Egypt Becomes First Arab Democracy

[Navo]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
That's one of my favorite novels of all time, if not THE favorite. Perfect example of a superbly descriptive and mult-layered narrative tempered by deep poetic resonance. I feel it to be the apex of written language that way. The narrative becomes almost secondary to the incredible beauty and power of the composition done in long paragraphs and extended sentences perfect in rhythm and flow.

GGM is blessed by GOD.



That being said, Mubarak wasn't quite the General who ruled since "time immemorial" and over countless generations of his subjects. The General wasn't toppled either. Nasser on the other hand had the mythical and complex stature to become that alongside guys like Franco and Trujillo, had he gone on to rule for a long time before death at a decrepit old age. Had Sheikh Shaheb -- not the pre-independence Liberator of Bangladesh but the post Liberation BAKSAL dictator -- gone on to rule for 41 years before dying a peaceful death, he'd been the Bangladeshi equivalent.

That's a fair enough point, though I imagine Gaddafi had a mythical reputation by the end of his reign. How about adding Fidel and Kim Jong Il to that list :p (Speaking of Trujillo, have you read the 'The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao'? It has the funniest synopsis of 'the cow thief's' reign [of terror])

[Sohel]

Fidel and KJI definitely. I've been to both places over the last 10 years and there's no way to describe the weirdness having come from the privileged class in the infinitely more open societies of Bangladesh and the USA. North Korea is simply unreal. Cuba diverts your attention from what's going on because of the food, music and lively everyday culture. Things seem fine until you approach a taboo subject -- basically anything critical of Fidel or Fidel's view on life, the universe and everything -- they run the other way. You're never free to interact with anyone in North Korea. Post Olympics China in comparison is way more open. I've had lively discussions with Chinese dissidents at the Beijing University campus with little impact on my friends, they do get rounded up every now and then, or my visa status.

Thanks for the suggestion. The "goru chor" reference has piqued my interest

[Sohel]

PS: MoGa was both feared and hated in Libya, and the people there risked everything to rise up against his brutal regime. The General on the hand was so feared that people were even afraid to hate him, as though his overwhelming presence had entered the collective psyche to watch over them from the inside. Sort of a self-censoring, self-regulatory fear generated by an implanted Panopticon, that signals the death of the human spirit, or in my case from the POV of a believer, voluntary submission to the Devil working through man and his technologies of power playing GOD "for our own good".

"He loved Big Brother." The last four words in Orwell's 1984.

In Bangladesh we never feared anyone like that or waited decades to muster up the courage to fight the good fight, thank GOD.

[Navo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
I tend to agree with Rubu bhai...ultimate goal should be peace and prosperity. That is a government's job to provide for people. If I don't have peace of mind or security, what will I do with all the money in the world? Similarly if I am content, I don't need much money. A government's job is not to allow dissent, or free speech, or this or that...a real government which does its job wouldn't be criticized nor need to be petitioned. Unlike most educated Westerners, I don't really care about democracy as some panacea meant to cure all ills, because just as there are no "benevolent dictators" there is no real democracy in existance either. Its a utopic ideal that cannot ever translate on the ground. Modernists and secularists always argue against a Khilafat on the grounds that its based on a utopian ideal that can't ever be realized but fail to realize "democracy" is the exact same thing. Because in a democracy what happens is politicians will pound out buzz words relating to their agendas, secure votes from their bases, and then get free reign to do whatever they want. America is a prime example of such. The European model is the best available model, and it too has its pros and cons. True progressive leadership requires only 2 qualities: competence and benevolence. Democracy does not guarantee that nor does it have a monopoly on it either.

I heartily disagree with the bolded sentiment above. 'Peace' and 'Prosperity' do not exist in stasis (so to speak) and are concepts that are relative and hence always in flux. Think about this, is peace merely the absence of war? Was there really 'peace on earth' after the conclusion of the Second World War or did people then realize that there were other barriers to peace, such as racial discrimination and religious intolerance? Is a nation's prosperity measured by its aggregate material wealth (however apportioned) or the evenness with which basic necessities are spread among its people? Even if it is measured by the former, isn't then one nation's prosperity always relative to another? The goalposts regarding these concepts keep shifting.

