Egypt news

[CountDeMoney]

So I think that example of the Shah being convinced that the US was behind his ouster was a bit like the Kremlin: to him a popular revolt would probably be unimaginable, it was almost unprecedented, he had SAVAK and, as the CIA famously reported, Iran seemed amazingly calm in the mid to late seventies.  Add to that the circumstances of 1953 and his own personality, which was rather paranoid, his own habit of often brutally betraying subordinates and the conspiracy theory is reasonable but wrong.  (On the Iranian revolution I recommend 'The Crown for the Turban' which I've since given to a charity shop but has a lot on the Shah's paranoia and suspicions of US betrayal which is fascinating.)

All strongmen are convinced by decades of reinforced infallibility in their own bubbles.  That's why they rarely choose exile, and usually wind up dead.  It's not unique to Muddled Eastern strongmen, either.

[Sheilbh]

I'm too tired to address Viking's points tonight.  I would note however that you do need democrats for democracy - not, I'd note, liberal democrats.  But I don't think it necessarily needs to be a thing for the leadership.  Not every revolution has a Havel or an Aroyo and, in fact, the Arab revolts have been strikingly leaderless.  Over the last few days it looks more and more like the Egyptians are the democrats, still shouting 'enough!'  If there's strong enough popular commitment to democracy that matters more, if there's not then you end up with Hungary

Anyway the Islamist dominated Constitutional Assembly have released their draft which will be voted on in a referendum December 15th.  Chances are it'll pass, first constitutions tend to and I think most Egyptians would rather some rules than what Marc Lynch has rightly called this Calvinball transition.  The BBC has a good guide to the differences between the new constitution and the last (Sadat-era ) one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20555478
For me the key question is whether it's poorly or maliciously written and I really don't think that's necessarily clear.

What is striking of course is the depth and persistence of protests against Morsi.  We've seen hundreds of thousands occupying Tahrir and major streets in Cairo again - Morsi had to leave the Presidential Palace a couple of days ago and still hasn't returned.  This has spread across all Governorates and the FJP's HQ has been burned in a number of cities.  I thought this piece on the protests was good, I love the slogan 'shave your beard, show your disgrace, you will find that you have Mubarak's face!'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/world/middleeast/egyptian-newspapers-and-broadcasters-protest-draft-constitution.html

It won't be another revolution but as ever in revolutionary situations we're still seeing the participants defining what this revolution is about.  For many in Egypt I think it was an end to this style of rule, for the Brothers it was an opportunity to govern.  In comparison with the glory days of 2011 the US is more or less in the same place, the military is more reluctant to take power or to take on the streets, al-Jazeera is entirely supportive of Morsi.  The MB's repeatedly postponed their 'million man march' in support of Morsi but today there were counter-protests and some violence.  Interestingly there's a fair few reports the police were taking the anti-Morsi protesters' side. 

Anyway Morsi's apparently going to address the nation later today with 'good news'.  My own view is still broadly optimistic.  I think the MB made a big power-play and I think it's very difficult for them to win this given the lack of institutional support from the military and the police.  What's more I think they're being discredited.  A lot of Morsi's support was based on the fact that he was better than the ex-NDPer Shafiq, that may be gone.  This could change but right now it still seems more likely that the MB will have to give way one something.

Here's two interesting (and differing) pieces that take a wider view:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138472/steven-a-cook/morsis-mistake
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/27/opinion/masoud-morsy-muslim-brotherhood/index.html

Edit:  Incidentally the weakness of the Brothers PR wing has been shocking.  They've said that all of the injured today were MBs - no exceptions - and that they were attacked by ex-Mubarak operatives.  Similarly they were saying there were only 2 000 protesters outside the Presidential Palace, while Egyptian TV news was showing images like this:

Madness.

Edit:  Also I think we can definitely see the superiority of Tunisia's rational timetable for transition: revolution - elect constitutional assembly (they're still at this stage) - elect President and Parliament according to new constitution.

Egypt's version was always a bit mad: revolution - elect Parliament - elect President - elect constitutional assembly - write constitution

[Viking]

I'm too tired to address Viking's points tonight.  I would note however that you do need democrats for democracy - not, I'd note, liberal democrats.  But I don't think it necessarily needs to be a thing for the leadership.  Not every revolution has a Havel or an Aroyo and, in fact, the Arab revolts have been strikingly leaderless.  Over the last few days it looks more and more like the Egyptians are the democrats, still shouting 'enough!'  If there's strong enough popular commitment to democracy that matters more, if there's not then you end up with Hungary

Show me a illiberal democrat and I'll rethink. The thing is that the entire western political spectrum fits within classical political liberalism. Calling somebody a liberal democrat is redundant. Self professed conservative, social democrats, progressives, liberals, nationalists and christian democrats are all political liberals today. Seeing democracy as the ultimate means of organizing government is what makes one a political liberal. Playing semantics won't change that. The brothers do not agree, they see democracy as a train they can travel to their destination (I think it was Abdullah Gul that said that).

