At a news conference for the Wafaq political party, MP Jasim Husain Ali called for an investigation into the military crack down that resulted in the deaths of several protesters.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur talked to Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi about his new article on Wall Street and the revolving door preventing any of them from being prosecuted — Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail? : Financial crooks brought down the world’s economy — but the feds are doing more to protect them than to prosecute them Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer. “Everything’s f**ked up, and nobody goes to jail,” he said. “That’s your whole story right there. Hell, you don’t even have to write the rest of it. Just write that.” I put down my notebook. “Just that?” “That’s right,” he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. “Everything’s f**ked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there.” Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people. Read on…
Continue reading …
In the weeks following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) there was a constant media barrage dishonestly contending liberals never use violent rhetoric or imagery. As Wisconsin's Republican Governor Scott Walker tries to balance his state's budget with a bold move limiting the collective bargaining rights of public employees, the Left have come out in force dispelling the myth that only the Right uses harsh tones to make its point (video follows with commentary): As the Associated Press reported moments ago, “Protesters clogged the hallways of the Wisconsin state Capitol on Thursday as the Senate prepared to pass a momentous bill that would strip government workers, including school teachers, of nearly all collective bargaining rights.” Many of these demonstrations have been organized by the various unions inside Wisconsin that are against the Governor's proposal. “The head of the 98,000-member statewide teachers union called on all Wisconsin residents to come to the Capitol on Thursday for the votes in the Senate and Assembly.” But here's the truth of the matter: In addition to eliminating collective bargaining rights, the legislation also would make public workers pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage — increases Walker calls “modest” compared with those in the private sector. Republican leaders said they expected Wisconsin residents would be pleased with the changes and that the bill was about saving money. The union concessions would save the state $30 million by July 1 and $300 million over the next two years to address a $3.6 billion budget shortfall. Under Walker's plan, state employees' share of pension and health care costs would go up by an average of 8 percent. Unions still could represent workers, but could not seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized. In exchange for bearing more costs and losing bargaining leverage, public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs. Walker has threatened to order layoffs of up to 6,000 state workers if the measure does not pass. So, instead of the state having to layoff thousands of employees, it is asking for what most would consider modest increases to their health insurance costs, an increase to their share of pension contributions, and to tie future pay increases to inflation unless the voters approved more. And for this Walker is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler. The reality is that states across the country are virtually all facing similar choices as union-negotiated benefits to public employees have become absolutely impossible to fund. It is a metaphysical certitude that any proposals reducing said benefits in order to balance budgets will be greeted by the type of protests happening in Wisconsin at this very moment. With that in mind, please remember the video above the next time some media member dishonestly claims only conservatives use violent rhetoric or imagery to advance their agenda. (H/T Sean Hackbarth )
Continue reading …
In 2005, Hosni Mubarak was sworn in for a fifth term in office. In the run up to Egypt’s first ever multi-party election, Mubarak promised sweeping reforms to deliver a better life and more democracy for his people. So in September 2008, Nashwa Nasreldin went to Cairo to find out.where the country politically stands.