As these abstract notions of peace and prosperity keep evolving, it is essential that governments be open to criticism i.e. accountable, otherwise they will not be able to keep up. Hence, those supposedly benevolent dictators who shun criticism will not come across as so benevolent. To provide an example, at a certain point of time in early 20th century China when the country was torn apart and ravaged by war lords and the vast, vast majority of people were deeply impoverished - having two meals a day and clothes on your back may have been considered to be relative 'peace and prosperity' (and this is roughly what the Communist Party was able to provide). However, nowadays, after Deng Xiaoping, opening up their economy and greater affluence, this would far from suffice and the public expects far more freedoms and rights than two decades ago. The fact that the CCP is still reluctant to accept criticism highlights why there is growing disaffection and disgruntlement in China despite the increasing economic wealth.

At the end of the day, no government can be truly 'benevolent' or 'competent' or assure 'peace and prosperity' if they are deaf to the reproaches of the people. Hence, why free speech and a strong media is so important and why the option (however co-opted by external factors) of changing government every 4/5 years is so crucial.

[F6_Turbo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
I disagree on a lot of key fronts:

1) Eurozone + Canada: Vast majority of citizens enjoy peace of mind unheard of anywhere else, including America. Check their crime rates, check their infant mortality rates, and check their per capita GDPs. Ahead of the world in virtually every regard. Yes large segments of the UK, France, Germany are marginalized, but these are almost exclusively Muslim immigrants - but thats a whole different argument...tribal folks in the Hill Tracts and Bihari refugees have it just as bad if not worse in BD. The native, white, Euro populations of these countries live quite well. I think Greece and Italy are having some economic strife, but the main countries UK/France/Germany are doing quite well.

I pointed out the Eurozone because of the current situations in a lot of member states...Greece defaulting, Spain with 50% unemployment,,,yes, 50% and requiring a $100bil to make sure it doesn't go in the way of Greece.

-Large scale protests in France, again due to austerity....
-Iceland going belly up
-Ireland needing a massive bailout
-We all saw and continue to see the massive problems the UK is facing
-Need I mention France?

My point wasn't to compare Bangladesh with any of those nations, but to point out, peace of mind is relative, and people all over the world are struggling, that we, a third world country, seriously overcrowded, with low literacy levels, next to no natural resources(and the little we have being mismanaged - the lack of thinking that went into encouraging everyone to convert their cars to CNG ), aren't content, is no mystery.


I pointed out India and Pakistan because they are neighbors and countries who we share a lot of traits with, including political discourse. India in terms of democracy and Pakistan because of their military strongman utopian dreams(something that inspired our own 'strongmen' in Zia and Ershad).

[Banglatiger84]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Unlike most educated Westerners, I don't really care about democracy as some panacea meant to cure all ills, because just as there are no "benevolent dictators" there is no real democracy in existance either. Its a utopic ideal that cannot ever translate on the ground. Modernists and secularists always argue against a Khilafat on the grounds that its based on a utopian ideal that can't ever be realized but fail to realize "democracy" is the exact same thing. .

Lets put it as plainly as possible: a bad dictator can screw up a country in far worse ways than a bad democracy.
Based on recent past, the probablilty of a dictatorship being bad is higher than it being good and so many people would rather have a broken democracy than a broken dictatorship as the potential downside to the latter far exceeds potential downside to the former

[Navo]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
Fidel and KJI definitely. I've been to both places over the last 10 years...

Sohel bhai, on an unrelated note, did you have difficulty traveling to the US after going to Cuba (and North Korea!)? I hope to go to the former in the next couple of years but as I am thinking of applying for Masters programs in the US...I'm not sure if that would be prudent.

[Banglatiger84]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
A government's job is not to allow dissent, or free speech, or this or that...a real government which does its job wouldn't be criticized nor need to be petitioned. .