I haven't seen the constitution or any discussion of it (will read your links though, haven't done that yet) so I can only judge it on the composition of the constitutional assembly (overwhelmingly composed of male muslim brothers and their sympathisers). The Soviet Union famously had a perfect constitution, we see how that turned out. The lowest acceptible result of the constitution is that it be a good one. If it is substantially flawed such as the rumor I heard that it would subject each egyptian to clerical courts of one of three acceptible religions (the abrahamic faiths) then it is doubly flawed since reasonable behaviour can only happen in the breach of the constitution.

[Sheilbh]

Religious courts are there for 'religious and civil matters' so I think family issues etc.  There's interesting reflections on the constitution here - it's links and resemblances with previous Egyptian constitutions and France's V Republic (striking given that the AKP are rather Gaullist in many ways):
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8172/reflections-on-egypts-draft-constitution
Here's a bit more:
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/draft-constitution-some-controversial-stipulations

The National Review's had great anti-constitution posts too.  But obviously they're worth treating with a pinch of salt.

Seeing democracy as the ultimate means of organizing government is what makes one a political liberal. Playing semantics won't change that.

Not necessarily I think as the Middle East, Africa and, perhaps, bits of Asia democratise we'll see the emergence of a 'conservative democracy' which places more emphasis on community values than individual liberties, but still adheres to democracy as a way of choosing leaders and of getting accountability.

Edit:  Incidentally it'll be interesting to see whether Aboul Fotouh will make any public statements about the protests.  From what I can see there's pressure on him to join.  So far though, silence.

[Queequeg]

I'm not sure Japan or Mexico under one-party rule would be classified as Liberal Democracies.

[Razgovory]

I've read that Singapore is considered an illiberal democracy.

I found an article on the idea http://fareedzakaria.com/1997/11/01/the-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/

I'm not really sure that Viking is a political liberal.  I mean, last month he created a thread musing on ways to remove political rights of people he disagreed with by having them labeled mentally ill and prevented from running for office.

[Viking]

I'm not sure Japan or Mexico under one-party rule would be classified as Liberal Democracies.

In Japan the LDP (Which to paraphrase Voltaire was neither liberal, democratic nor a party) won without cheating (not that vote buying isn't technically cheating), I doubt the same can be said about the PRI. I'd like to ask you can you say the same of ANC run South Africa?

I think you people are confusing Liberalum ad electoro with Liberalum in elector (no that isn't latin and you are supposed to get the reference or you don't belong here). Just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. I specifically went out of my way to specify classical political liberalism to avoid this idiotic clusterfuck in your brains.

The very center point of the liberal democracy is that the people are free to select their own assembly to make the laws an free to select their own government to implement those laws. If you are going to delegate civil and religious matters (which interfere with everything in life except defense and foreign affairs which any civilized society delegates to the government) then you aren't living under laws of men made by the assemblies chosen by the people you are living under the laws of <insert relevant muhammed expletive> interpreted by the guys who are best at office politics at al azhar. That is the polar opposite of living in a liberal democracy.

Sheilbh seems to think that the powerbrokers in society can forcibly put some laws outside of democratic control and still call that society a liberal democracy. And anybody who wants to reference the US constitution here I point out that not only has it been changed it has been changed back.

[Tamas]

I am with Viking on this one.

[Queequeg]

I think you people are confusing Liberalum ad electoro with Liberalum in elector (no that isn't latin and you are supposed to get the reference or you don't belong here). Just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. I specifically went out of my way to specify classical political liberalism to avoid this idiotic clusterfuck in your brains.

First off, let me explain something about shaming.  Shaming only works if the shamer has enough social clout to shame the shamee.  So, if Sheilbh, Joan, AR or OVB were to do it-you know what, I'd probably not feel that great.

But you? You're a few sucked dicks from being Grallon.  Don't fool yourself. 

And you completely failed to address my point.  I realize that the LDP was democratically elected.  The LDP, however, made Japan into a one state system, including huge networks of patronage that you just don't typically associate with Liberal Democracies as we understand it in the west.  They were also routinely harnessed Rightist groups to fight the Left. 

In 1944, Japan had a brutal authoritarian, plutocratic, hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained relatively generous welfare state.   

In 1954, Japan had a democratic, functionally plutocratic hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained a relatively generous welfare state. 

Japan did not fall asleep one night and wake up a fully functional, recognizably Liberal in the western sense Democracy.  Get your goddamn head out of your ass. 

How about Nigeria? India?  Russia? Hungary?  Brazil?  These are all nations that, while they have functional to semi-functional democratic processes are still just very, very different from most of our European and North American models.   

[Viking]

I think you people are confusing Liberalum ad electoro with Liberalum in elector (no that isn't latin and you are supposed to get the reference or you don't belong here). Just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. I specifically went out of my way to specify classical political liberalism to avoid this idiotic clusterfuck in your brains.

