From Israel, a voice outside the chorus...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...cracy-1.343011
Quote:
This was a civil uprising, one that did not suit the wild and violent image we insist on ascribing to all Arabs and to all Muslims. If only the square had been awash in blood, we would feel better. If only more heavily bearded young men and veiled virgins had gathered, we would be more sure of our predictions; if only Israeli flags had been burned in the streets, we could frighten ourselves and the whole world, saying we were right again.
Obviously a lot remains to be determined, but I don't think we or the Israelis should be hoping the new is a clone of the old, or even that it embraces similar foreign policies. I don't think we can expect a new regime to be pro-US down the line, and I think we can expect a somewhat more confrontational stance toward Israel. As long as it stops short of outright war or sponsorship of terror, this is not a bad thing at all. It could be a very good thing: an opportunity to show, not just tell, that we are willing and able to deal with regimes that don't see their interests as identical to ours.
Three things to watch during the transition...
Three factors that will make a difference...
1: Short-medium term management of economic subsidies
Americans think often in terms of liberty and freedom and the ability to change governance, but in much of the world desire #1 is economic opportunity and a better life. If people don't think democracy is getting them there, they are very likely to back a return to authoritarian rule. What's the point of having influence over government if government still doesn't give you what you want? Unfortunately, what people want is often low prices, high wages, plentiful jobs, low taxes, great government services, and a host of other contradictions. Economic trade-offs are often poorly understood.
One of the things that pushed Egypt over the edge was a withdrawal of subsidies, particularly on wheat. This was less about "neoliberal policies" than about reality: with the population soaring, wheat prices rising, a sagging pound and a rising trade deficit the subsidized imports were just not sustainable.
The economists are of course right: the subsidies are an abomination and must go. Dropping them all at once, though, is a sure way to popular disillusionment. My preference (not that anyone cares) would be to restore them, even with foreign aid paying part, with a clear schedule for a gradual phase-out and a clear explanation (assuming optimistically that someone will listen) of why they have to be phased out. It's hard to explain in places where the idea that "government should feed the people" is entrenched, but it needs to be done.
Management of subsidies needs to balance economic necessity with the need to maintain popular confidence and support. They have to end, but sudden withdrawal can trigger disorder that could lead to a radical rise or a military coup. Worth keeping an eye on how policies emerge: immediate termination of subsidies is a danger sign; maintaining them without a clear plan for phase-out supported by information (and ideally economic improvement, though that will take time) is as bad.
2. The emergence of political parties
There will be pressure to hold early elections, but that's not always a good idea. It's hard to hold an election without parties, and it will take time for meaningful parties to emerge. Egypt looks likely to avoid the scourge of party differentiation along ethnic or sectarian lines, but there are still potential problems.
Looking back to post-Marcos Philippines, the pre-Marcos two-party system did not re-emerge. Instead there were dozens of parties, often with no ideological differentiation and in many cases little more than vehicles for personal ambition: if your party doesn't nominate you, start a new one. That left positions contested by absurd numbers of candidates, with winners holding far less than a plurality and a minimal mandate. Choices were uncertain and based on personalities, not platforms, and it's common for people to jump parties and parties to shift coalitions for transient advantage.
Indonesia has runoff elections for the two top candidates if nobody gains a clear majority... expensive and cumbersome, but at least there's a mandate.
The emergence of parties will give a good indicator of how democracy is coming together, before policies or their impact are seen. How do parties differentiate? Do they represent distinct policy or ideological positions, or are they personality-dominated? Are small parties with similar views forming coalitions, or will they all run their own candidates? Will dominant parties be able to nominate candidates and remain together, or will leaders who don't get nominated break away?
3. Justice vs Reconciliation
Always a huge issue after a peaceful revolt succeeds. Who do you punish for corruption and human rights abuse? How far down the food chain do you go? Wherever you draw the line, the people above point to those below and ask "why me and not him". Push too hard and you can spark massive capital flight, disrupt government, even spark a coup. Give a free pass and you get major popular resentment and encourage more corruption. There's no right call and whatever they do will piss people off, but it will be very interesting to see how the transition government proceeds (likely they will kick it down the road), what positions the emerging parties take, and what is actually done when an elected government takes power.
Article on organization of protests
Gents-
Article in today's International Herald-Tribune by David Kirkpatrick and David Sanger talking about the origin of the protests in Egpt:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...to-Arab-States
Talks about the role of Facebook and social media in educating the youth and getting the first protests started.
Kill MiGs!
V/R,
Cliff
One slogan (Mubarak out) is met ...
but what do these headlines (all from today) bode ?
Robert Fisk (Independent): Is the army tightening its grip on Egypt?
CNN: Egypt shutters banks after new protests from employees, police
Daily Mail: Army takes over in Egypt and orders ban on trade union strikes after old regime deposed
and as background for the armed forces and their role in Egypt's economy, NPR (from 4 Feb), Why Egypt's Military Cares About Home Appliances:
Quote:
One reason for the military's peaceful response: the unique role it plays in the Egyptian economy. The military owns "virtually every industry in the country," according to
Robert Springborg.
Springborg, a professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, has written several books about Egypt, he's lived in Egypt, he's consulted with the Egyptian military, and he's an expert on the various businesses it runs. Here's a list he rattled off from the top of his head:
Quote:
...car assembly, we're talking of clothing, we're talking of construction of roads, highways, bridges. We're talking of pots and pans, we're talking of kitchen appliances. You know, if you buy an appliance there's a good chance that it's manufactured by the military. If you ... don't have natural gas piped into your house and you have to have a gas bottle, the gas bottle will have been manufactured by the military. Some of the foodstuffs that you will be eating will have been grown and/or processed by the military.
The reasons for this arrangement go back to the '60s and '70s, when the Egyptian military was very large as a result of the wars with Israel.
Regards
Mike