Earlier in the week I posted a short article which touched briefly on the protests in Egypt and the way in which the internet had facilitated them: https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/politics/the-real-big-society/

The will of the people, I observed was clear; they wanted Mubarak out.

It was only an aside, but it produced some interesting responses from readers, including one from “PT” who pointed out that this was debatable. What we were not seeing were the tens of millions of people who are not demonstrating observed PT; we were seeing only what the media allowed us to see.

PT makes a point which should not be dismissed. Imagine that sitting in your bijou apartment in Egypt you viewed footage of the Poll Tax Riots. You might assume that the Thatcher government was universally reviled and had no mandate at all; the rather more complicated truth being that it and this particular policy were reviled by a significant number of politically active and rebellious individuals, but across the country tens of millions of people were getting on with their lives, grumbling a bit maybe, but with many millions still having voted conservative.

However, with that said, I think the will of the people has been clear. Popular mass movements of this type cannot work if there is any significant political support for the government. Whilst it may be the case that not everyone gets out on the streets, part and parcel of the real force is the almost universal tacit support of the wider public which the street protesters represent.

In foreign policy naked self interest is both logical and inevitable, and I have always been reasonably relaxed about the “Son Of A Bitch” principle: “I don’t care if he’s a son of a bitch, as long as he’s our son of a bitch.” It is a policy chiefly ascribed to America, but all powers have followed it since time immemorial.

Mubarak was one example of such policy, and I find it amusing to see our nimble footed politicians queuing up to call for democratic reforms when for so long we have both actively and tacitly lent support to the regime as a bastion of pro western interests in the Arab world.

And whilst I am not prone to bleeding heart Channel 4 news style bleeding heart tofu loving liberalism, I did find that there has been something inspiring and uplifting about the simple dignity of a mass movement for democracy, facilitated by the internet, overcoming the established state apparatus.

Even my flinty heart could not help feel a spark of admiration, even elation, at the way in which the protest have conducted themselves. On the whole peaceful, persistent, joyful, and inclusive; men and women, young and old, significantly (I hope) Christian and Muslim, all united in a desire for a representative government, reform and freedom. In a good speech yesterday, what President Obama called “the moral force of non violence”.

In this there is a message of hope for all Libertarians, and an ominous portent for all governments, including our own (of whatever complexion).

Of course, the big issues remain. The army remains in control. Will there be true democracy in due course? With what results? What political parties will be formed? Will the movement be hijacked by radical Islamists?

The stakes are high because of Egypt’s critical location and position as a mainspring of Arab intellectual culture and because of its relationship with Israel. It is a fact that democracy can lead to results which “the West” finds awkward, unpalatable and dangerous. Witness Hamas; whatever take one has on its activities, it has a popular mandate of some sort. One might even say the same of Sinn Fein.

However, the positive side is that a voice calling for freedom and democracy has sounded on the Arab Street. Tunisia has already experienced its “Jasmine revolution”. Now governments in Jordan Algeria and Saudi Arabia tremble. And no doubt ours does too behind the closed doors of Whitehall as the accommodations and pacts which have been intended to promote stability and the flow of oil may now face a new challenge.

To use a possibly non “pc” metaphor, the genie is now out of the bottle. What the people of Egypt and the wider Arab world command this genie to do must, of course, be uncertain.

But perhaps in the long term if this voice can be fostered and nurtured it might find a much more effective and durable bastion against extremism and radical Islam than the “Son of a Bitch” principle or the persistent invading of other countries.

And perhaps it is time for us in Europe to cast aside an in bred intellectual and political snobbishness to learn some lessons from the Arab Street. I am not alone in noting that last week matters took an ironic turn when “the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Catherine Ashton, penned an article in The Guardian calling for “Deep Democracy” in Egypt: http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/109009/20110204/unelected-baroness-catherine-ashton-of-eu-laughably-calls-for-democracy-in-egypt.htm.

By “Deep Democracy” she appears to mean the type of democracy which she would naturally approve of with lots of committees and interest groups and quangos and a natural habitat in which the professional administrator can safely graze and prosper.

As other more able than I have observed, ironic because our noble Baroness and “High Commissioner” (not just your ordinary Commissioner!) has never been elected by anyone to do anything in her entire quango driven life. She is able to sit in Parliament and pass laws over me by virtue of her ennoblement by Labour in 1999. No one voted for her. She purports to speak for the “EU” but no one elected her there either. On the wider front, the EU is a faceless organisation, unable even to sign off its accounts because of corruption. I have never in my lifetime had the chance to vote for or against it. As to what my views are on that topic I’m not saying. My point is that I have never been asked.

Perhaps the lessons of people power should be learned here. Perhaps a dose of really Deep Democracy would do Baroness Ashton and the other faceless non entities who govern without mandate good.