Continue reading …
enlarge Oh, look. Rep. Darrell Issa’s going after Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad: WASHINGTON. D.C. – In December of 2008, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), then the Committee’s Ranking Member, launched an investigation into Countrywide Financial Corporation’s infamous VIP and Friends of Angelo Program that exposed the inner workings of Countrywide’s efforts to buy friends in critical government and industry positions affecting the company’s business interests. Today, Chairman Issa issued a wide-ranging subpoena to Bank of America for all documents and records related to Countrywide’s VIP program. “Countrywide orchestrated a deliberate and calculated effort to use relationships with people in high places in order to manipulate public policy and further their bottom line to the detriment of the American taxpayers even at the expense of its own lending standards,” said Issa. “This subpoena will allow us to obtain the information needed to answer the outstanding public interest questions regarding the full size and scope of the VIP program. The American people have a right to know the totality of who participated in the Countrywide’s VIP program and what they did in return for access to it. Our role is to get all of the facts so that the American people can judge for themselves who should be held responsible and accountable.” The subpoena compels Bank of America to produce the following by noon on March 7, 2011: All documents, including emails, related to covered borrowers serviced by Countrywide Financial through the Branch 850 and/or VIP and/or Friends of Angelo program. All documents, including e-mails, transmitted by Countrywide officials notifying a covered borrower of membership in the VIP and/or Friends of Angelo program. All documents, including e-mails, transmitted between and among Countrywide officials discussing the purposes and goals of the VIP and/or Friends of Angelo program. Documents sufficient to show the number of persons enrolled in the VIP and/or Friends of Angelo program for each of calendar years 1996-2008, and the city and state of residence of such persons who were covered borrowers. The term “covered borrowers” means at the time of the loan the borrower, or their spouse, was: A current or former officer or employee of a federal agency A current or former Member, officer, or employee of the U.S. Congress A current or former officer or employee of a government-sponsored enterprise A current or former officer or employee of a state or local government
Continue reading …
Some blame the CBS reporter for her assault; others condemn Egypt as a society of sexual violence. Neither is the real problem Most people, regardless of political affiliation, reacted with simple horror and sympathy to the news that journalist Lara Logan had been sexually assaulted by a mob that took advantage of the tight-packed conditions in Tahrir Square during the post-Mubarak celebrations, which Logan was covering for CBS. Unfortunately, as anti-rape activists could have told you, there’s no such thing as a sex crime too brutal that some folks won’t try to use it for political score-keeping. In this case, rightwingers who have an interest in stoking fear and loathing of Muslims worldwide pounced at the opportunity to smear all Egyptians with this crime. Popular rightwing bloggers Debbie Schlussel , Robert Stacy McCain , and Sister Toldja were among those who immediately used the attack to reinforce their anti-Muslim, anti-revolution arguments. But the real cause of sex crime is power, and its abuse, and that is a problem in all the nations on this planet. While the reaction was entirely predictable, it should be resisted. Not to cover up or deny that sexual violence is a very real problem in Egypt, which is notorious for its high levels of street harassment , but because it’s wrong to blame Egypt for this and pretend that it isn’t a worldwide phenomenon that crosses cultural and religious boundaries. If street harassment and sexual assault in a culture precludes the people having a right to self-government, then there is no nation on the planet that can be a democracy. In her otherwise good response to this tragedy, the Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri does regrettably also give the “us v them” narrative some juice, arguing that in the United States, unlike Egypt, women can walk the streets “unmolested”. But the very website she uses correctly to identify the problem of street harassment in Egypt also has studies that show up to 100% of American women suffer street harassment, as well. It’s not uncommon in the US for groups of men to take jubilatory occasions and crowds as permission to sexually assault and rape women, either. Such attacks occur at college parties , high school dances and rock concerts , usually with a crowd of onlookers who don’t intervene, as happened with Logan until the army and a group of women saved her. The response from some quarters in the US should quell any notion that we’ve somehow grown past our issues with sexual violence that still plague Egypt. This attack also proved that there’s apparently no sexual assault so brutal and no victim so clearly innocent that some people won’t find an excuse to suggest the victim “had it coming”. Journalist Nir Rosen used this as an occasion to complain that Logan will somehow be basking in the attention – as if there’s a human alive who wants to be remembered for crime that is basically about humiliating, if not destroying, the victim. ( Following an outcry about his remarks , Rosen has resigned his post as a fellow at the New York University centre for law and security.) But another blogger, theblogprof, objectified Logan in an attempt to blame CBS for allowing pretty female journalists to take the important assignments. The Gateway Pundit went the same route , suggesting that the response to sexual assault should be to institute formal discrimination against female journalists, keeping them at home and restricting their possibilities for raises and promotion. In other words, men use sexual violence to put women in their place, and then a chorus of voices rises to blame women who get attacked for not knowing their place. Sadly, it wasn’t just rightwing channels that used this as an opportunity to call for more limits on women’s freedoms and opportunity. Simone Wilson of LA Weekly pounced to cast aspersions on Logan’s professionalism and to imply she asked for it by taking tough assignments. As feminists have forever said, sexual violence is a crime of power, committed to control and intimidate women. When people react to sexual assault and rape by suggesting women brought it on themselves, they finish the job the attacker started. It’s sad to say that the assault on Lara Logan didn’t end when she was rescued in Egypt, and to note that it’s now being expanded as an assault on all women who have ambitions, or who are willing to be out in public while looking attractive. This response to Logan’s attack should make it clear that the US and Egypt differ on the issue of sexual violence perhaps only in degree but not in kind. That there are differences in degree between cultures should tell us that sexual violence is not inevitable, that it can be curbed and even stopped – and we should never write men off as animals who cannot be expected to control themselves. CBS Egypt US television Protest United States Rape Women Gender Feminism Middle East Amanda Marcotte guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