Who decides whether a govt is doing its job or not ?
In so many countries, we have seen an autocrat suppress all dissent, and claim that free speech/dissent is not needed as he is doing a good job and opposition is hindering the said good job.

[Sohel]

Common "peace and prosperity" is desired by everyone in Bangladesh, except for those directly benefiting from the absence thereof. While pretty much everyone here in Bangladesh, ESPECIALLY the marginalized majority of fellow countrymen and women, see REAL democracy as THE precondition to REAL peace and prosperity, the beneficiaries advocate a variety of extra-Constitutional, dictatorial rule running contrary to popular will.

Our people see common peace and prosperity as an ongoing project battling through a variety of mitigating factors, also see democracy the same way as a PROCESS that continues to mature over time. The issue for people in this country is not the system, but an egregious subversion of that system by individuals who feel free to abuse its loopholes because they don't really believe in it. Our people have a clear understanding of this and that's precisely makes us great in our tradition of tolerance, resilience, sacrifice and real courage.

In short, the disenfranchised in Bangladesh want the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to exercise their social, political and economic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Unemployment, lack of public services, police crime, sectarianism, feudal-era glass ceilings, political and bureaucratic corruption, and a plethora of other injustices are seen as things either embedded into or aggravated by the perversion of the system, and NOT as things endemic to it. They see that extra-Constitutional injustice things to be eradicated through democratic reform in order to restore Constitutional intent as real rights and liberties people can freely exercise in Bangladesh. That takes time and they know it.

They believe and quite rightly so, that only those hellbent on usurping the Constitution and impose their own will upon us all through illegal means, are THE problem. The idea that these people currently subverting the system would actually be given the opportunity to legitimize their crimes against the popular will in the name of some sort of common good, and without electoral accountability, is doomed from the start here in Bangladesh. Now that's a tough pill for some people to swallow even after repeated examples throughout our history.

Our people see advocates of semi-permanent elite rule as the virus subverting a sound system, not the other way around. Our people have always defeated the usurpers and always will IshAllah, and I'll put a ring on that idea. All of the ignorance, thoughtless and stupid analysis, misguidance, and disinformation notwithstanding, we don't need a "roti diet", Salafism, Marxism, Moronism or any other "ism" to know which way the wind blows and what we must do when it blows the wrong way here in Bangladesh. We need time to mature and nobody going to take that away from us just because they want to play GOD with our lives.

[F6_Turbo]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
A government's job is not to allow dissent, or free speech, or this or that...a real government which does its job wouldn't be criticized nor need to be petitioned. .

Wow...this certainly is different. If there is no freedom of speech, how do you know a government is doing a job good? Or do we simply go by what BTV has been telling us since independence?


I get the feeling, and correct me if I'm wrong, aF thinks Zia, Ershad, Zia- ul- Haq, Saddam, Gaddafi, Bashar were good leaders.

Speaking of Bangladesh....

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failed_...12_interactive

2009 - 19th
2010 - 24th
2011 - 25th
2012 - 29th

We're heading in the right direction - it's still not great, but progress is being made, and in the end that's all you can ask for.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Navo
Sohel bhai, on an unrelated note, did you have difficulty traveling to the US after going to Cuba (and North Korea!)? I hope to go to the former in the next couple of years but as I am thinking of applying for Masters programs in the US...I'm not sure if that would be prudent.

I use my Bangladeshi passport to travel to Cuba, DPRK and pretty much all other countries. I used my US passport travel to the US, Canada and certain Latin American countries where Bangladesh has no diplomatic mission (Argentina, for example). Recently I've handed in my US passport because I plan to run for office in 7 years InshAllah as a Bangladesh Awami League candidate from the Tejgaon-Mohakhali-Gulshan-Banani-Baridhara constituency.

Anyway, I have decent security clearance and won't have trouble getting a US visa. My family has been there since 1948.

