Pursuit of Democracy for Egyptians

I witnessed history unfold in front of my eyes. I impatiently switched channels between Al-Jazeera the Arab channel and CNN; I watched President Mubarak's representative bravely announce Mubarak's resignation. I couldn't believe it; it felt surreal that I had the opportunity to witness people standing up for their rights, revolting against an old regime and demanding justice, in my lifetime.  We always studied about the past and other rights movements especially the civil rights movement, rights people fought and died for, but I never thought I would get the opportunity to witness that taking place. I was overcome with joy and hope for the Egyptian people. They persevered and had tenacity and even went beyond the naysayers. I was proud, today I felt like an Egyptian.  However, as much as I tried to stay in the moment, and enjoy history unfolding in front of me, I recognized the hard work ahead for Egyptians and all nations surrounding Egypt. The Egyptians demanded and fought for freedom and democracy. I believe God is giving them an opportunity to put those theories in to practice. Aristotle states the hardest form of government to run is a democracy. It is hard because people with different point of views have a say in how the government is run.  Egyptians must define their idea of a democracy, what form of democracy they want for their country, and how they will avoid returning to the old regime they ousted. As a philosophy graduate, I had the opportunity to study different views and the outcomes of those views. I will explain the causes of a revolution in an oligarchy, and factors to consider in the process of beginning a democratic state. I hope I can offer meaningful advice to my Egyptian brothers and sisters and all nations surrounding Egypt.   What stirred these revolutions in the Middle East? Not many people pondered this question, but I think it is poignant to ask and study these causes. The uniqueness of human nature means we have a history to which we may refer and which may apply to our current situation. Aristotle raised these questions in the Politics; I think it is worth studying his perspectives on revolutions. Aristotle notes revolutions arise from inequalities, numerical or proportional; i.e., from a numerical mass claiming equality denied them, or from a minority claiming superiority denied them. Aristotle informs us that a revolution may result in a complete change of government or a modification of the existing one. Egypt had an oligarchy government, so I will discuss Aristotle's definition of an oligarchy and the causes of a revolution in an oligarchy. According to Aristotle, an oligarchy government has in view the interest of the wealthy. An oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands. The leader looks out for the interest of the elite group; it is the government of the few and the wealthy. In an oligarchy the majority of the citizens have some property, but not very much; it allows any citizen who obtains the required amount of property in sharing in the government. The elite groups make the law represent their wishes. This form of oligarchy leads the ruler to amend the law so that the son shall succeed the father. So what causes a revolution in an oligarchy system according to Aristotle? In an oligarchy, revolution arises from the oppressive conduct of an oligarchy leader. In Egypt, Mubarak began as a moderate leader; he improved the conditions of Egypt. However, power and wealth led him to be dissonant from the wishes and desires of the people. He created an elite group and kept much of the wealth of the nation within his inner group. After recognizing Mubarak intends his son to take his place; Egyptians could no longer take the oppression of Mubarak. The Egyptian people felt deceived by Mubarak, they saw his corrupt ways and violence his army committed against the people. Egyptians erupted and there was no way stopping them, until granted their wishes. John Donne in Meditations XVII quotes "No man is an island, entire of itself; everyman is a piece of the continent, a part of the main"; this quote should guide the Egyptians. To become a democratic state, the people must be in it together. One group that defies the concept of democracy potentially destroys the evolving nature of democracy. People view America as a democracy, but even America has a long way to reach democracy. Democracy is the hardest government to run. People die and kill each other to reach democracy. I hope Egyptians do not reach to that level. To avoid dire circumstances, Egyptians must first define their idea of democracy with inclusion of other religions in the country. They must decide what form of democracy they want for their people. Remember, democracy doesn't equate to majority rules. All people must be represented in the system.  Aristotle, James Madison, Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill expressed their fear of the tyranny of the majority. Who will protect the minority if the majority forces its beliefs on the minority? The only solution, I believe, is a 'checks and balance' system in the election process, to make sure the law protects the minority. Aristotle warns of this in The Politics and considers it a potential cause of a revolution in a democracy. We must not resort to oppression and unfair treatment of minorities. I know many consider religion to be ideal with government; however, we must understand religion is a personal choice and should come from an intuitive choice, not enforced externally. Islam requires Muslims to teach others about Islam, but also to allow them to practice their own faith.  Egyptians must understand that just because a majority wins, this doesn't necessarily equate to fair representation of the people. Secondly, Egyptians must focus on creating a constitution and improving the conditions in Egypt, before worrying about international interest. Only, when a nation is settled and developed does it worry about allies and others. Egyptians must first create a democratic, strong Egypt before dealing with other nations. Remember, a nation's word matters in the international arena, when the nation has a strong cooperative nation. I would like to warn the future Egyptian leader to be wary of the capital interests of the super power nations. What I mean by this is, the super nations like the US, Europe, and other countries offer large sums of money to ask a nation to support them in a cause. I believe this is wrong and unethical; whenever money is involved in a peace treaty, I think it deteriorates the notion of peace. Money does not bring peace; it creates resentment, which leads to anger and a revolution. I believe this is what led Mubarak to his downfall; he did not listen to the concerns of his people. Egyptians must be very careful in their strategies for creating a better government for themselves. Once Egyptians concretely figure out their concept of democracy and freedom, Egyptians will be ready to choose their leader. When electing their leader and creating their constitution, I would urge the people of Egypt to please consider the following: 1.  Egyptians must understand that secularism doesn't mean democracy; it is a particular attitude that may be held within a democracy, but it can be held in other forms of government as well.  And it should be noted that secularism may lead to worse conditions.  So, Egyptians should focus on democracy, not necessarily on secular notions of governing.  2. Egyptians must not rely on the government for funding or providing economic security in the form of welfare; they must focus on creating a prosperous Egypt that leads to economic independence. Nonetheless, Egyptian leaders and the people must find a way to protect the poor. Egypt has a strong history, and this movement is part of that history. 3.  Create a strong government system that creates a balance and check system between the different branches.  Don't give too much power to the executive leader, whether that person is called president, prime minister or whatever.  If Egyptians do this, this could lead to another tyrant leader.  So, Egyptians should be very cautious in this transition period. Some groups who are not interested in genuine democracy will attempt to take advantage of the chaos of this time of transtion. Egyptians must not allow these groups to derail Egypt's new opportunity for democracy. -- A. Hussein, IDEO contributor

Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen… Today, we are all Egyptians

For nearly three weeks now, the streets of Cairo, Egypt have been flooded with thousands of protesters calling for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down after thirty years of oppressive rule.  Complicating matters for the U.S., Mubarak has been a loyal friend of the U.S. and a stabilizing force in the region against radical Islamist extremism.  Moreover, there are some indications that Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are taking advantage of this opportunity to press their own agenda, causing some in the west to fear a repeat of the Iranian revolution of 1979.   Caught in the middle are the vast majority of Egyptian nationals who simply want a better life with more freedoms, especially freedom from the oppressive tyranny they have been enduring for the last thirty years.  Yet, for the second time in two weeks, today Mubarak has declared he will not step down until September.

As Americans, it is right for us to sympathize with the Egyptian people.  One of my former students' recent Facebook posts reflects the right attitude:  "Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen.  Today, we are all Egyptians!"  But which Egyptians?  This is our real dilemma as Americans.  Certainly, many of us would welcome a secular democracy in Egypt, where individuals are free to pursue their own  dreams, while respecting the rights of other Egyptians to do the same.  This is perhaps our main objection to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.  Any group which imposes its own ideology on its fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is antithetical to genuine democracy.  This is true whether the group is religiously motivated or politically motivated by left or right wing ideologies. 

How do Egyptians find a path to genuine democracy when organized protest is the means by which they hope to achieve political victory?  While many of the protesters are crying freedom as the basis for their political action, what do these activists mean by 'freedom'?  The English language site for the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, implies that its real agenda is freedom.  However, a careful analysis of both their English and Arabic websites indicates an Islamist agenda, where Islam and Sharia are imposed upon society.  This is because to many Islamists, true freedom and peace come only from total submission to Allah (Islam) and Allah's Law (Sharia).  So, for these believers, freedom can be imposed from the outside simply by establishing a theocracy in accordance with the Qur'an and Hadith, at least a particular reading of these. 

