Identify Your Enemy

That Egypt is in a state of quasi-war is clear.

Hundreds of Egyptians have been killed. In football stadia, near the Ministry of Interior, at the Cabinet sit-in, in front of the national TV building at Maspero, Egyptian lives have been taken. There is polarization along just about all spectra. Information is scarce and what little is available is mixed with rumour and fed into media which routinely adds its own spice before feeding it to a public split among too many lines. A great deal of mistrust is in the air, between every possible faction and its opposite number.  And did I mention Egyptians are getting killed? So we’re at war, quasi-war anyway.

Every war, even the quasi variety, needs an enemy. Right now, depending on who you talk to, there are four prime suspects for the title of The Real Enemy.

Namely, these are the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (SCAF); the deposed Mubarak and his family and friends - either in collusion with SCAF or not; the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and their Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the revolutionaries themselves. The logic these groups of blamers follow is sometimes straight, sometimes convoluted but simply put goes something like this:

 That SCAF is the enemy is a view held by many, maybe most, Tahreer regulars. SCAF is in power yet has done nothing to accelerate the trials of the ex-regime’s men, nothing to improve the security and economic situation, nothing to counteract the strong and growing suspicions that they want to stay in power and nothing to exact justice from those who have killed Egyptians. Furthermore, SCAF has consistently blamed “third parties” for the mayhem without naming - let alone bringing to justice - these third parties. This, the holders of this view argue, proves complicity, conspiracy or worse, direct involvement.

Others in Tahreer claim Mubarak’s men (a catchall for family and mostly business tycoon friends) are the real opponent because they are the ones with the most to lose from the revolution. They are fighting tooth and nail for their survival and the continuation of a setup of which they were the key beneficiaries, both in terms of raw power and the financial benefits this has brought them over the decades. They are well financed, well-manned and have even foretold the current turmoil scenario in the infamous speech when Mubarak himself simultaneously threatened and forecasted that it was either “him or chaos”.

Yet others see the MB/FJP as the true adversary because they got onto the revolutionary bandwagon only to achieve their less than honourable objectives of political power through majority in parliament and have, after securing their seats, abandoned the revolution. Over and above the now-majority-holding FJP have not taken serious action to promote the goals of the revolution and have clearly made a deal with SCAF.

Apart from Tahreerists, there are millions of Egyptians who view the revolutionaries themselves as the real enemy. The argument is enough is enough; these people don’t know when to stop and are acting like a bunch of spoilt, impatient brats who have been upping their demands and deadlines as soon as old ones are met. We have presidential elections in a few months; can’t they just wait instead of their continuous demonstrations and sit-ins which are the root cause of the financial and security ruin we are living in?

Each of these arguments has merit. However none of them is correct. Here’s why.

When on the 25^th (and more vocally and effectively the 28^th) of January 2011, Egyptians took to the streets demanding “regime change”, we were fundamentally revolting against three aspects of our lives.

The police state: unwarranted arrests, routine torture and human rights abuses, security apparatus control of everything from university professor appointments to Friday prayer sermons and even bread distribution.

2.       Social injustice: income distribution, sky-rocketing prices, widening crevice between haves and have-nots, massive financial corruption and decreasing ability of most Egyptians to make ends meet, let alone fulfil their ambitions.

      Lack of political freedoms: Draconian laws for party establishment, looming handing of presidency from Mubarak Senior to Mubarak Junior, consistent and ruthless crackdown on any potential politically threatening opposition, forged elections

These are the core reasons why we took to the streets.

The four key suspects mentioned earlier, SCAF and Mubarak’s business buddies and certainly MB/FJP and the revolutionaries themselves have little or nothing to do with any of these grievances.

Until the revolution, most Egyptians had never so much as heard of SCAF. While the army is widely accepted to be no less, but also no more, financially corrupt than the rest of the Egyptian government, they have never had interaction with the general public and thus have no role in the enacting, enforcing or promoting the police state. Likewise their involvement in impoverishing Egypt and Egyptians is peripheral at most through their corruption but not direct in any way. The same is true of restricting political freedoms. While SCAF and the army were indeed the last line of defence for Mubarak’s regime’s stability, they have never been used to enforce his dictatorship.

Similarly there is no link between Mubarak’s business buddies and human rights abuses and similar practices. Their thieving and corruption are more closely linked to social injustice in as much as their looting left less to go round (this was billions of dollars worth of looting) and their closeness to Mubarak or one of his sons allowed them to break commercial laws with impunity, laws including anti-trust, import restrictions, SEC regulations, pricing and others. They have mostly though been rather tame since the revolution and financial scandals are decreasing on a monthly basis and in any case many are already either in jail or under investigation. On the third grievance, only a few of them were very directly related to political corruption and they too are jailed or awaiting trial.

Far from being involved in arresting, detaining or torturing Egyptian citizens, the MB/FJP have over the decades frequently been on the receiving end of such practices. Seen as the only credible threat to Mubarak’s regime’s continuity, MB members were routinely harassed by police and their leadership systematically rounded up and jailed before parliamentary and local elections. Likewise, MB have historically played a positive role in the social justice sphere, financing hospitals, soup kitchens and offering financial support for Egypt’s least fortunate. Their involvement in Mubarak’s political strangulation of Egypt was as proxy. Mubarak used the MB as a scare-mongering tool, both locally and internationally.

Finally, there is no case to be made linking the revolutionaries to any the three main complaints which pushed Egyptians into revolution. None at all, so I won’t waste time. People who believe the revolutionaries are the enemy are simply redefining the objective. Instead of a better Egypt, they just want a superficially stable Egypt and they want it now.

So who then is the real enemy?

