As the world watched, millions of Egyptians engaged in an eighteen-day democratic revolution. For those of us fortunate enough to live in the United States, there are five lessons to be learned from the insurrection in Egypt.
Democracy remains the world's most precious commodity. The Egyptian revolution was a spontaneous uprising of millions of ordinary people yearning for democracy; a movement no doubt inspired by U.S. history. We should take pride in the fact that America has become a beacon of light to billions throughout the world who yearn for freedoms that many of us take for granted.
Nonetheless, we should remember that democracy is hard work. Winston Churchill famously observed, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The struggles of the Egyptian people remind us how precious U.S. democracy is, how fortunate we are to live in America, and the reality that an effective civil society requires our active involvement.
It helps to have a job. While the Egyptian revolution involved specific political complaints, such as the lifting of martial law, there was a significant economic component. The Egyptians who took to the streets yearned for opportunity as well as freedom; they wanted a better life for themselves and their families. Under dictator Mubarak, many Egyptians, particularly young people felt they were trapped in a dead-end existence. Unemployment was high (more than 10 percent) and most educated young Egyptians who could not find meaningful work.
The insurrection should remind Americans that a vital democracy also provides economic opportunity. In addition to the right of free speech and assembly, and the other civil rights that we hold dear, there are important economic rights the U.S. needs to pay more attention to: the right to hold a decent job paying a living wage, to work in a safe environment, and to organize and join unions; as well as the right to adequate education, housing, and health care.
The new technology has reshaped the face of protest. A lot of attention has been paid to the key role of Facebook in the Egyptian revolution, but in general the eighteen-day protest demonstrated that, over the past thirty years, developments in information technology -- the Internet, satellite TV, and mobile phones -- have made the world a global community and thereby facilitated democratic protest.
At an early stage of the Egyptian revolution, the Mubarak government tried to snuff dissent by turning off the Internet, restricting cell phone traffic, and beating up foreign journalists. The fact that this didn't work is a testimony to the bravery of the protestors and reporters, and the robustness of the new media. (By the way, shutting down the Internet turned off Facebook but had the side affect of blocking most forms of Egyptian commerce.)
The free-flow of communication is a precursor to democracy. The new technology not only makes global communication easier, but also protest.
Nonviolence works. Except for the actions of Mubarak's thugs, the Egyptian democratic revolution was nonviolent. It was another reminder that nonviolence is the most effect method for producing lasting social change.
During the sixties, Martin Luther King Jr. was a powerful advocate of nonviolence and his leadership caused the Civil Rights movement to both accomplish its short-term objectives and produce lasting change in American society. Just before his untimely death, Dr. King shifted his focus from the problem of racial injustice to economic injustice; he was convinced the US democracy would not flourish if workers did not have good jobs and benefits. Sadly, the problem of economic injustice remains and should become the focus of a new nonviolent American social movement.
These weren't the people we were warned us about. Mohamed Atta, a key leader of the 9/11 attacks was an Egyptian citizen, as was the Al Qaeda second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a consequence, some commentators lumped Egyptians with "Arabs" and "Muslims" and branded them as terrorists. We were told that they hated Americans, hated our freedoms.
There may have been terrorists participating in the Egyptian revolution but, in general, the protestors didn't look like the folks we have been warned about. The protestors seemed a remarkably diverse group: old and young, men and women, religious and secular, urban and rural. For the most part, they looked remarkably like Americans taking to the streets in the defense of their liberties.
We didn't hear a lot of "we hate America" rhetoric from the protestors. To the contrary, the general impression Americans got was that Egyptians would like to be more like us, they would like to have the democracy that we so often take for granted.
The Egyptian revolution was incredibly heartening. Hopefully, it will remind Americans that we live in a country that serves as a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. And, that we need to take steps to clean up our own act, to ensure that democracy remains a reality for everyone in the United States.
We used to.
Democracy is fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed.
Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the east European dictators, until the allegiance became impossible. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was forgotten. That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo-hwan, Suharto and many other useful dictators.
Which is a greater threat? Rradical Islam or Democracy in Muslim countries? American political admin think that democracy must be opposed in order to contain radical Islam. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence.
The US and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.
A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological centre of radical Islam . Was not Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan's dictators a good friend of President Reagan. And so were the Talibans. Zia carried out a programme of radical Islamisation with American backing. Why did the US support Zia and the Talibans and Bin Laden?
Washington provides more aids(bribes) to countries ruled by dictators such as Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Columbia etc and democracies do not deserve such generous financial aid. Why?
Democracy is okay as long as the rulers submit to the US.
["What Can Americans Learn From Egypt? "]
Facebook/Twitter populist anarchy can overthrow a corrupt government????
.
to read "The Yacoubian Building ". The worlds biggest selling Arabic novel.
Google it.
The egyptians are unified and committed to their cause...who does that remind me of? Oh, yeah, the right-wing c.h.rist ian fundamentalists.
Peter Clifford
www.petercliffordonline.com
populist anarchy can overthrow a regime--
it remains yet to be seen whether it is capable
of building a better one.
a stable democracy for any large country
can only result from an evolutionary process,
with a lot of mis-steps along the way.
History has nowhere demonstrated
that it can be instantly and successfully instituted
by any form of revolutionary process.
.
Really! Such simplistic hyperbole! I would expect such sophistry from a High School textbook rather than in a presentation which is as serious as this, written for adults who happen to have minds of their own.
America is not, nor was it ever the (sole) "beacon of light" to billions. Certainly not for the poor wretches who have had the disastrous geographic misfortune to live in those countries that America found it strategically advantageous to establish authoritarian dictatorship and police states in. Like Egypt and Bahrain, for example.
Power is shifting from America to other rising superpowers. India, China for example. Nations whose populations and industrial potential dwarf all other nations. This tectonic power shift is the underlying reason that the vassal states in the Arab world are breaking free from their position of subjugation. America lacks both the power and influence to retain them. When the real fiscal crisis hits, and the nations leaders are compelled to dramatically cut spending. Including deep cuts to the military - then the world will be unrecognizable. Soon enough, even the traditional Allies, European states will drift away and reassert their independence in a way we have not seen before.
America remains a cultural superpower, but that too will wane in the long term. Such change is inevitable. All empires fall.
"The difference with a dream, as articulated by Martin Luther King, is that you strive towards it. You live within an illusion. And that illusion of who we are, where we’re going and what we can become is… there’s a wider and wider gap between that and the reality. And the problem with living within illusions is that it allows you to perpetuate a kind of eternal infantilism… childishness, where reality is never an impediment to what I want. But as the walls break down, when it’s your house that is foreclosed, when your job and your neighbor’s job are not coming back, when you go bankrupt for your medical bills, then you react as a child. Which is to call for a savior, a demagogue, someone who promises moral renewal, vengeance and new glory. And we are already seeing these proto-fascist movements leaping up around the fringes of American society. And this is because our empire is imploding. It, itself, is an illusion,. If we don’t face that illusion, we’re finished. ."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v66HM5ILiwk&feature=player_embedded
And ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDp8TnY3IsA
come back to bed buddy, it is getting cold!
how is it that:
["Under dictator Mubarak, many Egyptians, particularly young people felt they were trapped in a dead-end existence. Unemployment was high (more than 10 percent) and most educated young Egyptians who could not find meaningful work."]
is starting sound so at-home familar????
.
Oh...you mean the electoral college????
maybe we should adapt the 13th century Venetian electoral process ???
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_of_Venice
it is of some interest that :
"The doges normally ruled for life (although a few were forcibly removed from office). After a doge's death, a commission of inquisitori passed judgment upon his acts, and his estate was liable to be fined for any discovered malfeasance."
.
.