[Zunaid]

A government's job is not to allow or disallow. The government derives it powers from the people and it is the people's dictat that the government must follow. Unfortunately, often both the ruled and the ruler sees the power flow reverse. The ruled allows themselves to be ruled.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
A government's job is not to allow or disallow. The government derives it powers from the people and it is the people's dictat that the government must follow. Unfortunately, often both the ruled and the ruler sees the power flow reverse. The ruled allows themselves to be ruled.

Exactly. To govern is to "serve" not "rule" but many don't see the difference. They don't see the inherent indignity in speaking for others and unilaterally imposing their views on people, of course without accountability or the any possibility of a role reversal, because they conceal, all too often from themselves, their depraved pathology through an intellectually dishonest discourse about the "common good".

As a believer, I see these people as devoid of Taqwa and therefore enemies of the faithful. As someone interested in justice as something integral to my sacred covenant with GOD, I see them as the cause of injustice and when the time comes, mortal enemies of humanity.

Anyway, here's a good dig about the core ideals of Jeffersonian democracy. The project continues in the US and it will surely continue here in Bangladesh also.

Jeffersonian Democracy is characterized by the following core ideals, which Jefferson and his followers expressed in their writings, speeches and legislation. "Jeffersonian Democracy" is an umbrella term, and some factions favored some position more than others. In terms of actual policy-making, sometimes different principles conflicted. Furthermore the Jeffersonians changed over time as new issues emerged, such as how to fight a major War of 1812 with a weak central government and militia that refused to leave their state:

-The core political value of America is republicanism; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy.

-Jeffersonian values are best expressed through an organized political party. The Jeffersonian party was officially the "Republican Party" (although historians later called it the Democratic-Republican Party).

-It was the duty of citizens to vote, and the Jeffersonians invented many modern campaign techniques designed to get out the vote. Turnout indeed soared across the country. The work of John J. Beckley, Jefferson's agent in Pennsylvania, set new standards in the 1790s. In the 1796 presidential election he blanketed the state with agents who passed out 30,000 hand-written tickets, naming all 15 electors (printed tickets were not allowed). Historians consider Beckley to be one of the first American professional campaign managers, and his techniques were quickly adopted in other states.

-The Federalist Party, especially its leader Alexander Hamilton, was the arch-foe, because of its acceptance of aristocracy and British methods

-The yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences; government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the 'cesspools of corruption', and should be avoided.

-The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most Anti-Federalists from 1787–88 joined the Jeffersonians.

-Separation of church and state is the best method to keep government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.

-The federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.

-The federal government must not violate the rights of the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written secretly by Jefferson and James Madison) proclaim these principles.

-Freedom of speech and the press are the best methods to prevent tyranny over the people by their own government. The Federalists' violation of this freedom through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 became a major issue.

-The United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. However, "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

-All men had the right to be informed, and thus, to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had a right to an education no matter their circumstance or status in life.

-The judiciary should be subservient to the elected branches and the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress. The Jeffersonians lost this battle to Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, who dominated the Court from 1801 to his death in 1835.

-The Jeffersonians also had a distinct foreign policy. Americans had a duty to spread what Jefferson called the "Empire of Liberty" to the world, but should avoid "entangling alliances."

-Britain was the greatest threat, especially its monarchy, aristocracy, corruption, and business methods; the Jay Treaty of 1794 was much too favorable to Britain and thus threatened American values.

-France, at least in the early stages of the French Revolution, was the ideal European nation. According to Michael Hardt, ""Jefferson's support of the French Revolution often serves in his mind as a defense of republicanism against the monarchism of the Anglophiles." Napoleon, on the other hand, was the antithesis of republicanism and could not be supported.

-Louisiana and the Mississippi River were critical to American national interests. Control by Spain (a weak power) was tolerable; control by France was unacceptable.

-A standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.

-The militia was adequate to defend the nation. But it proved inadequate in a major War of 1812 when militia units refused to leave their state to attack the British.

WikiLink

[Rubu]

OK, let me ask my question in a different way, when it comes to one man in charge type, there are very few countries that made it from being poor and terrible to peaceful and rich.