Well, it’s the police, The Ministry of Interior (MOI). Or more specifically, the much-feared State Security arm of the MOI.

It is they who we meant when we were calling for the regime to fall. It is they who have the blood of most of the revolution’s martyrs on their hands, either directly or through the forever-lurking-in-the-background third party. It is they who have access to the thugs who have been wreaking havoc throughout Egypt. It is they who have used their weapons on us. They who have kidnapped activists, tortured witnesses, destroyed evidence, shot people’s eyes out and killed demonstrators.

They were the enemy during Mubarak’s reign, they were the enemy during the earliest days of the revolution, they are the enemy now and they are the key player in all three of our fundamental grievances.

If Mubarak was a tyrant it was the police which was his tool of tyranny, the thick stick which Mubarak used to beat opponents and indeed the whole population into submission. Tens of thousands of illegally detained citizens were routinely electrocuted, beaten, threatened with rape, sodomised and subjected to every imaginable, and many unimaginable forms of torture.  All at the hands of NOT SCAF, NOT Mubarak’s business buddies, NOT MB/FJP and certainly not the revolutionaries.

كاش ولا قسط؟

كاش ولا قسط؟

بقلم حاتم رشدي

من أسبوعين كده واحد صاحبي راح يشتري عربية لوالدته. هي طنط عندها عربية بس قديمة و حالتها صعبة و كل شوية تعطل منها والميكانيكي يقرفها في عيشثها إشي صبابات وشي ترومبات وشي أصل قطع الغير مش لاقيينها يا مدام. فصاحبي قاللك ما بدهاش أجيب لأمي عربية جديدة واكسب إلدعوتين من بق الحاجة لباب السما.

المهم راح كذا معرض و شاف العربيات إلي ممكن تناسب والدته واستقر على واحدة. صغيرة ممكن تتركن في أي داهية، أوتوماتيك بدل قرف إلأولاني والتاني،و كمان استهلاك بنزين مفيش عشان الايام السوده اللي إحنا فيها دى، و قرر يجيبها لها.

 بكام يا سيدي؟  قالوله اتنين و ستين ألف. المشكلة إنو ما كانش معاه غير حاجه وأربعين، سته وأربعين، سبعه وأربعين حاجة كده

كلم أخوه يخش معاه، أخوه قاله بص هي فكرة مش بطالة بس هي مالها عربية ماما القديمة؟ ماما مبسوطة بيها وعمرها ما إشتكت منها. وأنا أصلا كده كده ما معاييش فلوس.

ميل على واحد صاحبه يستلف منه، الواد صاحبه وافق بس طلع يهودي حبتين، قال له إيه؟ قال أنا ما عنديش مشكلة أسلفك، بس الفلوس أنا رابطها في وديعة أفكهالك  من عينيه الاتنين بس ترجعلي فلوسي بفوايدها شغال؟ قام صاحبي شاتمه وسايبه وماشي وكمان راح ماسح نمرته من ع الموبايل. قاللك ده واد واطي.

ثم أخذ يفكر ويفكر لغاية لما جاب التايهة قاللك بس الحل أعمل جمعية. راح مكلم كل صحابه بما فيهم العبد لله وطلب منهم يخشه معاه في الجمعيه. كلنا وافقنا بس ستة من التمانيه كانو عايزين يقبضو الجمعية فى أول شهرين عشان اقساط المدارس بتاعت يناير، فتفركشت الجمعية.  

قصر الكلام وضعه أصبح كالتالي:

تمن العربية : إتنين وستين ألف

المتوفر منهم : سبعة وأربعين 

مصادر أخرى: لا يوجد

فبقى قدامه حل من حلين مالهمش تالت، يا إما يقسط، يا إما يميل ع المدام "تتصرف فى حاجة من اللي عندها" 

وهو بيحكيلي الحكايه قلت بس كده ده هي دي بالظبط حكاية الثورة! 

أنا بحب مصر زي الواد صاحبي ما بيحب أمه بالضبط (ويمكن أكتر شوية – طنط دمها تقيل شويتين إنما مصر زى العسل – عسل إسود بقى ولا أبيض مش قضيتنا دلوقتى) و أكيد مصر محتاجة عربيه جديده لا عطلانة ولا كل شوية يقولولنا نجيب قطع غيار منين والكلام الفارغ ده وأكيد من حق بلدنا تستريح بعد بهدلة ستين سنة واكتر. بس المعرض بتاع الثورة راخر شغال زي معرض العربيات بالمللي.  

إتفضل سعادتك شوف، عندنا صنفين ثورة، صنف كاش و صنف تقسيط و طبعا كل صنف له مميزاته و له عيوبه وإنت كمواطن مصري يعيش في بلد ديمقراطي ليك مطلق الحرية في  الاختيار. اسمح لي أعرض على سعادتك الصنفين: 

ثورة كاش:

طبعا ما فيهاش كلام الكاش أنضف. وقال على رأي المثل ضربة مرزبه ولا ميت ضربة شاكوش، ووجع ساعة ولا كل ساعة، هي مرة واحدة، نقطع عرق يسيح دم. لا مجلس عسكري ولا محاكمة مبارك ولا فايزه أبو النجا ولا يحزنون. تعمل دستورك بإيدك وتشكل حكومة إنقاذ وطني من جوه الميدان وتزبط نفسك بنفسك. لا ماما أمريكا ولا غيره يفتح بقه معاك. تشيل وزارة الداخلية من لغاليغها والعادلي تعدمه في ميدان عام، وتوزع فلوسه ع الشهدا مليم مليم و قصر قصر و فدان فدان هو وعز و نظيف وجيمي وعلاء والطقم  كله.  إزاي؟ بسيطه. تلاتين أربعين ألف يطلعو على ماسبيرو وشرحهم عل مجلس العسكري إيلي يقع يقع والباقي يكمل. نخلص الليلة دي ونصتفل إحنا بينا و بين بعضينا إشي سلف وشي إخوان وشي شيوعي وشي إشتراكي وشي اناركي وشي ليبرالي وأكيد أكيد حنعرف نتفاهم مع بعضينا. المهم نخلص من هم المجلس العسكري

