Egypt news

[Viking]

I am taking this seriously, so don't think I am merely taking cheap shots here.. so I'll avoid the lebanon and iran comparisons.. you can make them yourself.

Or, now that I've made them they can stand for themselves and save me the time and effort to spelling it out.

BTW, having read Calvin and Hobbes in norwegian (translated to Tommy and the Tiger which pretty much ruins much the entire point...) my first association from reading Calvinball is gorey immaginations of what Calvin did to Michael Servetus' testicles...

The entire problem with a society focused on community identity, rights and values as well as a badly defined legal system like shariah is that it degenerates to arbitrary rule by community and religious leaders. This is precisely what has happened in Lebanon and Iran. They degenerate to whim.

What will happen is that Christian, Muslim and the few Jewish (if any) religious leaders that remain will set their own community standards and will be able to do so without limit or control. Egyptian cities are (like london) many villages that have grown into each other and egyptian life is still very much based on the extended family so the flight to the city which alleviated this problem in europe at the time doesn't exist as an option. This will apply more to Christian than Muslim egyptians since group confidence among muslims will allow more deviation from the norm than the oppressed christian group.

But, as you suggest, you can have a society which is not a liberal democracy but includes voting as one of the schemes for rulers to gain legitimacy. This is Iran today. Would you call Iran a Conservative Democracy? If no, what difference is there between your Conservative democracy (which you need to rename since the opposite of liberal is enslaved and the opposite of conservative is radical) and Veleyat-e faqih?

[Neil]

It's good to eliminate the rule of law.  Lawyers are not our friends, and courts and judges serve their interests and not ours.

[Sheilbh]

BTW, having read Calvin and Hobbes in norwegian (translated to Tommy and the Tiger which pretty much ruins much the entire point...) my first association from reading Calvinball is gorey immaginations of what Calvin did to Michael Servetus' testicles...

Here's a guide:
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/18/calvinball_in_cairo

The entire problem with a society focused on community identity, rights and values as well as a badly defined legal system like shariah is that it degenerates to arbitrary rule by community and religious leaders. This is precisely what has happened in Lebanon and Iran. They degenerate to whim.

What will happen is that Christian, Muslim and the few Jewish (if any) religious leaders that remain will set their own community standards and will be able to do so without limit or control. Egyptian cities are (like london) many villages that have grown into each other and egyptian life is still very much based on the extended family so the flight to the city which alleviated this problem in europe at the time doesn't exist as an option. This will apply more to Christian than Muslim egyptians since group confidence among muslims will allow more deviation from the norm than the oppressed christian group.

You seem to think I'm arguing that this is what should happen.  It's what I think will happen in a democratising Middle East and Africa.  I think the democratisation is good but that it'll probably develop in a different way, which is fine.  My view is it probably has more chance of working if it grows from the social and cultural values of the society.

But, as you suggest, you can have a society which is not a liberal democracy but includes voting as one of the schemes for rulers to gain legitimacy. This is Iran today. Would you call Iran a Conservative Democracy? If no, what difference is there between your Conservative democracy (which you need to rename since the opposite of liberal is enslaved and the opposite of conservative is radical) and Veleyat-e faqih?

Iran isn't a democracy of any type.  It has elections, but only to a certain level.  Iran is significantly more democratic than much of the Middle East.  But it's not a country that allows for transition of power, or for democratic accountability, or for a democratic process of constitutional change.

The reason I've used the phrase conservative democracy is because I think what could emerge is a system that is democratic and has those advantages (accountability of leadership, peaceful transitions of power, public discourse) and the necessary prerequisites like the rule of law.  But I think the significant aspect of liberal democracy to me is that it's fundamentally about the state and the individual.  Under it what matters is the individual's rights which are protected and guaranteed by the state, to the extent they are circumscribed they are done by the state.

