Egyptian democracy and majority views

There are good reasons to support democracy.  For any fully functioning liberal democracy (not nonsensical "people's", "Islamic" "traditional" or other fake versions) a country needs free speech, free and independent media and for key state functions (justice/law and order) to be relatively free of corruption.  Those are all good things in and of themselves.   Free and fair elections cannot exist unless all political views can be expressed, and media outlets and options are not controlled, censored or monopolised by the state or ruling parties.   Free and fair elections also cannot exist if electoral authorities are corrupt, courts are corrupt or biased politically and most of all police and other forces of law and order are used as personal thugs by politicians.   Again, it is a good thing for the courts, police, electoral officials and the state as a whole to be politically neutral.

In that respect I like liberal democracy because with it comes some rather important foundations of a free society.

The other positive is that it gives people a peaceful means to debate and discuss politics and public policy, it provides a way to ration political power that provides A check on politicians.  I say "a" check, because it is far from adequate.  The best that can be said is that it provides a means to remove politicians from power.   Yet, without the most basic constitutional limits it is itself threatened by politicians who can be elected and abolish liberal democracy, free speech and the foundations that make it all work.  That is what happened in Germany when the Nazis got elected.   Unfettered majoritarian rule can destroy itself, let alone what it can do to the minority.

That's why advocates of freedom talk of constitutionally-limited government more than democracy.  Democracy is useful, but inadequate.  Constitutionally-limited government has a residual use for democracy to debate the role of the state within the limits of that constitution.  

So what this means for Egypt is that democracy, based on the majority will of Egyptians may not mean freedom.

Amy Peikoff points out in this article, the results of a Pew Research Center poll, conducted of Egyptians last year, paints a negative picture of this new "freedom" if politicians are elected to embrace the following:

95% prefer religion play a large role in politics.  Consider what that means for those not of the majority religion, or any religion.  A non-secular state doesn't exactly leave room for views not of the dominant religion.

84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.  This is the situation already in Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.   Nice.

82% support stoning adulterers.  Great.

54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace.   Modern.

54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified.  Comforting.

Without a constitutionally-limited government which guarantees some minimum individual rights, Egyptians wont have freedom, because so many of them want to vote away the freedoms of others.

What is astonishing are those on the left who rightfully damn the dictatorship under Mubarak, but who are completely non-chalant and don't give a thought to freedom in Egypt as long as they have some form of democracy - like Iran's witless idiot in New Zealand, a man who think if Egypt becomes an Islamist state "so what".   That's right Bomber, fuck the people who get executed for leaving Islam, fuck the people who get imprisoned for insulting Islam, fuck the people who get beaten up, imprisoned and summarily executed for political protests.  Look forward to the cheering on of a Syrian revolution as well, except that doesn't have the hated USA backing the current regime, so it doesn't really matter does it?

Egypt - Now what?

Mubarak resigns.  Millions cheer.

Iran is joyous.

Hamas says it is "beginning of the victory of the Egyptian Revolution".

I am pleased, cautiously.  I am slightly optimistic on balance.   Let's look at the overall picture.

Mubarak gained power at a critical time when Islamists had assassinated Anwar Sadat, because he made peace with Israel.   The real risk was that Egypt would fall into Islamist hands, but Hosni Mubarak took charge and maintained the status quo.  That was a good thing at a time when the USSR was actively seeking to use the Muslim world to wage war against the West and Western allies like Israel.

Egypt had already been rewarded by the US for peace with Israel in the form of aid.   However, Mubarak's first priority was to avoid another Iran.  Islamist backed terrorist actions were sporadic in the 1980s against Christian and tourist sites.  Tanzim aj-Jihad was led by Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (most recently convicted of seditious conspiracy to commit terrorism in the US and now serving a life sentence), who called for attacks on Christian Copt targets including robberies.   Israeli tourists were also targets in the 1980s and 1990s, as were foreign tourists more generally.   1993 being one of the bloodiest years with over 200 killed.   Gama'a al-Islamiya was responsible for the infamous 1997 Luxor massacre where 62 tourists were murdered by Islamists.

In short, Egypt has spent much of the past three decades under siege from within by Islamists.  Let's be clear, the Muslim Brotherhood itself has not been the instigators of these attacks, but it has not been unsympathetic.  Mubarak's regime has been authoritarian because of its response to attempts to destroy Egypt's tourist industry through terrorism.

Only blind anti-Americanism would ignore the good done by maintaining confrontation against such thugs.

