Arab Democracy

The same phenomenon that first struck-down the dictatorship of Tunisia is poised to engulf the Arab world in the same way that 1798 gave rise to a shake-up of the status quo for European monarchs. It seems fitting that, in a place where the French once brought their empire while leaving their ideals at home, the roots of a sprouted revolution have taken hold. But here we are as Arab democracy is finally calling after years of wishful flirtation that she might. She looks lovely wrapped in the jasmine of Tunisia, holding you against her bosom and whispering throatily into your ear that she will make you feel like no monarch or dictator ever could: I’m in love already.  

Several other nations trying to make a push for democratic change in recent weeks have also resorted to protests. Four people in Morocco resorted to self-immolation (setting themselves on fire), while tens of thousands have rallied in Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and Lebanon. The general sentiment of all protests has been one of frustration with regards to poverty and unemployment, along with a call for governments representative of the people and sympathetic to their interests. Fair due to those points, especially considering that the demographics of the mentioned countries tilt towards youth quite heavily (read: change). Make no mistake, democracy born from these events would be different from that of Iraq: the former would be organic, while the latter was synthetic and a make-shift imposed product.     

It is a mixed blessing that these demonstrations are without a face. No individual or organization is behind them. At best, the Muslim Brotherhood – once derided as a terrorist organization for its assassination of Egyptian President in 1948 as well as its attempted coup and other assassination plots   - has been relatively rooted in their approach to moderate governance. Think of them as Hamas and Hezbollah without the violence; all provide crucial social services like education, health care and sanitation. The Brotherhood has done well to field moderate candidates in recent elections, though they remain technically illegal and struggle to have their names placed on ballots. Yet the Muslim Brotherhood is not yet known to be orchestrating the events in Egypt, where the ruling National Democratic Party recently won 95% of the vote in first-round voting. Though they are riding the chariot that is the protests, they’ve yet to take the reins.

So what is the end goal of these movements? Hard to say really. I’m sure their ideal is to further democracy, the likes of which they can readily see on the internet as well as television thanks in large part to al-Jazeera (the Arab equivalent of CNN). But maybe they would settle for small concessions now with the hope of moving the ball down the field in due time (think Magna Carta). The events in Tunisia will have been a welcome inspiration in homes across the region, but as is the case with any opportunity, there are always obstacles to negotiate. And while there is no clear objective other than chants for change and democracy, what remains interesting is how little ideology has penetrated these events.     

Now the danger of a faceless protest is that it could allow for a growing Islamist movement to fill the void. This surely would have consequences, the more pressing of which is that it would ruin any sympathy amongst the Arab elite and moderates, not to mention Western governments who are already fearful of rising fundamentalism. One of the main reasons US administrations have for decades supported Mubarak in Egypt is due to his tough love towards extremists and support for the US in terror policing.

Sure Tunisia was able to avoid this issue, with their army saying they would support the revolution and ensure its longevity; but there isn't a deeply rooted fundamentalist movement present, and really who wants to invite the possibility of another military coup? As you move further across the region you see this is more of an issue. The most pointed case is Yemen, a failed state with massive poverty, unemployment and a volatile government who needs constant hand-holding and military aid from the US; not to mention the growing presence of insurgent elements who are flocking to Yemen like kids to Disney Land (Somalia being Disney World).   

As domestic visionaries come there is one that could have some real impact on the events in Egypt and the broader Middle East. Mohamed ElBaradei, the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner, former head of the IAEA and native of Cairo, has called for progress amidst the chaos. He has recently said “I continue to call on the regime to understand that they better listen and listen quickly, not use violence and understand that change has to come. There's no other option." It is a good starting point from a man with international credibility and sympathy for democratic values. He would be my bet for true leadership in the transition to, and possible governance of a democracy.  

To help this along the international community should act as midwives, providing strong international pressure and support for strong domestic visionaries. When I say that, I don’t mean go the way of the French and British and make a hash of the entire Middle East like they did at Versailles. Nor do I think the UN should impose a mandate on the region, much like they did by creating Israel and nurturing the chaos that exists there today (though supporting a mandate to guarantee land and statehood to Palestine I would support). What should be done is a delegation of respected world leaders and activists – with no agenda other than peace and democracy – should be sitting on the sidelines. When necessary, they should encourage, call for restraint, promote values and above all do so with vision rather than political motives.  