المشكل فى ألثوره الكاش بس إن زي كده ما نتيجتها ميه ميه، تمنها راخر ميه ميه. يعني إحنا قلنا إقطع عرق يسيح دم وهو من حيث حيسيح فهو حيسيح. ما حدش يطلع لنا في النص يعيط و يقول مات لنا خمسة مات لنا ميه مات لنا عشرين ألف، إللي يموت يموت واللي خايف يروح. برضو لازم تعمل حسابك إن لو ما معاكش الكاش كله جاهز، لازم تشوف لك صاحب يسلفك أو على الأقل يضمنك و ما يكونش عايز فوايد من ورا السلفه و لا يكونش مفلس و خايف من العجلة والبسكلته والكلام ده. ولا خايف من قلة الأمن والبلطجية والجو اللي أنا وانت فاهمينه ده.

باختصار كده، تعرف تضمن لي نص ولا حتى تلت ولا حتى ربع الشعب يسندك في  الليلة دي؟ لو تعرف نكمل إجراءات الثورة الكاش.

لازم كمان يا سيد الثوار أخوك ما يقولش مالها عربية ماما القديمة؟ ماهي حلوة أهي وحمارتك العرجه إلخ... ولا يطلعلكش خازوق في النص إسمه الأغلبية الصامتة وأبناء مبارك وأخواته ومحبي الاستقرار أوعل أقل لو طلعولك تعرف تتصرف معاهم. ولا يبقى في كمان احتمال الناس تزهق و تتعب من قلته و يقولو إيه؟ يقولو يالا بينا ثورة جياع. لأن دي لو قامت بقى لا أنت ولا جيش ولا عشرة زيكو حيعرفو يلموها

والله ما باخوفك أنا بس بوضحلك الإجراءات وإنت حر وعلى فكرة، أنا معاك، كاش قسط أنا شغال، المهم نجيب نتيجه 

 بس أصبر بس ما تقفش إسمع عرض التقسيط كمان قبل ما تاخد قرار

طبعا مقارنه بالكاش كتمن مفيش. أنت لا حيموتلك شهدا ولا حتقفلك عجلة ولا حينقطع عنك سياحه بالعكس خالص. في نفس الوقت غالبا حتلاقي الأمن رجع بقدرة قادر والضباط والعساكر ماليين الشوارع. ولا يطلعلك مواطنون شرفاء ولا لميس جابر تقول إرحمونا ولا عكاشة يقول الكلام العجيب إللي بيقوله ولا الجدع إللي مش أديب يفضل يولول كل يوم زي ألأراجوز. كله حيتكتم ويبتدي يمجد فلثوره والثوار. لا انقسامات فل مجتمع ولا تحرير وعباسية ولا تخوين ولا تفزيع ولا أي حاجة من دي بتاتا.

بس طبيعي مادام التمن مش إلي هو برضو النتايج مش إلي هي. زي العربيات القسط بالضبط. عندك حظر بيع وعدم إنتقال ملكيه وخلافه.     

مبارك حيفضل يتحاكم عشر سنين و يمكن كمان ياخد براءة أو حكم خفيف في اللطيف كده مع إيقاف التنفيذ عشان الناس ما تنزلش الميدان تاني. أو يمكن كمان الريس الجديد يصدر عفو عام كجزء من "الديل" إلي بيتعمل. العادلي والناس دي كلها ممكن تبقى كباش فدا عشان الناس ترتاح شوية و أهالي الشهدا يلموا الدور. دستورك حيبقى كويس أكيد عشان الناس إلي حتعمله أكتر ناس متعورين من الدكتاتورية.  كمان ممكن  جدا المجلس العسكري ياخد حصانة و خروج أمن والكلام الفارغ ده، بس غالبا حيبقى أخر مجلس عسكري من نوعه و بسلطاته في مصر. أمريكا حا يبقالها كلام عليك برضو. لا تيجي ناحية كامب دافيد ولا تهوب  ناحية أي تصريحات ملهاش لازمة لو قلنا نقسم عراق أو داخلين صومال أو  حنبني سد نواحي إريتريا. بس غير كده غالبا حتسيبك في حالك.

طب كسبنا إيه من التقسيط غير صلاة النبي؟ كسبنا حرية سياسية، يعني كل إتنين بيتمشو ع الكورنيش بيقزقزو ترمس ممكن يعمله حزب و ينزلو بيه إنتخابات وكمان أي واحد ممكن يرشح نفسه رئيس جمهورية حتى لو ماسموش جمال وابوه مش ريس. كمان حتوفر عدد لا بأس به من الارواح والناس إللي ابتدت تتعب وتفلس وتزهق من الثورة مش حتقلب عليك بالعكس ممكن جدا تلاقيهم في صفك و بيضغطو معاك. كمان أول ما الدنيا اللي بره تطمن شويه إن الأمور هديت  حتلاقي الاستثمارات رجعت والسياح رجعو وده لا يمكن يحصل في حالة الكاش. أصل بصراحه سايح ايه المنيل ده اللي مستغني عن عمره وييجي بلد فيها ثوره كاش؟ و مستثمر مين الأهبل ده إللي يحط فلوسه في حته عسكرها و شعبها لسه بيقتلو بعض في الشوارع؟ ما تجيش. 