In the Middle East and Africa I think what could emerge will be a democratic system where the primary relationship is between an individual and their community.  This may be for admirable reasons - to avoid a tribal or sectarian conflict - but also from a basic desire to conserve the current social structure (as the President of Sierra Leone recently put it when pressed on gay rights, 'we're very happy the way we are').  So whole rafts of family law and much civil law and perhaps even some minor criminal law will probably be adjudicated the way it is now through customary law or Sharia law, but that that will be recognised within the state.  Similarly the individual's rights will be limited and circumscribed not necessarily by the state but by the community.  So rather than the state having a relationship with individuals to an extent it's managing and mediating communities, who in turn guarantee and circumscribe the 'rights' of individuals.  Some of this isn't so radical - Sharia law is available on family issues in Israel, it's mandatory for Muslims in India, it's already the norm in the rest of the Middle East and much of Africa. 

Arguably it could be something to do with development.  It seems to me that a required condition for liberal democracy is a strong state, because individual rights are also a duty on the state to protect those rights (against religious, or local leaders) and those strong states don't necessarily exist in these areas.  Regardless I think as Africa and the Middle East become more democratic we will see democrats and democracies that aren't recognisably liberal in their concept of the state.  As I say, I think that's fine.

[Sheilbh]

Here's the Guardian liveblog on Morsi's speech:

Morsi announced a meeting to take place Saturday with the opposition. He blamed the violence on paid agents of unnamed forces wishing to destroy the country. He said an investigation was under way to bring those forces to justice.

He warned against further violent unrest, saying it would not be tolerated. He listed numerous targets that must not be attacked, including government buildings and institutions. The list of verboten behavior included, to the mirth of many listeners, blocking traffic.

He said the referendum on the constitution would proceed as planned. He seemed willing to discuss his decree of unchecked power – but he defended it as part of his duty as president to defend Egypt's "sovereignty."

Many snap analysts see no concessions in the speech whatsoever. Some think that Morsi may have signaled a willingness to back down from his decree at Saturday's meeting. The protesters outside the palace know what they think of the speech. They're crying for Morsi's exit as president.

His thunder was somewhat stolen by a journalist on one of the Egyptian networks.  She'd interviewed Hamdeen Sabahi, the third-placed left Nasserist Presidential candidate.  Apparently the network management wouldn't let her air the interview so she resigned live during the evening news

Also from the Guardian, this looks like highlights:

"I speak to you while my heart is bleeding for the innocent loss of lives in front of presidential palace," he says.

"I feel a responsibility toward every Egyptian citizen, opposition or supporter, because we are one nation. We all should enjoy equally peace and security.

"After these painful incidents, under the guise of a political difference, the only way is dialogue to reach a consensus, to secure the interests of the country, and to achieve the will of these people, all these people who have dreamt of freedom under the many years that we were oppressed.

"I repeat that we all must do the will of the people, what is in the interest of the people.

"This is not expressed in anger but in wisdom and calm, that will let us get to the right decision whereby the majority will govern according to democratic principles. The minority should concede to the majority but still both should cooperate ... without any allegiance to anyone but to Egypt. [...]

"I address this speech to those who oppose me with honor, and to my supporters. Although we respect the right to peaceful expression, I will never allow that anyone should revert to murder or sabotage. I will not allow anyone to revert to that. I will not allow anyone to kill or sabotage or scare our citizens, or to destroy our infrastructure or to call for a revolution...

"The demonstrators have aggressed... on Tuesday the 4th of December, there was an aggression by some of the protesters, they attacked the cars of [the president], and one of the drivers was badly hurt.

"Why?"

He says it gives a bad image of Egypt. This can never be acceptable.

He says infiltrators ruined peaceful demonstrations. "Those will not escape punishment."

"The incidents of yesterday were worse than the day before, because the peaceful demonstrations were attacked by those who infiltrated."

"Firearms were used."

Six were killed and more than 700 were wounded, he says, including 62 wounded by bullets.

"What's unfortunate is that some who are in custody have ties to some [in political powers].

"Some of the weapons holders were hired hands, working for money... they gave names of who supplied them with weapons and who supported them."

He says more than 80 have been arrested, and they gave the names of 40 more who were their accomplices.

"The [decree of 22 November] had stirred some objection and this is acceptable. But to those who have abused this and used violence, and brought in weapons, and paid money, it's time now to hold account in law all those who have used these methods."