Sadly there seems to be a lack of Arabists (those who are sympathetic to the Arab peoples) in the West, as well as the East I would think, with a major profile. If the international community alienates democratic movements any longer, blowback that goes beyond that which occurred following the previous 90 years of policy in the Middle East will threaten many. Ideally, we resurrect T.E. Lawrence and put him in the mix as a true leader and statesman in the Middle East. He championed the Arab cause, disagreed with many imperialist views of his own government, and fought alongside those whom he wanted to help. Lawrence commanded respect from Europe and the Middle East and, more importantly, had earned the trust of the Arab people through his sacrifice and his vision. If ElBaradei can manage to do the same, regardless of what the actions and sentiments are of Western or Eastern governments, the Arab world has a real chance this time at attaining something they have longed for.  

Hopefully those with a vested interest in change have the drive and wisdom to match the heights this movement must strive for in order to encourage meaningful progress. It’s only a matter of time before change does sweep the Middle East in the same way it did in Europe following the French Revolution. The only questions remaining is which way will the scimitar fall? And is a true Arab democracy finally on its way? Let's just hope we don't find ourselves staring down a neo-Napoleon along the Suez.  

Roots of Political Extremism

On January 4^th Pakistan was thrown into a further sense of unravelling as a Salman Taseer, a prominent liberal politician and governor of Punjab, was assassinated. He was shot and killed by his own bodyguard for his defence of an illiterate farmer who was sentenced to death for blasphemy against the prophet. Interesting how a country founded on the principles of freedom of religion and thought (as Pakistan actually was) can so easily have become ideologically juvenile, such are the roots of political extremism.  

Days later, on the 8^th of January, US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was the target of a similar attack in an attempted assassination. She was shot – at point blank range with a handgun – in the head. Amazingly under any circumstances, she is still alive following the massive brain trauma (the bullet travelled the length of the left side of her brain), and is breathing own her own as well as responding to various physical commands. The story takes a less miraculous twist when one considers that six people were killed in the incident, including a 9 year-old girl, while 14 others were wounded from the gunfire. 





These politicians were attacked for one reason: their views conflicted with those of their attackers. As the US moves towards increased political polarization and radicalism – which has been the case with politically volatile debates regarding gun laws and the second amendment, as well as immigration, health care and the role of government itself – it will increasingly experience the ideological schisms and destabilizing influences present in  Pakistan. Surely it won’t you say?

Well consider this: federal and state agencies in the US currently monitor some 300+ well-armed militias who train on scenarios to overthrow the government (a constitutional and patriotic obligation they would say), gun control is practically non-existent while there is a proliferation of conventional weapons, and there is the continued inertia (see: ignorance) from large groups of people who refuse to enter the fold of moderate debate and perspective. Similarly in Pakistan there are a variety of well armed groups who aim to overthrow the government (those of Pakistan, Afghanistan and to a degree India), gun control isn’t very controlling and there exists a proliferation of conventional weapons – especially through illegal weapons manufacturing – and they’re having a bit of a hard time bringing large groups of people from various territories into a more moderate dialogue.

So the US increasingly resembles the political realities of developing nations with its fractured discourse. What’s perhaps most troubling since the Tuscon shooting is the amount of rhetoric that has continued to agitate politics rather than tear down the walls of partisanship and bigotry. Right-wing media outlets and commentators have been nothing but critical of Sheriff Dupnik for his comments chastising the practice of harmful and ignorant commentary in politics when he made statements such as, “the anger, the hatred the...bigotry that goes on in this country is outrageous.” People in the US are so hypersensitive about anything political that they take everything to the extreme, and when moderate thinking on the state of political discourse comes along it too is targeted with the same hyperbole that is at the very root of the issue.   

The likes of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh would have you believe that the Sheriff was out of line for labelling such commentary as irresponsible, calling him immature and trying to argue that he is inciting a blood libel. Mr. Limbaugh in his cozy, ego-loving studio argued that “...what this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it.” He continued by saying “the Sheriff of Pima County has made a fool of himself I don’t know if he knows it or not.” Charming as he might be, Rush is plain wrong. That he made an outrageous comment about the government eventually criminalizing political opposition is daft enough, the more troubling thought will occur when you consider his audience is in the ballpark of 15-25 million listeners.    