Gildas the Monk

Obligato February 14, 2011 at 08:42

Interesting issue about Baroness Ashton’s views – I wonder how comfortable
she is with much more direct but undoubtedly deep kinds of democracy such as
that exercised by the Swiss Cantons? Or indeed to a degree that of the overall
Swiss state with its mass referendum law. In other words democracy that isn’t
100% under the control of a self appointed elite. It can produce results that
undeniably the direct will of the people but are uncomfortable for the
commissars e.g. the ban on minaret bulding.

Zaphod February 13, 2011 at 22:12

Larry Niven, (science fiction author), suggests that FxS=K, where F is
freedom, S is security, and K is a constant.

In other words, increasing your freedom will decrease your security, and
vice versa. You can’t have absolutes in both.

So, first work out your preferred compromise, and then try to persuade
others to agree.

There are no easy answers. All the simple problems were solved a long, long
time ago.

DavidB February 13, 2011 at 20:50

What is freedom in the end? Are you free if you are able to attack another
person’s religion without knowing much about it? Are you free to earnestly
debate whether a gay couple should be allowed to stay in a hotel? Are you free
if you have to work to pay the council tax and the gas bill? Can you be free
if you are scared to walk home alone on a Saturday night?

Is it a free society which has cameras everywhere? Are you more free if you
can get health care at no cost round the clock or if you pay few taxes? Who is
more free, the smoker who can smoke outside the pub, or the non smoker who can
now stay inside the pub?

The Egyptians we saw were united by what they did not want. Mubarak. But
they are a hotchpotch of views. Some want an Islamic republic. Some want a
socialist state. Some want to vote, but do they know the difference between
first past the post and the myriad forms of PR? Some want to get rich without
paying bribes, some want a share of the Mubaraks’ wealth. For some freedom is
a full belly, for others a full wallet.

There are going to be a lot of disappointed people in Egypt. The freedom
they (might ) get might not be the one they thought they were getting.

And the army? Well you can rest assured that they will do whatever is in
the perceived interest of the higher ranks. If that is to submit to an elected
civil authority then that will be what happens. If they want to round up all
the “good guys” and kill the lot, well then that will be what happens. And
what is the will of the people anyway? Its whatever the elite tell them it is.
Its not after all who votes that counts, its who counts the votes.

As the years go by, and more nations are born, and the cry of democracy is
heard the world over. I wonder if I am as free as my grandfather was in
1945.

microdave February 13, 2011 at 14:26

“We were seeing only what the media allowed us to see.”

I have a motorised satellite dish, and from time to time check out some of
the “Raw” newsfeeds before they get to be edited at the receiving studios. It
can be interesting to compare these with what actually makes it to air. The
“private” comments of the reporters can be especially enlightening!

Eleanor February 13, 2011 at 13:54

I must be more of a sceptic than I thought.

Jeremy Poynton
February 13, 2011 at 12:14

Interesting point on the waste of space that is Baroness Ashton, which
raises the following question – what is it about modern “democracy” that it
shoud require more and more Civil Servants, and, more to the point, more and
more of our money, to run it?

Ed P February 13, 2011 at 12:00

Across the Maghreb, Sahel & Egypt the young are awake to possibilities
undreamed of even five years ago. This bodes well for democracy and the
sweeping away of old-style regimes, and is almost entirely due to the internet
(& Twitter). It’s unstoppable: the net has facilitated the dissemination
of knowledge and the ability to organise and communicate as never before. As
said above, the genie is out of the bottle.
My hope is that the majority of
young Muslims are just as hungry for change (and not that bothered by the
religion in which they grew up) as young people everywhere. And that their
concerns and desires will no longer be restrained and suppressed by Imams, but
will inexorably lead to democracy, free trade and free association.

Zaphod February 13, 2011 at 12:59

It’s always puzzled me, that young moslems don’t seem to challenge their
parent’s values.
(I know the young are a bloody nuisance for doing this,
but it’s very healthy.)
But, just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t
mean it never will.

peter February 13, 2011 at 11:36

Alas there are no raccoons in Australia, may the singular UK species remain
in fine fettle; but I digress. A regime steeped in corruption, torture and the
antithesis of democracy has passed away. That at least is good. The fact that
it was the third largest recipient of US arms funding, is perhaps less good
but goes some way to explain President Obama’s interest in what will replace
it. Those senior in the army were of course senior in the army yesterday too,
so who can tell how they will act tomorrow. We can but hope there will be
elections in September and that they will be less “fixed” than before. “Deep
democracy” though may have to wait a while before surfacing in Egypt.

Captain
Ranty February 13, 2011 at 11:26

Just to follow Joe’s theme of hope, I was chuffed in the extreme when I saw
the Copts links hands to “protect” the Muslims whilst they were at prayer. The
Muslims returned the favour when the Copts were praying. These were
extraordinary times and we saw some beautiful sights, and some horrific ones
too (the videos showing a man being shot down in cold blood and the vehicles
ploughing through crowds of people will stay with me for a very long time) but
still, they do provide hope for the future-if the protesters remember the bond
they forged during those 18 days.

I will never claim to be an expert but I can speak to my experience in the
country having visited and having friends in both Cairo and Alexandria. There
is no mood (amongst the religious and not so religious people that I know) for
a theocracy. Even the Muslim Brotherhood has denounced violence. So there is
reason to hope.