He said he made the decree giving himself power over the courts as a way of protecting the national sovereignty.

"As I said before, I only wanted this immunity declaration in matters of sovereignty. And what defies these sovereignty issues is the fair Egyptian legal system. And the judicial system in Egypt has always safeguarded the rights of Egyptians. ANd today we call on them to ensure they are continuing their role to protect [the country]. And I am sure that this is what the judges are going to do."

He says his "duty made me issue that declaration. And my duty is what I defined before, which is securing the sovereignty and to stop anyone from trying to threaten the security and sovereignty of the nation. And I will always carry this responsibility ... under any condition."

"The constitutional declaration will end as soon as we make public the results of the referendum, whether the result is a yes or no," Morsi says. "I intended the decree to be a stage in order to secure a constitution."

He does not back down on the power grab that brought the current protesters into the streets.

Then he somewhat reverses himself, calling for a meeting on 8 December, apparently to discuss the decree and other conflicts.

[dps]

I thought that "liberal democracy" meant democratic elected governments + free market economies, as opposed to "social democracy" meaning elected governments + centrally planned economies.

[Razgovory]

I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.

[derspiess]

I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.

Then maybe you should do some reading.

[Valmy]

The deciding factor (imho) in germany was the total loss of legitimacy of the weimar anti democratic forces, the monarchists were by this time dead or discredited by their association with nazis and the army, the communists were discredited by the soviet union itself (what with soviet agriculture being in dire need of mechanization) and the nazis were discredited by the war and their behavior during it. Only the Sozis were left and they were still democrats. The catholic conservatives did what they always did and toadied to power while trying to weasle concessions.

In most societies the insane people are only allowed to take over after all the sane people have been discredited.  In Germany it is the opposite.

[Neil]

The monarchists were the sane people in Germany.  Republicans of any ilk don't have the best interests of the polity in mind.

[Viking]

I thought that "liberal democracy" meant democratic elected governments + free market economies, as opposed to "social democracy" meaning elected governments + centrally planned economies.

hehe... funny..

social democrats used to believe in central planning eh.. in the 1930s, but have long since given up on the idea. In the 1950's to 1970's they believed in owning the commanding heights of the economy iron/coal/oil etc. But, as these commanding heights went bankrupt/irrelevant they abandoned even that. The 1980's were the long dark tea-time of the soul for most social democrats as they were one by one realizing that Hayek was right about socialism, it just doesn't work and the only way to make it work is dictatorship. In the 1990's they launched the third way where they abandoned virtually all socialist economic theory. What remains is a belief in the value of redistribution and regulation. Social cohesion and social justice is achieved by taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth to the poor and regulating business so that it acts in the interest of the economy and society as a whole rather than harming the economy and society as a whole for the sole benefit of the business owner.

Social Democrats today do not believe in central planning.

[Viking]

You seem to think I'm arguing that this is what should happen.  It's what I think will happen in a democratising Middle East and Africa.  I think the democratisation is good but that it'll probably develop in a different way, which is fine.  My view is it probably has more chance of working if it grows from the social and cultural values of the society.

No, I think you are arguing that this is an acceptable outcome for us westerners. I just can't see how your Conservative Democracy (find another fucking word, cause liberal democracy uses liberal in its meaning as free rather than "on the left side of the political spectrum") is not a mix of what they already have in Iran or Lebanon. 

[Razgovory]

I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.

Then maybe you should do some reading.

I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.

[Tamas]

I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.

Then maybe you should do some reading.

I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.

How could they be the same? Seriously.

[Razgovory]

I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.

Then maybe you should do some reading.

I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.

How could they be the same? Seriously.

Cause Liberal in this context doesn't refer to economics but things like free speech, the ability to run for office, that kind of thing.

[Tamas]

I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.

Then maybe you should do some reading.

I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.

How could they be the same? Seriously.

Cause Liberal in this context doesn't refer to economics but things like free speech, the ability to run for office, that kind of thing.

is it now?

If you don't consider economic freedom a meaningful freedom, of course you don't see a difference between socialism and liberalism. that's precisely the difference between the two.