من مزايا التقسيط كمان إنك تستريح دلوقتي حالا مش بعدين واحنا شعب نفسه قصير و في ناس كتير جدا نفسها تستريح دلوقتي حالا. 

بس كده أنا خلصت كلام. عقلك في راسك تعرف خلاصك و زي ما قلتلك أنا معاك معاك. كاش قسط شغال.    

 أما بالنسبه لصاحبي و عربية طنط فهو لسه ما خدش قرار.

قالها ألأمير: إنما ألأمم ألأخلاق ما بقيت فإن هم ذهبت أخلاقهم ذهبوا

إن أسوأ، لا أقول "من أسوأ" بل أسوأ، ما فعله مبارك في فترة حكمه هو العمل على هدم منظومة الأخلاق والقيم المصرية  بالكامل. و هذا متجلي  في وصولنا إلى درجة تسمح بأن يسحل رجل مصري، يرتدي زى العسكرية المصرية، فتاه مصريه في عمر أخته، و يعريها  من ملابسها، ثم يكون رد الفعل المخزى أن  يسأل رجل مصري أخر عن سبب ذهاب الفتاه أصلا إلى المظاهرات، و يسأل  بتعجب رجل مصري  ثالث عن سر عدم ارتداء الفتاه ملابس تحت عبايتها و كأن نزولها للمظاهرات أو عدم إرتدائها شيئا تحت العبايه يبرر ما حدث.

و تدنت أخلاقنا لدرجة تسمح للبعض أن يقبل، بل يؤيد، ضرب و حتى قتل، متظاهر لمجرد إختلافه معه في الرأي 

و سقطت  قيمنا  لمستوى جديد من الانحطاط حين دمعت أعين بعضنا لحرق هذا الكتاب أو ذاك و لم تدمع أعيننا دما لرؤية إمرأة عجوز ينهال ثلاثة عساكر عليها ضربا بالعصي والشوم 

لقد فشل  مبارك في كل شيء تقريبا فلا تعليم أنجح ولا صحة ولا أمن حقق ولا رخاء ولا زرعا أنبت ولا صناعة  أنشأ ولا ولا ولا   

ولكن على الرغم من كل هذا الفشل فإن الرجل نجح و بامتياز في أن يمحو منظومة  الاخلاق المصرية (و لكنه محو سطحي فيما أظن  و سوف أعود لهذا لاحقا)

فلقد سرق مبارك و نهب و منعته هذه السرقة من محاسبة السارقين من حاشيته و منعتهم سرقتهم  بدورها  عن محاسبة من هم تحتهم و هكذا حتى أصبحت السرقة في كل مكان و على جميع المستويات 

و حين نهب مبارك نهب بجد فلم يترك ما يكفي لدفع مرتبات محترمه  للموظفين فاستحلو الرشوة حتى أصبحت من سمات التعامل مع أي جهة حكومية في بلادنا واعتادناها   

و كذب مبارك كلما تحدث و إذا كان رب البيت بالدف ضارب فشيمة أهل البيت كلهم الرقص فأصبحنا كلنا كاذبين في كل صغيرة و كبيره حتى أصبحنا نأخذ دخول الكاذب النار من باب الفكاهة 

و قسى مبارك علينا فقست قلوبنا على بعضنا البعض 

واحتقرنا مبارك فاحتقرنا بعضنا البعض 

و تعامل مبارك مع أعدائنا بحجة المصلحة ففهمنا أن الغاية تبرر الوسيلة   

ثم أخرج مبارك مادة الدين من المجموع فلم  يهتم بها ولد ولا أب

و أعاد مبارك تسمية وزارة التربية والتعليم فأضحت لا تربي ولا تعلم 

ثم أطلق مبارك العنان للإعلام "المتحرر" في دولة نسبة العنوسة فيها خطيرة ولا يقدر شاب فيها ليس سارق ولا وارث على نفقات الزواج  فأثار غرائز الشباب تجاه ما لا يستطيعون تلبيته  حلالا فانتشر الحرام

وإجتهد مبارك و نجح في إخافة الناس من الدين فمن إقتنع خاف ومن لم يقتنع تطرف إلا من رحم ربي  

و لم يترك مبارك صورة ناجحة إلا طمسها فلم يتبقى كمثل أعلى للشباب إلا رجل أعمال فاسد أو لاعب كرة موهوب أو مغني محظوظ حتى أصبح أكبر أمال الشباب أن "يعمل شريط ويعدي"

و على الرغم من كل هذا  وقفنا و قلنا قولة حق في وجه سلطاننا ثم عدنا فكنسنا و مسحنا ميداننا وأمسكنا من تحرش ببناتنا واجترفنا من مخزوننا الحضاري والديني والأخلاقي ما سيكفينا،  و بإذن الله سيعيدنا دولة لا ترى خطأ فتقول "عادي" ولا تشهد ظلما فتقول "نفض" و "كبر" و يومها و فقط يومها، و يقيني على ربي و شعبي من بعده كبير أن هذا اليوم قريب، نستطيع أن نقول أن الثوره قد نجحت.    

This whole democracy thing

I am beginning to think that, actually, scratch that, I am fully convinced, that we need to evolve a political system beyond democracy. It is NOT the best possible system.

For intro, I was raised and educated in the firm belief that there is no better method of governance than democracy, that after decades of experimentation, humankind has evolved into this Fukuyaman history-ending uber-system.

After all, who could possibly argue against - indeed what intellectual ammunition would they use to oppose - a system where "all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives"?

I mean, just read that one more time "all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions affecting their lives."

Sounds great right?

