maintain a presence under the dictatorship.
It's that sort of fearfulness that has led the USA and its lackeys in Europe to be the cheerleaders for oppression in the Middle East, enthusiastically supporting murderous bastards like Mubarak, Ben Ali, Saddam Hussein, etc. For heaven's sake, trust the Egyptian people; they don't want war with Israel or anybody else, they've got better things to do with their lives.
If Egypt can be spared an adversarial democratic system of the sort favored by Western democracies in favour of a more conciliatory system that runs on consensus, they will be fine. Ordinary Egyptians don't want to swap the dictatorship of one man for the dictatorship of a theocracy.
As the mature and calm approach by the protesters under intense and murderous provocation illustrates, these are sensible people who want the opportunity to leave peaceful lives with basic freedoms in an honest and open society - not necessarily 100% honest and 100% open, but they'll accept something good rather than fret about its imperfections.
It seems that not enough Americans understand that Iran is not an Arab country, so has much less influence than Americans think. This uprising was directly prompted by what happened in Tunisia against a corrupt and vicious government, it's that simple. There has been no Islamic sloganeering, it's all about getting rid of the cruel dictatorship.
@Iggyman
Your claims are based on so many (at best disputable) assumptions that it is probably not worth starting the discussion at all. I have a feeling that the mix of fear, ignorance and talking points would probably not lead to a fruitful debate.
The surest sign for this is when someone uses "inevitable" for his/her political speculations.
But if you seriously want to make your point then clarify first your argument and sources:
a. Why do you think the situation in Egypt now is comparable to Iran in the 70s (at a first sight it is actually very different)? Can you pinpoint some concrete social factors?
b. What is your assessment about the Muslim Brotherhood based on (it is easy to pick convenient sound-bites out of randomly googled websites, this is not what I mean)? Why do you think you know more about the MB today than many specialized scholars claim to know?
c. If you know that the MB won't tell the truth anyway, what would convince you that they do not plan to install a theocracy (if there is not anything a discussion is superfluous as you will believe something independent of any evidence)?
d. Do you think that some people are not ready for democracy and if yes what is your criteria? To which extend is this different as the good old arguments for colonial empires?
I cannot believe how naive and ignorant is Obama. He has no clue as how the middle east functions. Democracy there is only an illusion. He learned nothing from Carter and Iran. The consequences are going to be catastrophic.
@S. Affias
Apparently you have. So why not share your deep insights and knowledge about the Middle East. I suggest the following for a start:
Read comment #5.
Come back.
Answer the questions.
Construct an argument.
Until you do that I assume that you don't have anything interesting to say.
@ Ali
a)Um, we're seeing a grassroots movement against a U.S.-supported dictatorship with: strong governmental ties to the West (granted Pahlavi was a monarch), an abysmal human-rights record, and a relatively secularist world view? I'm not sure how the power structure would compare, but in the 1970s Iran we absolutely saw a populist movement for autonomy co-opted by a theocratic movement (once again, though, it must be considered that Kohmeini was tagged from the start to take the helm of the new gov.t El Baradei is a bureaucrat, certainly not a religious leader).
b) Any group with ties to extremist violence should be watched closely, whether its the Muslim Brotherhood or any one of a number of hate groups within the U.S. This isn't to say that moderates don't exist within the Brotherhood, simply to point out that there are some extremist elements in the mix as well. (A few mentions of prison breaks for extremist activists (aka "terrorists) held by the Mubarak regime have been buried in various news articles, although the way that the Mubarak government has defined "extremist" is certainly ambiguous, at least to me.)
c) As always, actions speak louder, if the Muslim Brotherhood wants to indicate its good intentions, the only way possible seems to be time and behavior. If they become participants in (and not the dominators of) whatever government emerges from this mess, that would be an important first step. If the country goes democratic, evidence of legitimate participation in elections (i.e. no voter-bullying or threats of violence a la the Karzai regime), that would certainly be positive. If sectarian violence dims down after the current unrest and Egypt once again becomes a safe place for any and all inhabitants, regardless of their religious beliefs (i.e. an end of violence against Coptic Christians) that would be a good step. Speaking for myself, the power to demonstrate "legitimacy" (from a very biased, Westerner's perspective) is in the hands of the Brotherhood.
d) Sometimes I wonder if ANYBODY is ready for democracy! This is NOT to say that some nations are more "socially evolved" than others, and thus better suited for it (I think that would be a leg of the classic colonialist argument). I do think that there are certain cultural values that facilitate democratic governance and some cultural values problematize it. That said, why do we insist on making "democracy" some sort of measuring stick for success anyway? Aren't there other forms of government that function just as well in certain scenarios. To borrow from berniemk, "the most important Democratic value is to switch to a government and society really ruled by law with freedoms authorized and applied evenly." Open elections aren't necessarily the best value to borrow from "democracy."
That said, I wish for nothing but the best for the people of Egypt, and I sincerely hope that from the midst of this violence and confusion the best emerges.
