The Promise of the Arab Spring: In Political Development, No Gain Without Pain
I can’t say I agree with everything in here (and would love to take the time to talk about it more), but there are definitely some excellent points. For example:
Democracy does not necessarily cause or exacerbate communal and social strife and frustration, but it does allow the distrust and bitterness built up under authoritarian regimes to surface, often with lamentable results. But nostalgia for authoritarian stability is precisely the wrong response to such troubles, since it is the pathologies inherent in authoritarianism that help cause the underlying problems in the first place.
It’s more comfortable assuming an outcome than I am, but good reminder of the fallacy of linearity. And maybe a little hope.
Preventing Politics in Egypt — Why Liberals Oppose the Constitution
Secularists have taken to the streets to argue that Egypt’s new constitution, likely to be ratified this week, is an illegitimate document produced in an undemocratic process. What they really fear, however, is that normal politics will soon return to the country — setting up a fight that they know they can’t win.
things become more interesting when the question is how and not what. Specifically, how can compromise be incentivized? It seems that both sides want democracy, just their brand of it — and to be in control of it. Unfortunately, the desire to ultimately control the process seems, well, decidedly undemocratic.
Neither side in the dispute is acting democratically. Secularists have politicized the courts and used them to try to undo election results and stop the ratification of the constitution. Secular leaders have been slow in condemning the violence perpetrated by their followers in the name of revolutionary legitimacy, including the torching of offices of the Islamist Freedom and Justice Party. Morsi has overreached by issuing a decree that that not only protects the constituent assembly but puts all his decisions above the control of the courts. Even some members of his team have taken a stand against the degree, and some of its parts have now been revoked.
Food for thought.
"Syria and 'The Day After' Project"
“The new leadership must contend not only with the legacies of dictatorship, but with the immediate consequences of violence—human, social, institutional and economic—which vastly complicate, and have often overwhelmed, even the best efforts to build and consolidate democratic institutions and norms in a traumatized, post-conflict society.”
I certainly can’t help but feel that this is a well-intentioned but insufficient measure. Maybe I’m just cynical. To be sure, I’d rather see the project than not, but I feel that it’s at best a reminder of tremendous work that will need to be done — especially on more than an elite level — but at worst enabling a feeling of “having checked the box” that would be incredibly dangerous and totally untrue. “The Day After” in Syria will require more than communication between opposition forces — no matter how inclusive the group of 45 may be — and I think that something will have to take the shape of very, very wide buy-in, deal with the consequences of economic, social, and psychological trauma, and honestly address the structural factors that have enabled the horrific bloodshed to continue for so long (…and maybe something that isn’t US-implemented? Just a thought…). But maybe this will be a good start. Inshallah.