At first glimpse (and even after a hundred years of practice) democracy does look and sound and feel great, especially with continuous tweaking of its inconsistencies and blunting of its sharper edges. But taking a good close look at what democracy has produced, what results it has achieved, what various other schools of thought have to say about it, it becomes clear, we can and must do much better.

Here's why.

Actually before I start, gimmee two seconds because I'd like to give a quick mention to two of my pet hate democracy stories, namely Algeria and Gaza, where a democratically elected, people selected government was not allowed to operate.

Ok, moving on:

1. What has democracy produced?

Plato argued with typically impeccable logic, that since democracy entails rule of the majority by virtue of equal representation and that since in all societies the poor are bound to form that majority, democracy will always lead to rule (perhaps tyranny) by the poor over the rich.

What has in fact come about is the exact opposite. Democracy in the US for example far from leading to a powerful, tyrannical low-income class, has produced rule of the better-funded over the impecunious. For the last five or six decades, the presidential campaign with the most funds has consistently produced the president. Likewise the cases where the less-funded congressman won his election are few and far between.

Democracy in the US at least, has in effect turned into its ugly cousin, plutocracy, rule by the rich and powerful. Democracy in the country most revered for its democratic values has evolved away from itself into something quite scary.

Democracy has produced, again using the land of the free and the home of the brave as an example, a government which spends over a trillion dollars a year on weapons which will never be used in defense, while the number of homeless Americans (about 2 million in 2009) is spiking as I type.

It is easy to argue that the majority of Americans don't think that is OK.

Again in the USA democracy has produced a government which ignored 63% (a CBS/New York Times poll found this many percent of Americans wanted a diplomatic solution found for Iraq) of its own population -never mind the UN and the bulk of the world's nations and let's certainly not mind what the Iraqis thought! - and sent hundreds of thousands of its citizens to invade a country half way across the globe (oh, and by the way, oil prices never went down either).

Not to point a blaming finger at the US alone, let us look elsewhere. Democracy in France has led to a direct conflict with the one of the three supra-constitutional values of the Republic. To forbid a certain sect of women from wearing what they want cannot coincide with egalité! In India this wunder-system has led to the super-nationalist ultra-religious Hindu party coming to power. Democracy in Israel has produced an apartheid state, where the government's handling of different members of the population is far from equal (leave alone the Palestinians, I'm talking about Israeli Arabs).

Democracy has produced a world where lobby and special interest groups hold more sway than any citizen  or group of citizens. You could argue that lobbyists represent groups of citizens, and you'd be right. The problem is the amount of influence a lobby wields is directly proportional to its funding, not its merit, nor its popularity.

One could go on and on and on with these examples, listing shortcoming after shortcoming in the outcomes of this ostensibly wonderful system, but I hate to read (and therefore refuse to write) very lengthy blogs.

2. Liberalism and. Democracy

Although the two are frequently used in tandem, as in Liberal Democracy, there is much trouble between the two. Liberals have a major ethical/moral problem with the enforcing of majority will on the minority which is a frequent outcome of democracy. And so democracy is seen by many liberals (the more classical, the more this is a problem) as a flawed system in that it has no built-in mechanisms for addressing the grievances of the minorities in society.

Furthermore, while the common sense understanding of democracy certainly implies a high level of personal freedom of choice, speech and action, it is not the common sense understanding which is put to practice in so-called democratic societies. What happens effectively is that the collective decisions are enacted, the group will enforced frequently leading to a decrease in people's freedoms. An example to enlighten: Iran has for the past few decades been a highly non-liberal country because that is what the majority of its people have wanted. It is not that the Ayatollahs forged elections, it is that the people consistently chose the less liberal rulers.

3. Islam (or other religions) and Democracy

I may be accused of quoting Abdel Moneim el Shahhat (the infamous cleric who declared democracy as heresy). I plead guilty!

But think about it for a second. What does democracy mean if it doesn't mean that people collectively decide what is right and wrong, (read: allowed and forbidden, kosher and non-kosher, halal and haram) and therefore usurping that function from God? An observant, practicing Muslim (Christian, Jew, Hindu) doesn't want people to decide for him what is acceptable and not acceptable. He wants that done by God. Is not a democratic society saying, we know what is best for us, let us the people decide what is right and wrong? It is! Now take that piece of information and ask the average practicing Muslim the following question "who should decide what is right and wrong, legal and illegal, we the people or God?" and I will bet ten to one, he won't say "the people". For examples of democracy crossing religion: in mainly Muslim Tunisia it is illegal to take more than one wife, while Islam clearly allows that. In Israel the law allows activity on the Sabbath, forbidden by religion there. Catholics the world over have issues with contraception, abortion and homosexuality, their religion forbids all three, but the democratic process has led to all three being legal and acceptable.

Of course there is an additional element here regarding interpretation of God's laws and rules and who has the right to do this, but that is the subject of another discussion. Here I am just trying to clarify that democracy (in its raw, unbridled form) is as rejected by Islam (Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc..) as it is by liberals.

At the risk of alienating my conservative friends (patience please, I promise to do the same with the liberal bunch in a second), I would say that democracy can work fine if it limits the powers given to the majority to enforce things on the minority. If governments can be made completely immune to the effects of campaign spending (fixed budgets?), if lobby groups were abolished so that the individual regains his rightful place and minorities and the less and dis enfranchised have more say in their individual destinies.

Now (as promised) at the risk of alienating my liberal friends, I think democracy can also work if it is as Abdel Moneim El Shahat recommends limited by a constitutional article saying that no laws may be enacted which contradict with the tenets of the religion(s) of the land. That would ease the pain of worrying about making kosher what the Talmud forbids or making forbidden what the Quran allows.


So, what's the point?