@Skeletor
I guess our positions are not very far apart. I agree with most that you have written. The points you are arguing are a lot more differentiated then what Iggyman and S. Affias have commented. I just get frustrated by people like this because this becomes more and more a mainstream position (at least in Europe) and people don't argue their point but hide behind the fact that everyone nods anyway. Usually they are badly informed (and I may add, not very smart) and driven by some sense of cultural superiority.
As you took the time to answer my post, here are briefly my thoughts anyway on what you wrote:
a) One big difference I see is the fact that Iran is mainly Shia. This changes not only the role seen for clerics it also created a different self-perception and impacted their identity.
Religion was also the way to mark opposition in a legitimate way. In Egypt you have several other organized opposition groups (contrary to Tunisia by the way, where I see little risk for a islamist takeover for the moment).
Then there is the pivotal role of the military in Egypt and that has high stakes in terms of money in the whole thing. In Iran in 79 there were organized armed groups that overrun the Sha's military if I remember right (I am not an expert on the Iranian revolution).
I also think it is a difference if you have a monarchy as you had in Iran or a system like in Egypt now, which is authoritarian but depends much more on distributing jobs/wealth at least to a certain group (e.g. there is an elected parliament for a reason).
b) Agreed. Just one remark for thought: What is the difference between someone who says Islam must be the basis for government (e.g. moderate MB member) or someone who says Christianity must be the basis of government (plenty of US politicians). I find both somewhat scary and I think there is often a double standard applied.
c) I fully agree.
d) There is a lot of research that shows that "Free and Fair Elections" are not sufficient for democracy. Personally I think part of the problem is also that Democracy is not a dichotomous variable. There are very different types, with different degrees of mass participation. I live in a very direct type of it and I am the first one to admit that there are plenty of problems with that. I do probably also agree that some cultural values make it more difficult but I would argue that they are quite evenly distributed over the globe and that they are not immutable (often they change through introducing democratic elements).
Well said, Ali. To tell you the truth, I feel rather ridiculous for having not considered that Sunni/Shia' differential in beliefs... You're absolutely right, though. That could prove to be a significant difference.
The Egyptian military is definitely the "wild-card" in this situation... That said, the Egyptian military is literally and figuratively a loaded-gun in the region...Despite Iggyman's simplicity, there's some validity to his concern. In fact, Hosni Mubarak's secondary predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by Muslim extremists precisely because of his treaty with Israel. This isn't to say that this upheaval will automatically result in a war with Israel, but the truth is much of the Egyptian military's authority (and this is according to Western media) stems directly from their past victories against Israel. The maintenance of past peace treaties (regarding the Sinai and so forth) between the two countries has strongly rested on the shoulders of a regime that's being pushed out of office by demonstrators. This isn't to say that these demonstrations guarantee a war, but they are designed to unseat one of the individuals who has worked to prevent it from occurring... (even if it was only as a Western patsy.)
As for American politicians invoking theology in their platforms, it makes me (and many others) incredibly uncomfortable. While we are more than willing to respect beliefs in an individual's private life (even if that individual is in government service, granted) mixing theology and governance is so, so dangerous... Essentially theology is the ultimate binary, the ultimate expression of "us vs. them"
Ironically, the double-standard is simply "fall-out" from the binary... If it's "us vs. them" all of the other words we connect with the pair become loaded (i.e. reasons for conversion or conflict): "West vs. East", "Anglo vs. Arab", "Christian vs. Muslim" all of the terms we attach to the initial, religious binary become grounds for conflict.
Believe me, Ali, it's just as dangerous (but unfortunately just as useful) here as anywhere else.
And it's really one of the ironies of Aristotle's perspective on democracy. In the West we love to claim that democracy is "a product of ancient Greece" with a long and fabled history. Even in our movies, Ancient Greek city states with no connection with democratic tenets become "democracies" (see "300"). But Aristotle, one of our favorite philosophers from the same era felt that democracy was a dangerous game... rule by the majority? What if the majority is a simply violent mob? What if they're racist? Put more simply, what if the majority is a bunch of ______s? In a democracy if there are more ________s than _______-idiots, then the ______s are in charge of the government. (You can fill that blank with almost any noun: racist, warmonger, hippy, et cetera. It's when you fill it with "idiot" that you see why Aristotle thought democracy was dangerous.)
The truth is that this situation in Egypt is a profound crossroads, both for the region and for the United States' ability to relate with it. As a person trying to study the field of public diplomacy, watching the way the three (and more) elements try to interact is simply amazing... Selfishly, as a person who feels the time for U.S. hegemony has come and gone, I truly hope that Egypt finds its feet again in a way that keeps all parties in the region satisfied, and enables the people of that great nation to rediscover lives in a world past some of the sectarian (and governmental) violence that has punctuated recent history within their borders... Good luck, Egypt. (And thanks for this opportunity to converse, Ali!)
I did also appreciate the exchange. It is nice to see that there are still people out there willing to weigh these questions with the necessary distance. Thanks to you too.
Are you enrolled in a programme (or did you say that as an
interested citizen)? If yes, where?
I am in IR (based in Switzerland but currently in the US) and who knows we might meet one day somewhere at a conference (but I guess your name tag will not say Skeletor). You'll find my e-mail if you follow the url to my Blog on the German scienceblogs sister site (just go to "Kontakt", there's the e-mail).