Politics is seldom pretty, more often resembling a nosedive from the ugly tree than any darling you might want to take home, no matter how polished it may seem. But without fair and honest public debate or opinion, as well as moderate and informed thinking, it will continue to breed hatred, discontent and unhinge trust in nations like Pakistan and the US. Tens of thousands took to the street to praise the Pakistani assassin and as a show supporting the death penalty for blasphemy, while in the States there is further political posturing and opportunism by those who would make a meal of a man looking for cooler heads and calm waters. These obstacles are the real roots of political extremism and it’s at such moments when there is a real need for détente, with the hope that individuals and groups might work towards common principles rather than dividing words. 

New Year's Resolution

I want you to really have a think about this article, because it’s something that I’m very sentimental about. Picture in your mind a man, or woman, lying on a sidewalk somewhere, wrapped in a sleeping bag that’s been delicately rolled out on some well-worn cardboard. They look tired, as though life itself has worn and weathered them down in such a way that they now fit your image of homelessness. 

Notice for a moment how the dirt and sweat and grime has managed to settle in the creases of their skin, so that their face looks almost like a sketched drawing. You see their ears, and notice that they’re maybe a little too small or too big for the size of their head, and it reminds you of someone that you know from work in that sense. As you continue to look at them, you see their entire worldly possessions within arm’s reach. Maybe a bag or two packed with little niceties like a change of clothes, some deodorant – you can’t guess beyond that because all that you’re thinking of is that you can’t imagine having so little.

Now at some point (if you haven’t already) you’re going to go one of three ways from looking at this person: apathy and simply not caring to even bother yourself with it; labelling this person a bum and producing judgements that manage to blame them for their current station in life; or feeling a sense of sadness or pity for the image it conjures up. Whatever the reality is –and please don’t let it be options one or two – we as a society should have higher expectations for what is and is not tolerable.

Do you remember when you were a kid thinking about what and who you wanted to be when you were older? Because I’m fairly certain that no child goes through life wanting to be homeless when they’re older, or living in a state of poverty, or suffering from addictions or diseases that cause them to be judged as social pariahs that are worthless or merely looking for a handout. No five year-old would want that, but the reality is very much the opposite for too many as life should have it. You can say what you want about the subject, but if you can justify the idea of a child living on the street or struggling through poverty, then you’ve lost yourself my friend. 

Frankly, we as a society have lost ourselves. While I admit to being an idealist I make no apologies for it, which is why I ask how it is that a nation like Canada, a member of the elite club of industrial and economic powerhouses in the G7, allow its own citizens to live on streets with a passive acceptance for it as simply being the way it is? I can’t for the life of me understand that. I can’t understand how there isn’t enough food for many in our country, or how the poverty line is so low and we seem to be more concerned with hoarding wealth than making sure those in the hardest and most challenging positions have the basics. And when I say basic standards, I don’t mean the basic standards for living because that’s rubbish and an easy cop-out and certainly if many of us were in such a position we would be shouting for more. Instead I mean the basic standards that WE would accept for our own lives; certainly if many of us were in such a position of poverty and degradation as living on the street our hope and expectation for help might be at least as loud.

We need to do better folks. We need a stronger position when it comes to issues like homelessness and poverty, hunger and education (though there are more issues than that...). Five year-olds don’t dream of living on the street, and teenagers or adults shouldn’t have to go through life with that as their reality. We need to rediscover our own humanity, because we’ve lost it and people are suffering because of it. It’s often said of teams that they’re only as good as their weakest member; if that’s the measure of our society and country, then surely on paper we’re not a very good team. We need to resolve how we can overcome this to be the great team we’re capable of, regardless of what justification might be necessary to get to that point.  

These are tough issues that we need to take on, with obstacles (some imagined) and different views towards what are the appropriate policies needed to combat them. But it needs to be done and the measure of our effort should not be a minimum standard, rather it must be our maximum humanity. If we can’t get to that point on policy then we don’t deserve to call ourselves a great society, nor a decent country. Hopefully we can fix this (and other blatant issues) and allow for a strong and eternally compassionate Canada to emerge, so that we care for others as though they were five years-old, with nothing more than thoughts of Mickey Mouse in their minds and care for others in their hearts.