The point is democracy in an of itself is not the solution. More importantly, it cannot be the objective, especially when loosely or not-at-all defined.

It doesn't ever work like it promises to, it evolves all too easily away from its core tenets, it frequently produces terrible (and sometimes non-democratic) results and the two apparent poles of thinking, namely liberalism and religious conservatism have fundamental problems with it. Seems to me we really should be able to come up with something better.

Do I have a solution? No.

Do I think there are no merits in the system? Double no.

There are a lot of mechanisms within democracy which warrant respect, awe even. It is a great system in some ways, but it is all dependent on the implementation and the rules.

Final word? Not really.

Why the Upcoming Elections are the most Important Event in your life

The elections of 2010 were arguably the most corrupt since the era of 99.99%.

The NDP gained most of the seats; most of these gains were disputed in court; most of the disputers won their cases; most of those court-supported winners were duly ignored because المجلس سيد قراره (for non-Arabic speakers, there is no proper translation, but loosely - "the Parliament doesn't need to follow court rulings if it doesn't want to" - yeah ridiculous I know).

It is equally ridiculously easy to argue that at the very bottom of every problem we have suffered through in Egypt there is one common root cause, namely corruption.

Think about it.

Seriously, please think about it.

Think of just about any problem we have had in the last decades from political profiteering to poor health care; from a lousy education system to the under-price selling of our gas and from poverty to a collapsing economy and I guarantee that if you look deeply enough, you will find a corrupt person or practice right at the core of the issue.

So, corruption is the disease behind practically all our troubles.

Among stage-setters and catalysts for corruption, it is again fairly easy to argue that one of the most critical (perhaps the single most important of all) is a parliament not performing its duties. Duties NOT of building schools and mosques, these are the government's responsibility. Rather the duty of monitoring, evaluating, reporting on and responding to government performance.

A government which fears repercussion cannot act with impunity. A Prime Minister who is accountable to a parliament cannot act as if he is above reproach. Ministers (and President I add in hushed tones) who fear their employers (i.e. you and me) cannot rob (I'll skip rape) and pillage at will.

In a country with a strong and active parliament, ministers would be resigning/getting the sack DAILY for the kind of performance our government has been delivering.

All this seems basic and obvious. And it is!

From there it is one simple step to:

YOU AND I ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE EVIL EGYPT HAS ENDURED!

Because it is you and I who vote parliament in. And so, to my mind, if you and I don't vote at all, or if we don't exert sufficient effort to find out about candidates' and parties' programs, or if we stand silently by while elections are rigged we are active participants in destroying our country.

We are AS GUILTY as the police officer who pulled the trigger and shot dead Moataz Anwar, AS GUILTY as the those who sold us carcinogenic food, or the minister who owns 48 villas in 12 different gated compounds. AS GUILTY as the officer who (allegedly) placed a hose in Esam Atta's mouth and rectum and opened the tap full force until the poor man died.

We are even AS GUILTY as the man who ruled over us fraudulently and despotically for the last three decades - and just for good measure wanted to bring in his son to carry the torch for the next three!

Not supportively guilty, not guilty by association, not almost as guilty: EQUALLY GUILTY.

So what do we do about it?

First things first: WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BALLOT BOX!

You are the key to this country's future. You have an unprecedented chance to help shape its future. You can stop the killing, the torture, the unemployment, the arrests without warrants, the poverty, the diseases, the illiteracy, the filth, the pollution etc..etc...etc...

YOU CAN AND YOU SHOULD KNOW YOU CAN.

Next: Activate this knowledge by first ensuring you CAN vote i.e. go to http://www.elections2011.eg/ plug in your national ID number and confirm this. If you can't vote, stop reading!

Next find out about your district, is it List (قايمه) or Individual (فردي). If you are not sure what these mean  check this great little video explaining the difference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxSaFIisc8U

Then find out who is running in your district. That should be easy, there are a tonne of places clarifying who is running in which district, some sites even tell you a little about each and post news about them. This facebook group should have a full listing soon: http://www.facebook.com/Elections.eg

So far, pretty easy right?

Well the next bit is a tad more demanding, but the FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY is worth a little effort right? Of course it's right!

So the next bit is, find out about the candidates and/or parties. Investigate their programs, read beneath the titles. What is the actual plan? How do they plan to achieve it? Do they have a history of success? What have they done before? Remember, previous performance is usually the best indicator of future performance. If some guy was raising his hand every time Soroor said "Mowafekoon" he's probably not your guy!

Next is the really taxing part: Make up your mind who you want to vote for.

I STRONGLY recommend the following formula:

1. Remove all biases from your head. Religious, gender, appearances, wealth, accents etc should all be thrown out the window at this stage
2. Meet up with some people from your district and discuss the various candidates and their programs. Do NOT have arguments, DISCUSS. For a truly lively discussion I recommend you meet up with NON-like-minded people.
3. Make a list in descending order or importance of what you believe this country really needs
4. Compare list from point 2 with programs and multiply by likelihood of fulfillment (just kidding but only half-kidding)
5. He who scores highest gets your vote

From there, it's smooth sailing, go to your district voting location at the right time on the right day, avoid baltageya and plain clothes policemen, resist the temptation to pocket the LE 50 offered by candidate X, stand in line for about four hours and, cast your vote. Leave in dignity and congratulate yourself! 

You have now made a positive contribution to Egypt's (hopefully very bright) future!

Oh! You want to do more than just vote?

Well, if just casting your vote isn't enough, you may want to read on.