To me, the real story on HBGary Federal is the ease with which the security consultancy was hacked and exposed. The company’s sinister proposals — using fake documents to attack enemies of the Chamber of Commerce, outing members of Anonymous, and targeting Glenn Greenwald’s career — seem all the more craven and stark against the incredible incompetence of HBGary executive staff . Peter Bright interviewed members of Anonymous, the hacktivist social network behind WikiLeaks, for Ars Technica: When Barr told one of those he believed to be an Anonymous ringleader about his forthcoming exposé, the Anonymous response was swift and humiliating . HBGary’s servers were broken into, its e-mails pillaged and published to the world, its data destroyed , and its website defaced . As an added bonus, a second site owned and operated by Greg Hoglund, owner of HBGary, was taken offline and the user registration database published . Alas, two HBGary Federal employees—CEO Aaron Barr and COO Ted Vera—used passwords that were very simple ; each was just six lower case letters and two numbers. Such simple combinations are likely to be found in any respectable rainbow table, and so it was that their passwords were trivially compromised . (Emphasis mine) That’s an Alabama ass-whoopin’, and it means we can stop paying hyper-attention to Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Both are less important, interesting, or consequential than Anonymous. WikiLeaks is not a person; it is a network, and one whose members see themselves as the Alderaan Death Legion of internet freedom. Much more after the jump… It is not an exaggeration to say that Anonymous is well-armed for virtual warfare. During “brute force” DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks, Anonymous uses a botnet weapon called ” Low Orbit Ion Cannon ” (LOIC): The idea behind LOIC is that it can allow you to participate in attacks even if you’ve no clue how to hack. Just download a copy of LOIC (available for Windows, Mac, and Linux!), punch in the target information like a URL or an IP address and zap . (Emphasis mine) The WikiLeaks website has proven amorphous and impossible to kill, spreading itself farther out into the internet with each attack — and replying in kind. PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, and Amazon have each paid a price for their cooperation against WikiLeaks when Anonymous trained LOIC on their websites and fired for effect. Note that LOIC is a free download. Targeting consists of typing or pasting a site’s URL. The trigger is a mouse click. Of course, any download from 4chan is a dubious proposition; I am not advising or inviting readers to participate in hacktivism — you are warned. But such acts of resistance are so simple, so democratic in origin, that they are impossible to stop. You can arrest Julian Assange if you want; it makes no difference to Anonymous. At the height of last December’s DDoS attacks, the Guardian talked to (a) 22-year-old spokesman, who wished to be known only as “Coldblood”, (who) told the Guardian that the group – which is about a thousand strong – is “ quite a loose band of people who share the same kind of ideals ” and wish to be a force for “chaotic good” . There is no real command structure in the group, the London-based spokesman said, while most of its members are teenagers who are “trying to make an impact on what happens with the limited knowledge they have”. But others are parents, IT professionals and people who happen to have time – and resources – on their hands. (Emphasis mine) In other words, this snake has no head. It isn’t even a snake; Anonymous is more like a cloud. Except to invite the pantsing his firm received from nerdy Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts*, Aaron Barr’s threat was pointless. If it seems like you’ve watched this movie, that’s because you have: the first virtual conflict of state and non-state to gain worldwide attention follows a script only fanboys could love. I am not sure anyone in the White House gets this. No longer free to surf the internet on his Blackberry, the president resides in a purpose-built bubble . As I imagine the scenario, uniforms and suits told the president that WikiLeaks was a threat to American security; at no time did anyone say, “Mr. President, the Anonymous hacktivists have a low-orbit ion cannon.” Knowing little about DDoS attacks and even less about Anonymous, the president authorized action without realizing that he had effectively declared war on the internet. All the rest of this story follows from that beginning, though the virtual ion cannon ‘casualties’ have so far not included a single federal agency. It is a truism among progressives that “War is a Lie,” to quote the book title by David Swanson. As far as state-on-state conflict, Swanson is certainly correct, though I would counter that mankind has been practicing homicidal conflict since before there were states. War is a cultural phenomenon, too (the “Lethal Custom,” as Gwynne Dyer calls it), and we could have no better example than the WikiLeaks story. It is a virtual fight between a culture of crusading coders and a culture of power and secrecy. Indeed, said culture is larger than one man, or even one organization. HBGary, a firm with deep federal ties , proposed attacks on WikiLeaks to Bank of America , which is still facing an eventual release of CEO emails by WikiLeaks. Dating from the bailout period, when BOA swallowed Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, those documents may prove very consequential — even criminal. They may reveal how the bank came to be sued by the Attorneys General of all 50 states over fraudulent foreclosures, for instance. Little wonder the bank is afraid; and in a classic turn, HBGary saw an opportunity to capitalize on their fear. Maybe everyone in this story deserves what they’re getting? Maybe the sound you hear is oligarchy screaming? * Full disclosure: my half-ogre paladin will smite unbelievers with his +5 Holy Avenger maul so be careful what you say about him in the comments.