In contrast, American Christians, particularly Protestants, have a unique perspective on the American notion of democracy.  The European religious struggles in the 16^th and 17^th centuries led to intense persecutions and wholesale disenfranchisement for those who did not belong to the dominant religious group of a region or country.  My own family heritage involved persecution and death at the hands of French Catholics, since my ancestors were French Huguenots.  Having fled to Nova Scotia to avoid persecution, arrest and death, my forebears eventually migrated to an isolated rural part of French speaking Louisiana, in what is sometimes referred to as Cajun country today.  These family members resisted the systematic pressures of Catholic practice, even marrying relatives in order to avoid becoming Catholic.  Even when Louisiana became part of the United States, it took nearly a century and a half for Protestants in the region to feel genuine freedom from religious oppression and pressure. 

As a Baptist, I also have a keen awareness of the religious persecution and struggle involved in the formation of the United States in the late 18^th century.  Baptists were influential in getting the freedom of religion clause included in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.  Baptists were a religious minority in both New England and Virginia, and knew first hand the political difficulties faced by minorities in any system of government.  They wanted to make sure their religious liberties were protected; however, they also knew that in order to secure their own liberty, they must protect the liberties of those with whom they disagree.  This is a fundamental aspect of American democracy, and all notions of democracy must include this basic principle in order to qualify as a genuine form of democracy.  This alone accounts for why Americans could not accept an Islamist involvement in a democratic Egyptian government.

    I could include American and European Jews, or other minority religious groups living in America in my discussion of the problem of achieving genuine democracy.  African-Americans, Native Americans, immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere, all face similar difficulties of disenfranchisement, and sometimes persecution and outright hostility.  We are all well aware of the horrors and evil of racial slavery, and how an entire population was systematically exploited, abused and oppressed solely based on the color of one's skin.  And this evil was not remedied simply by the removal of slavery as a sanctioned social institution.  Even today, democracy is difficult in our country.  Some feel that the political and legal mechanisms and institutions in place today still have not granted true equality for many in our country.  Economic, political and social injustices still persist, in spite of our dreams of a truly democratic America. 

As you might be able to tell at this point, I do not see "majority rule" or "one person one vote" as the basis for democracy.  My notion necessarily includes both individual liberty and self-determination (self-governance) AND minority protections.  When any group, even a majority, can impose its will upon another, democracy is not present.  This is one of the main reasons the founders of American democracy tried to constitutionally limit the power of the federal government.  When a small group of people – a centralized government – can dictate its will, overriding the will of the local community or state, democracy is lost.  It is no different than the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist group dictating its religious ideology as sovereign law.  American democracy, in order to remain genuinely democratic, must remain predominantly decentralized, with a cooperative 'republic' forming the basis of national action.  This is the fundamental basis of American democracy.

If Egypt is to transition toward a genuine democracy, the people must have constitutional and political protections against the rise of Islamist rule, or even against a tyranny of the majority.  Minority rights and liberties must be protected and guaranteed.  The right of dissent is not an absolute right, meaning dissent cannot be used as a club to impose the will of the minority upon the majority.  However, without the right to dissent, democracy is equally impossible.  Egypt must find a way to navigate the treacherous waters of disagreement democratically if it is to eventually achieve some semblance of genuine democracy.  It has taken America over two hundred years and we are still struggling toward this ideal.  Certainly, it will take time in Egypt as well.  But if democracy in this sense is the goal of the Egyptian people, then truly today we are all Egyptians!

               -- David Adcock, managing editor

America's Energy Future (Part Two): Practical Suggestions for Energy Transition

As stated in my previous article, America must make a more concerted effort to transition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources.  Yet, in my opinion, even the president's twenty-five year transition timeline is too slow.  So, what are we to do?  There are no easy solutions, and all options currently available to us, short of massive government intervention, will have limited effect on the long term problem unless we all begin to change the way we consume energy.  Nonetheless, we can begin to make steps in the right direction if we care to do so, and if each of us does our part.  So, what are we to do?