Show me just one country where democracy took the country from being poor and terrible to peaceful and rich. Difficulty: modern society.

Breaking the circle of poverty is not easy, but which way gives it the better odd? A poor country trying to change its fate is like a start up company, if you try to run it democratically, you are not going to get anywhere, you need a tough good CEO. As everyone pointed out, that is very rare to find, but show me another way.

[Sohel]

I'll give you three. I've been to each of them in different times during their political history. Chile, Mozambique and Republic of Korea, just compare all of the pre and post democracy indicators. Each has issues but they're taking visible steps to manage them.

A country is not a company owned by investors employing people. The people own a country and are the investors. In Bangladesh they're learning to hire better people to to the job. It takes time. It took close to 200 years before the Civil Rights Act made the USA more democratic.

[Rubu]

Can you specify what you consider the break point for before and after? Wikied the first two, don't see the exact break point year/event.

[Sohel]

In Chile it was the ouster of General Pinochet in 1988 leading to his exile and the social and ecomonic miracle of the 90s under democratic governments. In South Korea it was the fall of military rule in 1987. In Mozambique it was the end of Marxist one party rule in 1990.

I spent time in Chile on business from 92 to 2000, Korea 95-now, and Mozambique 2000-now. The positive changes are much more than cosmetic and visible to anyone who visits.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Navo
I heartily disagree with the bolded sentiment above. 'Peace' and 'Prosperity' do not exist in stasis (so to speak) and are concepts that are relative and hence always in flux. Think about this, is peace merely the absence of war?

Thats exactly what I am talking about. I meant "peace" as in "peace of mind". In other words a total and comprehensive peace. Shanti. No war (except when absolutely necessary), no fear of being mugged on the way home, no fear of being left to die when you can't afford healthcare, a government that can take basic care of you if/when you lose your job. Apart from the war part, what form of peace do Bangladeshis enjoy? And we don't have war because I don't even know why...surely the struggle of 1971 and struggles against the British prove that we're not a pansy nation of cowards. But I wish we'd not only stand up to regional bullying more, but actually have the military means to do that. But thats another point, for a whole 'nother thread.

As these abstract notions of peace and prosperity keep evolving, it is essential that governments be open to criticism i.e. accountable, otherwise they will not be able to keep up. Hence, those supposedly benevolent dictators who shun criticism will not come across as so benevolent. To provide an example, at a certain point of time in early 20th century China when the country was torn apart and ravaged by war lords and the vast, vast majority of people were deeply impoverished - having two meals a day and clothes on your back may have been considered to be relative 'peace and prosperity' (and this is roughly what the Communist Party was able to provide). However, nowadays, after Deng Xiaoping, opening up their economy and greater affluence, this would far from suffice and the public expects far more freedoms and rights than two decades ago. The fact that the CCP is still reluctant to accept criticism highlights why there is growing disaffection and disgruntlement in China despite the increasing economic wealth.

This is a valid point and I agree. The government which can keep prosperity and peace up to date with the world's best, would be ideal, and hence would still avoid needing to be petitioned or criticized.

At the end of the day, no government can be truly 'benevolent' or 'competent' or assure 'peace and prosperity' if they are deaf to the reproaches of the people. Hence, why free speech and a strong media is so important and why the option (however co-opted by external factors) of changing government every 4/5 years is so crucial.

With all this openness of government, not only Bangladesh but that beacon for "democracy" America still has a plethora of issues where citizens are being shafted in the interests of the respective powers that be. I suppose that is inescapable as all governments may very very well be inherently corrupt and self-serving. But then again, this has turned into a purely philosophical thread.

[Sohel]

BTW, just from the standpoint of economic growth, India is a pretty good example of what democracy, even an imperfect one can do with political unity around democratic reforms.

[al Furqaan]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/12/world/...html?hpt=hp_t3

Interesting, Morsi is clashing with Egypt's military and has "fired" several of the top brass. Will he survive? Will he cave in? How will the west view an Islamist trying to take over?