A bunch of guys and I have formed a group called صوتي لبلدي مش للبيع  (I vote for my country, my vote is not for sale). We started off on facebook, then met RT (that's Real Time, not Re-Tweet). Then we decided that the single most important thing we could do for Egypt during this time was to combat vote selling, a practice so rampant, it is considered a seasonal gift from rich Parliamentary wannabes to poor voters.

We defined it as anything from the direct sale of votes, to forced voting (moving voters like cattle in buses to polling stations to vote for pre-specified candidates) to what is known as tribal or nepotistic voting (in other words, giving your vote to a relative or friend regardless of their ideology, program, seriousness or ability).

We designed a campaign based on TV ads (self-financed, no foreign funding here thank you very much) and fliers and awareness creation campaigns and started implementation. Through contacts we got airtime for our ads (which should be appearing shortly) on various TV Channels. We've been on TV once http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NJgV0Y8AU4 and go on again soon (Thursday at or around 9.30 pm on OTV with Reem Maged) Through cooperation with various bodies we got the fliers printed and will have them distributed as far and wide across Egypt as possible.

You can see some of the work already produced here:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/myvoteisnot4sale/

If you want to join and help, just ask to be added. Short of convicted criminals and repeat mass murderers we accept most applications.

ألإسلام هو الحل

WAIT! I am not promoting the Muslim Brotherhood. Read on!

I am just adding my $ 0.02 to the discussion on whether they and others should be allowed to use religion-based slogans in the upcoming elections.

My opinion is YES OF COURSE they should be allowed.

Here's why:

1. CENSORSHIP: Any form of censorship used to curb slogans by a specific group or party is practically censoring of the people's right to choose freely. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to attract voters should not be limited by law for or against one type of campaigning. Besides who decides what is acceptable and what is not? SCAF?! Isn't this the people's revolution? Aren't these elections for the People's Assembly? Of course they are. Then let the people decide. I am not suggesting a referendum (although I suspect strongly that a referendum would produce 70-something % in favor of allowing religion-based slogans) but I believe the results of the elections will be just as indicative. Should the people end up voting into parliament a party or parties which used religious slogans in their campaigns, then practically the people are saying "Yes, we think it's OK to use these slogans". If on the other hand, the parties which use these slogans fail to get seats in parliament, then it is fair to assume the people were none too pleased with the use of such slogans or at least that these slogans were not a decisive factor.
2. WHY PICK ON THESE SLOGANS? There is no neutral, logical, rational difference between this slogan and any other. All slogans are designed to represent ideologies. Forbidding "Islam is the Solution", is the same as forbidding "Communism or Capitalism or Liberalism - or any other ism - is the Solution". For a fair and level playing ground, all parties must be allowed to use whatever slogans they want. Anything else would be unfair both to the parties themselves and, at least as importantly, to the voters.
3. UNFAIR: Specifically in the case of the MB, this has been their slogan for decades, it is associated with them, and forbidding them from using it would be robbing them of a phrase they have built a lot of recognition around. Simply unfair and rationally unsupportable. You may or may not want them in power, but that is irrelevant. The only fair way to ensure they do not get into power is to more successfully present the public with something better.
4. WHAT IS THE REAL ALTERNATIVE? What would you rather do? Push those who would use religion-based slogans under the rug or into detention camps a la NDP? Do you really want to go there? I don't. Any attempt to regulate through censorship is bound to produce a black market.

Of course there are many arguments against allowing the use of religion-based slogans. Here is why I believe these arguments are weak at best and just plain false at worse:

1. If we allow "Islam is the Solution", we open the door to "Christianity or Judaism is the Solution": Of course we do, and we should argue just as strongly for allowing any party to use either of these two and let the people pick what they want. And if indeed the people do want the party raising "Christianity is the Solution" or "Judaism is the Solution" then that's what the people should get.
2. We should not mix religion and politics: That is ONE point of view, maybe yours, maybe mine, but certainly not everybody's. Nobody has the right to decide for everybody what should and should not be allowed into politics. For many Egyptians (we'll find out just how many after the elections) politics and religion SHOULD be mixed, in fact, for many Egyptians, politics is just one more element under the umbrella of religion and religion is an integral component of political belief. Many for example, would not want an atheist president. Who are you and I to decide otherwise for them?
3. Using religion in politics is like blackmail, vote for me you go to heaven, don't and you go to hell: This argument comes up in various forms including "these parties are fooling people through using religion in their campaigns" or "religion is different, people are sensitive" or "simple people will be drawn towards these parties without thinking" etc.. all of which assume a degree of stupidity and naivety in our population which I reject completely. It is arrogant to assume you and I know what is best for them. People know that there is no party which holds the keys to heaven or can close the gates of hell. 
4. Nobody has the right to monopolize Islam: I completely agree and in fact this is one of the slightly better arguments, BUT it is still rather weak. Reason being that parties which say "Democracy is the solution" or "Secularism is best" or "Communism is the way out" don't (and don't claim to) have a monopoly on democracy or secularism or communism, do they? Nobody claims they have a monopoly on anything! All they are saying is "This is what we believe", NOT "this is what we believe and we are the only ones who believe it"!
5. These people are just using this slogan to attract voters, but they have no real programs: IMHO this is a completely different discussion. Whether or not a party has a solid program is irrelevant to the discussion on whether or not they may use religion-based slogans. To the promoters of this argument, I would recommend you challenge parties on their programs, not their slogans!
6. If they fail, it will be seen as a failure of Islam: Rubbish! Do we all think Saudi Arabia or Iran or the Vatican are successful or unsuccessful BECAUSE they are (ostensibly) religion-based states? NO, of course not! Whether they fail or succeed is related to how they run their programs. Again, the people of Egypt are not so stupid or naive as to believe that should the MB (or other religion-based groups and parties) fail, that means there is something wrong with the religion itself! Does North Korea's failure as a state mean that communism and atheism can never be successful? NO! Does the current world economic crisis mean capitalism is doomed? NO!