First off, let me explain something about shaming.  Shaming only works if the shamer has enough social clout to shame the shamee.  So, if Sheilbh, Joan, AR or OVB were to do it-you know what, I'd probably not feel that great.

But you? You're a few sucked dicks from being Grallon.  Don't fool yourself. 

Look I'm not sure here if you are proudly declaring that you don't know that there is a difference between jus ad bello and jus in bello or that you didn't get the reference or that you are saying that you are going to ignore my arguments because I'm making them. I'm not sure what you hope to achive with calling me names. I'm pretty sure cicero never started a case by calling the jurors stupid.

And you completely failed to address my point.  I realize that the LDP was democratically elected.  The LDP, however, made Japan into a one state system, including huge networks of patronage that you just don't typically associate with Liberal Democracies as we understand it in the west.  They were also routinely harnessed Rightist groups to fight the Left. 

In 1944, Japan had a brutal authoritarian, plutocratic, hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained relatively generous welfare state.   

In 1954, Japan had a democratic, functionally plutocratic hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained a relatively generous welfare state. 

Japan did not fall asleep one night and wake up a fully functional, recognizably Liberal in the western sense Democracy.  Get your goddamn head out of your ass. 

How about Nigeria? India?  Russia? Hungary?  Brazil?  These are all nations that, while they have functional to semi-functional democratic processes are still just very, very different from most of our European and North American models.

The LDP didn't win elections by stuffing the ballots, stealing elections, imprisoning political opponents, beating up political opponents or anything like that. It won because people voted for them voluntarily (or permitted themselves to be bribed). As I said above, just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. It's the process that matters. When Japanese voters tired of the LDP they voted in the opposition.

Japan did wake up one morning and it the whole population decided that it was their duty to make this new fangled thing called democracy work. It is actually the only state in history to do just that. You can argue if that date was August 15, September 2 1945 or May 3 1947.

[dps]

Seeing democracy as the ultimate means of organizing government is what makes one a political liberal. Playing semantics won't change that.

Not necessarily I think as the Middle East, Africa and, perhaps, bits of Asia democratise we'll see the emergence of a 'conservative democracy' which places more emphasis on community values than individual liberties, but still adheres to democracy as a way of choosing leaders and of getting accountability

While I'm not sure that I agree with Viking, I don't see how this refutes the specific point the bit you quoted from him makes.

[dps]

Japan did wake up one morning and it the whole population decided that it was their duty to make this new fangled thing called democracy work. It is actually the only state in history to do just that. You can argue if that date was August 15, September 2 1945 or May 3 1947.

Neither Japan nor Germany ever decided to become democracies--they had democracy imposed on them. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Liberal democracy I understand as a democracy in which there are secure protections for the rights of politial minorities.  While in theory an illiberal democracy is possible, in practice it tends to default to sham because it allows the government to pick off oppositional minorities and reduce them to permanent electoral irrelevance - thus perpetuating effective dictatorship with only the empty forms of pluralism.  Russia is a good present-day example.

A pre-requisite to liberal democracy but conceptually distinct is recognition and acceptance of rule of law.  Liberal democracy cannot live without it because respect for the rule of law is needed for minorities to vindicate their rights and make them a reality.  But rule of law can also exist in illiberal democracies (like Singapore) or even non-democracies (like Hong Kong - and the rest of the PRC is moving in that direction).

Morsi may be illiberal but the problem with his November declaration is not illiberality but its undermining of the rule of law.

[Viking]

Japan did wake up one morning and it the whole population decided that it was their duty to make this new fangled thing called democracy work. It is actually the only state in history to do just that. You can argue if that date was August 15, September 2 1945 or May 3 1947.

Neither Japan nor Germany ever decided to become democracies--they had democracy imposed on them.

They had a choice. To enthusiastically try to make it work (which is what they did) or actively (werewolf style) try to sabotage it like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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 Japan the same source of legitimacy that justified the war then had an about face and supported democracy. This is one of those great man moments in history when the Showa Tennoheika (Hirohito) decided to cooperate with the americans to rebuild japan.

[Sheilbh]

I'm on my phone and tired so will respond properly tomorrow.

But I'm suggesting that a form of 'conservative democracy' may emerge in the Middle East and Africa. The emphasis being more on community identity, rights and values under a democracy, rather than those of an individual. So democracy plus, for example, community defined limits on acceptable speech, the preservation of customary and Sharia legal systems and certain 'defining' institutions maintaining a special position. A more conservative version of Dev's Ireland. They may end up choosing a more liberal path, but I don't think that's where they will or necessarily should start.

On the rule of law I broadly agree JR, but I think this transition is closer to that Lynch analogy of Calvinball politics. There were no agreed laws and all sides have invented their own rules as they wen along. I think that would be a very real advantage of having even a flawed constitution.