First, we can begin to transition virtually all local, state and federal vehicles entirely to non-fossil fuel technology.  Most local government vehicles need not travel long distances in a day; for most government agencies, we could transition at least the autos to all-electric cars like the Nissan Leaf.  According to U.S. Census statistics, in 2007 there were nearly 4.2 million registered vehicles owned and operated by federal, state and local governments and other public institutions, not counting military vehicles or motorcycles.  Replacing over four million gas powered cars, vans, trucks and busses with electric and hybrid vehicles may only account for less than 2% of all vehicles on the road today, but it would be a start.  Of course, while most government cars would be transitioned to electric, those vehicles needed for long distance travel or unable to be replaced by all-electric technology could be replaced gas hybrid vehicles. 

Transitioning to non-fossil-fuel-based government vehicles will take time.  Government budgets will need significant adjustments almost immediately.  An aggressive ten year replacement plan is theoretically achievable, but even a twelve to fifteen year plan might work.  Within ten to fifteen years most government vehicles would be entirely electric, and none of the remaining would be based entirely upon fossil fuel technology.   Still, transitioning 1.5% of all cars, trucks, vans and busses to non-fossil fuel technology would reduce total fossil fuel consumption in the U.S. by less than 1%, and significantly less than that if we don't transition the U.S. electricity grid off coal as quickly as possible.  The solutions are not easy.

Second, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. military is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in America by far.  In fact, according to one source, the U.S. military consumes about 450,000 barrels of oil per day, about as much as the entire country of Greece.   But this isn't saying much, since Greece is #32 in the list of countries consuming the most fossil fuels today.  In fact, when compared to the total U.S. consumption of fossil fuel, the American military accounts for only 2% of U.S. fossil fuel consumption.  While this is still a huge number, this includes large military deployments in the midst of two foreign wars.  Moreover, in spite of the extensive global engagement of the U.S. military today, Department of Defense officials have begun to deliberately reduce dependency upon fossil fuels as of mid- to late-2010 (New York Times, October 4, 2010).  U.S. Navy Secretary , Ray Mabus, stated that the Navy has a ten-year plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by 50%.  Other military departments have similar goals.  While we need to do more, this is a good start. 

The biggest obstacle facing America is privately owned gas & diesel burning vehicles, which account for most of the fossil fuel consumption in the U.S.  The second largest problem is electricity usage by our homes, office buildings, cities, etc., most of which is powered by fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).  If we are going to make progress in reducing our fossil fuel usage, Americans will have to take two bold steps.  Millions of us are going to have to switch to electric and hybrid cars, trucks and vans.  Hybrids will not be enough.  Many of us are going to have to switch to electric cars, especially for local transportation needs.  Certainly, this will put a drain on our electric utility grid, initially increasing our use of coal-based technology.  But if our government and utility companies make a serious effort to increase our usage of so-called 'clean energy' technology (solar, wind, hydro and nuclear), we might be able to offset our initial increase in coal usage as more and more of us drive electric cars. 

Why do I think this is a feasible move?  Already America has made significant progress without much coordinated national effort.  For instance, since 2005 America's dependence upon fossil fuels has declined 8.4% (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.pdf).  This is due in part because in the past five years America's dependence upon renewable energy sources has increased nearly 21%, and the rate at which we are transitioning toward 'clean energy' is increasing.  According to the Energy Information Administration, 8% of all U.S. energy consumption in 2009 came from renewable energy sources (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_ consump /rea_prereport.html).

While this is a significant improvement over the last decade, only 10% of our renewable energy comes from solar and wind, meaning less than one percent of our total energy consumption today comes from wind and solar technologies.  Hydro-electric and bio-fuel technologies still account for the bulk of America's renewable energy usage.  We will have to invest more in clean energy methods quickly if we are going to avoid the severe fossil fuel shortage predicted in my previous article.  I'm not suggesting that our federal government has to shoulder most of the burden for this shift.  But our utility companies at the very least must establish ambitious plans to transition to a much larger dependence on renewable energy sources, and this must occur relatively quickly over the next ten to twenty years.

All of these solutions together will not solve the fossil fuel problem.  Reducing our energy usage as well as coordinated energy conservation will help, too.  But taking these steps over a ten to twenty year period might make a big difference over the long run.  How long will such moves put off the coming 'dark ages' I mentioned in my last article?  Who knows?  But if we do not make a concerted effort as Americans, we may find ourselves in the dark sooner than we think.

 

               David Adcock, Managing Editor