So what's my reco?

Let parties use whatever slogans they want, religion-based, ideology-based, even gender-based and social-class based. If someone wants to run as the defender of the poor or the carrier of women's rights or the Jewish candidate or the one who will ensure Christians get their rights, then let them. If they perform, the people will re-elect them, if not, they will be ousted.

Life at Label Level

Can you tell me which party or political group would propose the following vision for the Egypt of the future?

1. A Government 

• Where the legislative, judiciary and executive (I would add media) arms are well-separated and completely independent
• Which views itself as a provider of services to the people and not the LORD OF THE LAND
• Where there is accountability for actions
• Which is representative of all Egyptians through a fair and free election process
• Where torture and detainment without charge are certainly not encouraged and not even condoned
• Whose objective is the country and people's prosperity and not the maintenance of a status quo
• Whose ministries have clear objectives, strategies to achieve these objectives and their performance is measured against these achievements

2. A President

• With significantly reduced authorities
• Who is non-corrupt, does not espouse nepotism and does not treat the country and its citizens like his fiefdom and the farmers inhabiting it
• Who can be held accountable
• Who will be changed in four or eight years
• Whose son has no political ambitions

3. An Economic Environment

• Which promotes productivity, creativity, efficiency and competitiveness
• Where the less successful are not marginalized
• Where free enterprise is encouraged but regulated
• Which is sustainable and not standing on one (tourism) or two (add Suez Canal) or three (add real estate or natural gas) rickety pillars

4. Relation between Police and Population

• Where both parties respect the rule of law
• Which reflects mutual respect rather than fear on one side and disdain on the other
• Where the motto "protect and serve" is real and moves beyond the sign on the police station and into the street
• When your son or daughter can look at a policeman and think of him as someone who can help, not someone to be afraid of
• Which moves away from the auditor-victim dynamic to a public servant-public dynamic

5. An Army

• Whose sole responsibilities are protecting the country from aggression and ensuring we have a qualitative and quantitative edge over potential enemies
• Which is not involved in business, road-building, gas cooker manufacturing or other forms of profiteering
• Which is completely neutral/neutered politically
• Which gets its directions from the government and is just one more tool in the hands of the state, which is in the hands of the people
• Which we can all believe is nationalist, non-corrupt and incorruptible
• Which is loved and respected, not feared and mistrusted

6. A Social Environment

• Where people have freedom and respect for that freedom
• Where our values and traditions and religions are respected 
• Where being veiled is not viewed as a sign of religious constipation and being unveiled is not a sign of moral looseness (and a million other examples here)
• Where Christians are TRULY an identical member of society to Muslims, except they pray in a different place
• Where at school kids are taught and raised, where values are supported not destroyed, where they have a class in civics and another in human rights

So back to the question. Can you tell me whose program this is? Which party wants Egypt to look like this?

You can't? Of course you can't, and neither could I, because this is the Egypt we ALL want!

So what's the point?

The point is that in addition to rolling alliteratively off the tongue, the title Life at Label Level, has -in Kissinger's words - the added benefit of being the truth. 

We, here in Egypt, have successfully, miraculously, now reduced intelligent conversation to the Level of Label. 

Liberal, Islamist, communist, revolutionary, Facebook kid, intellectual, the poor, political activist etc...etc....ad nauseum. Some go a tiny step forward and add a tag to the label, yielding: Islamist - will close pubs and force women to wear the veil; Liberal: will allow gay marriages and cancel Article 2 of our constitution   communist: will kill private investment and return us to the dark ages (this bit also applies to Islamists); revolutionary: is ruining the economy through endless demonstrations; Facebook kids: a bunch of spoiled pansies who would do well to get a real job; intellectuals: anyone with a PhD even if their dissertation covered the living conditions of coal-miners in Poland during the industrial revolution; the poor: anyone not dressed nicely and/or not owning two cars; political activist: your guess is as good as mine.

The problem is this moves us in the EXACT opposite direction to the one we need to be moving in. 

Towards splintering and away from unity. 

And to my mind that is the biggest danger of all. We all suddenly become experts on everything simply because we know all the labels, and whoever is labelled differently to me, is an opponent. And so liberals don't like Islamists who dislike them back; "real" revolutionaries don't think much of the Facebook kids who in turn deride them etc.

And so instead of a populace united behind a single objective we get broken up into all these tiny fragmented sub-groups each of which believes it knows everything there is to know about the rest, so much so, we don't even need to talk to each other anymore. Isn't he an Islamist? Well, it's a waste of time talking to someone who wants to force women to wear the veil! Isn't she a Facebook kid? Useless conversation, she needs some Tahreer-time before we can have a meaningful discussion. And so on and so forth.

But the reality, the truth, and you really don't need to scratch the surface all that hard to get at it, is that we all have an almost identical picture of how we want Egypt to be. The similarities between visions are so many and cover such wide ground, that the differences fade into proverbial insignificance.

Anybody with any experience in just about anything can tell you, you have a vision first (and all the lists above are vision-level stuff), BEFORE the details of implementation. We can discuss those a leisure, but we cannot afford the leisure of waiting for an agreement on vision, otherwise alternative visions, none of which will be to our liking will come forth.

So again, what's the point? 

The point is please remove the blinders and ear-plugs, look, listen, communicate, discuss, seek points of agreement and before you stick a label on a box and neatly compartmentalize our country and countrymen and women into ridiculously simplistic groups, make sure you really know what their concepts, ideas and goals are. I'll bet you ten to one, they are more similar to your own than you ever imagined.