Yet Mubarak himself and his cronies have been politicians, and with that comes corruption, nepotism and theft.  His family's reported wealth of US$42 billion is scandalous.  Whilst he did open the economy, it is strangled by privileges, monopolies, a sclerotic bureaucracy and a judicial/police system that is barely independent.  I say barely because it outdoes most others in the Arab world which tells you how bad it is elsewhere.

In other words, he acted as a politician.  He wielded power to benefit those he liked, took it from those he didn't, and enriched himself, his family and friends like a mafia don.  The best that can be said is that he stopped far far worse outcomes for many years.  The worst is that he ran an authoritarian state, with strict press controls (although next to none on the internet) and a rabidly cruel and random police force that would use torture and brutality against whomever it wished.  It is no excuse that he is not even in the same league as Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Hafez or Bashar Assad, or the oil rich Wahhabi royal kleptocracies.

The problem with any such authoritarian rule is that at the same time as suppressing the forces of darkness of Islamism, it suppresses legitimate criticism, public debate and discussion.  It protects the inept and incompetent.   It protects those who thieve, bully and sideline other citizens. 

Without an independent judiciary, a police force that is remotely accountable for its actions and a thriving independent press, politicians and their lackeys could act with impunity.  Mubarak's downfall is of his, his family and his supporters' making.  Egyptians do have legitimate concerns with the misrule that has suppressed accountability and has brought much injustice to so many of them.   It is the way of any authoritarian administration, and also the way of politicians who are above the law, and politicians who are given the power to act in ways private citizens never could.

That is the problem not just of Mubarak, but unfettered government.   Politicians have only one set of tools that make them special - the ability to use force.  Unless that is kept in check to only be used to protect citizens from force, it ends up being used against them.

So for now Egypt will have a transition.  It is probably more free now that it will be for some time, as the screws are removed from the press and political discourse.  The main goal of many will be elections, but what matters more is civil society, discussion, debate and the freedom of expression that is so rare in that part of the world.   May Egyptians keep that, but they need more.

A rewritten constitution must defend the rights of all Egyptians to freedom of speech, including freedom of religion and for the state to not discriminate on the basis of religion (or no religion).  Alas, this mere guarantee of a secular state is unlikely.   What is likely is for Egyptians to get perhaps free and fair elections, and select a new set of politicians, seeking to enrich themselves and wield power over people.

Yet there is no alternative likely.  It is likely that no single political group will win an election, so a coalition will emerge that will seek compromise, that may erode the freedoms that now exist.  Yet the priority must be to clear out corruption, raise the performance of the judiciary and police to levels of accountability, balance and objectivity.   This wont happen quickly.

As much as Israel is not popular in Egypt, the appetite for war will also be low.  The army is dependent on US aid, and knows that will end if there are any attempts to take on Israel.  Of course Israel does possess the ultimate deterrent.

So I suspect Egypt will muddle along, get an election and have a government of compromises, coalitions with a strong Islamic tinge to it.   Egypt is not Turkey, but it may be more like Indonesia.

As for the rest of the Arab world, there have been protests in Algeria, which already suffered a civil war with Islamists in the 1990s.  Yemen faces the same, with Al Qaeda waiting in the wings.

Political freedom is always to be welcomed, as is free speech.  However, some want to use that freedom to gain power then shut it down.  That must be the great fear.  For now strength must be given to liberal minded Egyptians who do believe in secularism and do believe in maintaining that freedom, and peace.

NZ newspaper websites useless on Mubarak resignation

It has been well over an hour since Mubarak resigned.

This is the page on Stuff world news and on the NZ Herald.

Useless, lazy, small town, small country, gossip mongering, celebrity and sports obsessed small minded amateurs.

Even the official Xinhua News Agency of the People's Republic of China, which has provided cursory coverage, has the story, in English and Chinese.

For shame.

TVNZ had it.  Radio NZ had it.  

TV3 joins the useless pile, for not having it, but that's an entertainment channel.

So the story is in NZ, you use foreign websites for foreign news.

Kim Jong Il is losing his memory, as collapse inches forward

Whilst the mainstream media understandably focuses on Egypt, signs that the world's most totalitarian and brutal dictatorship by far is slowly unravelling are becoming more prevalent.

The latest being a series of reports of Kim Jong Il's increasingly erratic and unpredictable behaviour, including losing his memory.  The most profound example being one when he forgot his father - "Great Leader" and officially eternal President Kim Il Sung - has been dead since 1994.