Continue reading …
Demographics, technology, foreign policy, legitimacy of the state, torture, corruption and other factors all played a part in bringing discontented Egyptians out on the streets When interpreting something like the Egyptian upheaval, people tend to project their own passions on to the screen. The twitterati see a social media revolution, the foodies see food price hikes at its core, others see a hunger for democratisation, human rights groups see a backlash against routine torture and abuse. So I thought I’d try to pull together and categorise the full range of different “drivers of change” involved in bringing about a revolution. First, consider the demographics: an explosive mix of high population growth, leading to a “youth bulge”, combined with urbanisation, jobless growth partly linked to structural adjustment, and the rapid expansion of university education has produced what the BBC’s Paul Mason calls ” a new sociological type , the graduate with no future”. Two-thirds of Egyptians are under 30, and each year 700,000 new graduates chase 200,000 new jobs. Then there’s the technology. Although I instinctively share Malcolm Gladwell’s scepticism on this, social media (and new old media like al-Jazeera) have clearly played an important part. Ranil Dissanayake on Aid Thoughts writes: “… the ordinariness of how it [demonstration] starts was quickly made apparent to people across the world through the media but also through social networking (and this could be the real impact of FB [Facebook] and Twitter, rather than any organisational function – they emphasised that demonstration and revolution were being undertaken by ordinary people, demystifying the process).” Egypt’s foreign policy has also been an important factor – divorced from public opinion for many years, particularly on Israel and Palestine. According to Oxfam’s Cairo-based Adam Taylor-Awny, this cemented the feeling that the government was a US puppet government and delegitimised it in many eyes. The erosion of legitimacy went much deeper than foreign policy, though. An increasingly sclerotic state plus an ageing president have produced a threefold institutional deficit summarised by Sufyan Alissa in a 2007 paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as “institutions that influence the work of the bureaucracy, institutions that shape politicians’ behaviour by punishing or rewarding certain types of behaviour – influencing the accountability and transparency of politicians – and institutions that widen political space and participation for Egyptian citizens”. That sclerosis undermined the state’s legitimacy and made it unable to respond quickly and effectively to the rising tide of protests. At a more visceral level, the routine and growing presence of torture and corruption became the common enemy that bound protesters together across classes. And the army, which appears to have emerged with its reputation enhanced (at least so far), failed to back the president, while Washington’s confusion and contradictory messages reduced its influence. But various other events brought deeper rumblings to the surface. The most celebrated event of the protests (other than the overthrow of two presidents and counting) was of course the sacrifice of Mohammed Bouazizi , the Tunisian street vendor whose self immolation sparked Tunisia’s Jasmine revolution, and the ensuing domino effect across the Arab world. Others include the impact of the WikiLeaks revelations that US diplomats saw Tunisia as a “mafia state” run by President Ben Ali and his hated wife, Leila Trabelsi – did that weaken elite support for Ben Ali? And how did all these factors interact? What were the pathways and dynamics of change? The most striking aspect is path dependency – how a sequence of events and actions were able to overcome the deep-rooted (and well-justified) fear of potential protesters, getting enough people onto the streets to give them a degree of immunity. In Egypt, small groups put on simultaneous “flash mob” demonstrations in numerous locations, outmanoeuvring the security forces in a new kind of urban, social media-driven guerilla protest. Finally, protesters used humour – a weapon that always seems to baffle autocrats. I’m left with lots of questions, of course: what was the level of “granularity” of the protest movement (mass movements are almost never entirely homogeneous, but “lumpy”, with smaller, more durable building blocks such as workers and farmers organisations, mosques, youth groups, etc)? According to Oxfam’s Ihab El-Sakkout: “The vast majority of the demonstrators were at quite a distance from any organised activist group. On the other hand, the fact that some of the protestors were parts of organised groups played an important role at critical points. The example that best springs to mind is on 2 and 3 February, when the protestors were attacked viciously by regime thugs – the Muslim Brotherhood and organised football fan groups … played a key role in defending [Tahrir] Square, which