Time will tell, but these are heady days for Egyptians, and that’s about
the only thing I am certain of. It will be interesting to see what happens
when the euphoria wears off.

CR.

Subrosa February
13, 2011 at 10:52

I’m keeping my own counsel on this one. Is that called fence-sitting? Aye.
Definitely.

Gildas the Monk
February 13, 2011 at 10:52

Morning all! just surfacing after a late night dinner feast at another
Abbey. An
unusual evening involving a trip to the gym then late night
curry!
glad to see that you are in fine fettle Anna long may that continue
and thanks to all who take the time go read and add their own
observations!
Interestingly radio 4 news last night did a piece where quite
a view egyptians were voicing their concerns because of the security Mubarak
brought, so it is indeed difficult to generalise …

Pericles February 13, 2011 at 10:51

Gildas draws a comparison between the ‘poll-tax’ riots and the recent
protests in Egypt ;  between the fact that, although that tax was
replaced, no revolution occurred and the ouster of President Mubarak.

The Egyptian régime of the last fifty-nine years or so has brought
stability ;  for many in Egypt that alone.

Perhaps the difference lies herein :  before the expenses scandal
of the last couple of years the British body politic was considered by most
‘the best of a bad bunch’ and therefore not worth toppling ;  in Mr.
Mubarak’s Egypt the governing élite was considered corrupt, its fate a matter
of indifference even to those valuing the stability and seen as Mubarak
supporters.

I suspect that, for all its faults and even in the wake of the expenses
scandal, the British body politic is still considered by most Britons not
worth toppling.  Don’t put the shampoo on ice just yet …

ΠΞ

PT Barnum February 13, 2011 at 09:36

The rank-and-file of the Egyptian army are young conscripts, not
professional soldiers, and therefore it was their siblings, parents, friends
protesting. So I would distinguish between the Generals (and the mysterious
Military Council) and the massed ranks of the army. Whether this makes a
difference in the longer term, with America-Israel calling in loyalty from
Saudi, Jordan and Syria, remains to be seen.

Joe Public February 13, 2011 at 09:36

One of the most optimistic sights for me, was the number of un-Burqa’ed
women protesting.

That indicates (current) real freedom for half their population.

Long may it continue

Zaphod February 13, 2011 at 09:29

I don’t follow foreign affairs closely. But I got the distinct impression
that the army were in charge before, during, and after.
They didn’t appear
to do much, but they were in position, highly visible, and prepared. Both
sides waited patiently for the army to decide the winner. while negotiations
continued out of sight?
It may well turn out okay. But I don’t think this
was what it seems.

Andrew P
Withers February 13, 2011 at 10:16

Mubarak was military man, as was Sadat, as was Nasser. The army are
widely respected in Egypt and the real revolution happened amongst the
middle ranking officers. The army was split politically.

For a similar situation in England you need to go back to 1658-60.

Dennis February 13, 2011 at 08:49

I think recognizing the irony in a speaker’s position often tends to tu
quoque fallacy. Indeed, it seems to me that Ashton’s sketch of ‘deep
democracy’ broadly accords with the Libertarian position on negative rights.
That said, my understanding of the internet Libertarian has been developed
only through this blog and its links – it appears a broad church.

An internet inspired ‘revolution’ in the UK seems unlikely to me. I can’t
see that British attitudes have materially changed from those described in
Orwell’s Lion and Unicorn essay.

Andrew P Withers
February 13, 2011 at 08:23

Democracy is not an election once every five years, it is a day in day out
process. The Egyptians did have elections (fixed) drawn from the same
political elite, we have elections here that allow a party with under 35% of
the vote to have landslide victories, again all drawn from the same small
elite.

The difference is the lack of a comfort zone for the average Egyptian.

Anna
Raccoon February 13, 2011 at 07:30

Oh go on then – THIRD!

I’m up and around and in fine fettle this morning – superb post to start
the day Gildas.

Indeed, Christian and Muslim were united – in their hatred of Mubarak – now
that Mubarak has gone, what will unite them? The desire to see their enemies
share power with them? I doubt it somehow.

Richard B February
13, 2011 at 06:46

No worries about being trite and annoying: SECOND!

Good post, Gildas. The irony of Ashton’s position beggars belief. Like
Livewire, I am cautiously optimistic about the future for Egypt. A peaceful
revolution like this stands a much better chance than one born in
bloodshed.

Livewire February 13, 2011 at 06:14

Far be it from me to be trite and annoying – but FIRST!
When I was on
some courses years ago the Egyptian contingent made a good impression. A rule
of thumb seems to that if a middle east country starts with ‘S’ the people of
the country are likely to be arrogant shits. There was a culture clash between
a Syrian and an American on one course that almost led to a punchup.
My
prediction (now preserved in global caches and likely to be used as evidence
of crappiness at the Nostradamus game) is that Egypt will eventually end up
with a benign regime.