Daily NK reports:

“In December, 2009 when he visited Sungjin Steel Manufacturing Complex in Kim Chaek, North Hamkyung Province, Kim received a report on the ‘Completion of the process for the manufacturing of Juche steel.’ Taking up the report, he said, ‘Report this fact immediately to the Suryeong!’ The people there were totally embarrassed.”

Suryeong is Korean for "Great Leader" and was a commonly used pronoun for Kim Il Sung. 

The same article cites Kim Jong Il being angry in 2009 about the name of a college having been changed, even though it was he who did it in 2003.  He also was angry at the dismissal of a man who he had fired the year before.

There are plenty of example of dictators losing the plot due to drug use (Macias Nguema, Ali Soilih), but this would indicate Kim Jong Il 's day are very much numbered.

Meanwhile, the elder brother of designated successor Kim Jong Eun, Kim Jong Nam has held a press interview with Tokyo Shimbun where he hopes his brother opens up the country to reform., but acknowledges it could bring systemic collapse of the entire political system.   Kim Jong Nam reportedly lives in China or Macau, and has been fairly open with foreign press about the situation in the country.   He personally opposes his brother succeeding his father and claimed Kim Jong Il himself opposed it, but has proceeded to ensure "political stability".   He has also claimed no interest at all in returning to North Korea to have a political life.

Other reports are:

- Black market DVDs of South Korean films, music and TV programmes are seeping in showing for the first time life in South Korea, which has been officially depicted as poverty stricken and brutal.  Youth of higher officials and Party members have this material.  Such material entering the country was unheard of a decade ago.

- Leaflets denouncing the regime are circulating, as more and more people bravely seek to undermine the regime.   Be clear that this was completely unheard of for the last 60 years in a country that has consistently had the worst or second worst press freedom in the world.

- Video of a group called Young People's League for Freedom openly defying the regime, desecrating images of Kim Jong Il (video not online).

Meanwhile, 154,000 political prisoners are held in the most brutal gulags on the planet in North Korea.  You'd think human rights organisations and so called peace campaigners would be holding placards outside North Korean embassies and demanding change.  However, given the US has always been an implacable enemy of the country, and virtually no foreign companies have a presence there, I don't think their heart would be in it - which tells you a bit about what that agenda really is about.  After all if torturing and enslaving children as political prisoners can't get you agitated, then can you really be said to be interested in human rights?

Unlike the organisations like HRNK, North Korea Freedom Coalition and Liberty in North Korea which campaign openly about the atrocities in North Korea, and actively provide help for refugees who flee via China, where officials happily hand refugees back to the regime to be executed or brutalised. 

Egypt is a holiday camp compared to North Korea.  Yet although North Korea has nuclear weapons and a destructive ideology, it is not as destructive and aggressive as Islamism.  Nobody gets called a racist for damning those who think Kim Il Sung was great or that Marxism-Leninism is destructive and pernicious.  Nobody thinks that criticising the North Korean political system is a criticise of people themselves or derogatory towards them.  

In that respect, whilst North Korea's collapse will be interesting and highly relevant to its neighbours, and potentially dangerous in the short term.  Egypt's future has a far more existential influence about our lives.   I am not too worried about the handful of useful idiots in New Zealand who sympathise with North Korea, but Islamists are another story altogether.

Veitch vs Harawira

So whilst John Key gets excoriated by the left for engaging in an interview with convicted violent criminal Tony Veitch.

The stony silence about Titewhai Harawira.  

What's the difference?

Veitch was a man abusing a woman, Harawira was a woman abusing people of both sexes.

Veitch is a New Zealander of European extraction, Harawira is a New Zealander of Maori extraction.

Veitch's crime was in the context of a private relationship, Harawira was contracted and paid by the taxpayer to provide care.

Veitch's victim was a woman, clearly unable to defend herself against his strength, Harawira's victims were mentally ill, clearly unable to defend themselves.

Veitch is never forgiven by those who claim to oppose violence in all its forms, Harawira's past is conveniently forgotten.

Nothing is quite as empty as the hypocritical judgment of the pseudo-liberal, "violence is ok when it suits us", peace loving "except when fighting for human rights" left.  Titewhai Harawira is as guilty and as violent as Tony Veitch, but to condemn a Maori woman just wouldn't be on would it?  After all, it is not about judging the content of people's character or their actions, but judging them on their ancestry and their genitalia.

Individualism means judging every person on their actions, and leaving race and sex out of it.   Leftwing collectivism means judging the same actions as different, according to who does them.

That's how a Maori woman can violent abuse mentally ill people, and be forgiven. Because she is a Maori woman.