helped to turn those in the square from a mass of individuals into a cohesive group able to defend itself.” What degree of interaction did the protest movement have with factions of the political or business elite? What was the gender breakdown of the protests – men seemed to dominate the TV images (El-Sakkout guesstimates the proportion of the women in the protests at 10%-15%, which may well be high by the region’s historical standards). And of course, the biggest question of all: what happens next? I’d particularly welcome two kinds of comments: what’s missing from this analysis and what do you think of the framework – does it add anything and how can it be improved? Egypt Middle East Protest Tunisia Duncan Green guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
After Tunisia and Egypt, we Libyans once more have the courage to demand our rights – and voice our dreams Two months ago, the mere thought of freedom was out of the question in Libya. But today, the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have sowed the hope of freedom in the hearts of each and every one of us. For us Libyans, Egypt showed that what happened in Tunisia was not an exception, or something that cannot be repeated. The people who said “Egypt is not going to be another Tunisia” were proved wrong. Watching these epics made us believe that happy endings can happen beyond cinema screens, and that low-quality video clips published on Facebook showing events in the streets and the spontaneous words of demonstrators can have a deeper impact than the most influential works of Hollywood. Shortly after Hosni Mubarak resigned, I said to an Egyptian friend of mine that the most beautiful thing the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions have given us is the return of the courage to dream and speak out about our dreams and our rights without being ridiculed as if we are tilting at windmills. This is what the Libyan people are doing now; today, 17 February, is the Libyan ” day of anger “. It coincides with the anniversary of what started as a peaceful demonstration in 2006 being met with various forms of repression, including live bullets and tear gas. The Libyan youth have chosen this day to express their anger and demand their rights, despite the very real threat of violence. The Libyan regime has tried to preempt these protests to salvage anything that can be salvaged and to discourage Libyan youth. The regime, after all, has the best knowledge of the deteriorating conditions of Libyans and their lost rights. These lost rights include the lack of freedom of expression and are coupled with deteriorating living conditions, high unemployment rates among young people, and the spread of all forms of government corruption such as bribery, nepotism, negligence and ineptitude. The police are corrupt, the health service is corrupt, the education system is corrupt. The government is aware of these issues, and it knows it caused them, which is why it is taking desperate measures to protect itself, instead of announcing its intention to take real measures for reform. How deceitful! The measures the government has taken are regarded by many observers, including many young people, as insufficient for their ambitions and dreams of reform. The regime’s decision to distribute loans to young people did not receive much attention, especially because every Libyan knows that these loans will eventually be in the hands of those in power and their relatives. This is why young people went out to protest on Wednesday in many Libyan cities, mostly in eastern Libya, to tell the government that from this day on, you have to fear your people and not the opposite. We heard the unfolding news of clashes between anti-regime demonstrators on one side and supporters of the regime and security forces on the other. When I went out on Wednesday morning and wandered the streets of Tripoli, I noticed the heavy presence of various police forces, and also the demonstrations of some regime supporters, who – as rumour has it – are paid to go out in small-scale demonstrations and shout obsolete hypocritical slogans. Some of them put pictures of Gaddafi on their cars and roamed the city with scant regard for other drivers, as they not only disrespect the law but consider themselves to be the law itself. I, as a humble young Libyan, tell the Libyan government that the Libyan youth are not naive and will not be fooled by promises of food and drink because man does not live by bread alone. The Libyan government has to take the right path for the first time: protect the country from ruin, embark on real reform, and give the people their freedom and rights. • This article was commissioned in co-operation with Meedan . Arab and Middle East protests Libya Protest Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Tunisia Egypt Muhammad min Libya guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The uprisings in the Middle East have shown that viable political opposition is no longer the preserve of Islamists alone The question: Is Islamism dying? It is likely that the political futures of both Tunisia and Egypt will involve Islamist parties participating in formal politics in some capacity. Regimes in both countries have long evoked such a spectre in order to purchase silence and support from overseas in favour of their own continued rule. The current uprisings will not herald the demise of Islamism in the short term, but nor will they usher in an era of theocratic rule. In fact, events have made clear for all to see that there exists an alternative both to the Islamists and to their ruling antagonists: the general will. In the longer term, Islamists of all kinds – militant and electoral – are likely to emerge weakened from the current contestation. For over 80 years, Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood have formed part of the political landscape in the Middle East. Such organisations have served as a long-time opposition to the ruling regimes, and have survived pressures far worse than the end of a particular dictator’s rule. Yet for many supporters of Islamist parties, the parties’ appeal lies precisely in their status in dissenting from the ruling regimes. The culture of brutality that saturated the Mubarak and Ben Ali regimes, the corruption and graft that characterised their rule from the macro to micro level, and the frustration at their failure to provide for their subjects have all served as recruiting sergeants for Islamist parties. That the recent contestation across the Arab world has been over these issues but has not been led by Islamist parties shows that viable opposition is not the preserve of Islamists and Islamism alone. There is clearly another way. Those who are disaffected with the status quo do not have to turn to Islamism as the only viable and credible channel for dissent. Such a perceived monopoly over dissent has ended, but this is not something that has been changed by the recent protests. Rather, it is something that has been proved by them. It is often said that parties oppose in poetry and govern in prose. In Egypt, the Brotherhood – long referred to by the regime simply as “the proscribed organisation” – has now been explicitly named in state media as a party that the regime is talking to. Any future involvement of Islamists in formal politics is likely to bring new challenges for them. It is far easier, from this perspective, for them to criticise the status quo than to implement constructive change. Previous experiences where Islamist parties have been allowed to participate in parliamentary systems, or have seized power, have often proved detrimental to their popularity for they began to share the responsibility for governmental shortcomings. “Who ever liked a government that was ruling them?” the younger brother of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder once asked the author John Bradley. “To survive in power, they would have to make compromises, even with their deepest held principles.” The most important aspect of the recent protests is the sense of empowerment it has given to populations governed by authoritarian regimes. The coercive rule of a “strong man” is not a necessary part of the Arab political landscape, and the demonstrators have shown that they can challenge dictators and shape their own future. Compare the humiliation felt by the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq with the sense of empowerment at the Tunisian people ousting Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. Iraq was a case of a people arriving from overseas to lord it over another, whereas the Tunisian case shows a group of people taking assertive action to determine their own future. The jubilation expressed at one toppling was manufactured; at the other it was genuine. It is a sense of humiliation and powerlessness that so often inspires rejectionist forms of Islamism of the al-Qaida kind, and the recent protests are likely to serve a blow to this. Disaffected subjects need not take to the mountains when they see they can take to the streets. How events play out in either country is yet to be seen. Despite the similarities of the protestors’ demands, for various reasons Tunisia’s chances of a meaningful democracy are far higher than Egypt’s. It is not unreasonable to think that Egypt’s overseas allies consider the regime – not to be confused with its leader– to be “too big to fail”. “Failure”, in this case, would mean the risk of Egypt’s people choosing their own government, which may include Islamists. If one despot replaces another then Islamism could well flourish, since the causes of its popularity as a protest movement would remain profoundly unaddressed. On the other hand, the success of protesters in discarding despotic rulers cannot but highlight the fact that there is an activism and an ideology available to them that is an alternative to Islamism. Islam Religion Tunisia Egypt Iraq Protest Middle East Richard Phelps guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …