Democracy in Egypt?

Color me skeptical, but if true, this could be good news:

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday ordered a revision of the country's election laws and said multiple candidates could run in the nation's presidential elections, a scenario Mubarak hasn't faced since taking power in 1981.

The surprise announcement, a response to critics' calls for political reform, comes shortly after historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, balloting that brought a taste of democracy to the region. It also comes amid a sharp dispute with the United States over Egypt's arrest of one of the strongest proponents of multi-candidate elections.

"The election of a president will be through direct, secret balloting, giving the chance for political parties to run for the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to choose among them with their own will," Mubarak said in an address broadcast live on Egyptian television.

Mubarak -- who has never faced an opponent since becoming president after the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat -- said his initiative came "out of my full conviction of the need to consolidate efforts for more freedom and democracy."

The Bush Administration will feel, and with some justification, a measure of satisfaction. But very big questions are raised by this - Is this going to be a legitimate election? We know that having  elections does not guarantee democracy. Who can run? Are all parties eligible? Who can win? This is not a legitimacy question, rather whether democracy will actually bring forth a positive result for U.S. interests. What support can fundamentalist Islamists garner? Can anti-U.S. parties win?

In the end, it seems difficult for me to imagine that the progress likely to be achieved towards democratic reforms in the Middle East can ever justify the Iraq Debacle, but the possibility of good news in Egypt on this front is a good thing.

Update [2005-2-26 13:42:31 by Armando]: DavidNYC reminds that not everyone may have seen this:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday abruptly called off a planned trip to several Middle Eastern countries that had been scheduled for next week, a decision that came apparently because of the arrest of a leading Egyptian opposition politician last month. The decision highlighted a rift with an important ally over President Bush's push for democratic change. It came a day after Mr. Bush's tense meeting with Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, who was clearly uncomfortable with Mr. Bush's criticism of Russia's democracy. The linchpin for Ms. Rice's trip had been a planned meeting in Cairo of foreign ministers for the Group of 8 industrial nations and the Arab League to discuss economic aid and democratic change in the Middle East. But that meeting was postponed by Egypt on Sunday in an early sign of the tensions that have been building even as the Bush administration has praised Egypt for its help in the Israeli-Palestinian mediation after Yasir Arafat's death.

My post is written having that piece of news in mind.

•  The Litmus Test

  Will women take part?  Or will this be a fake Saudi style election by and for men only?

  by Athena on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:38:37 AM PDT

  •  women

    I would be extremely surprised if Egypt held a men-only election.  I'm also extremely puzzled as to why you even speculate about it.  Can you elaborate?

    Egypt has had women's suffrage since the 1950s.  It had, for decades, been the main opposing force to Saudi Arabia, ideologically, in the Arab world - it was Egypt's mantle that Saddam Hussein tried to take up more recently.  The Saudis gained power through oil money and harnessing a fundamentalist religious movement to give them political legitimacy, while the Egyptian regime came from a socialism-tinged Arab nationalist movement, and has fought a bitter low level war with Egypt's Islamists.  Why would Egypt suddenly try to emulate Saudi Arabia and cancel women's suffrage?  It seems far-fetched.

    by cos on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:46:09 AM PDT

    •  women

      Well, Egypt has in the last 20 years seen a rise in Islamic fundamentalism.  Clearly, they would want to gain power in the government.

      by daaawi on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:04:08 AM PDT

      •  and...?

        Clearly the Islamists want to gain power in the government.  But why is that reason for a government that is opposed to the Islamists, to suddenly rescind women's right to vote?  In other words, how does your comment relate to this comment thread?  I'm confused?

        by cos on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:27:22 AM PDT

        •  women's rights is what it's all about!

          w.r.t. many if not all of these entrenched, quasi-dictatorship regimes ~ when things change, whether by revolution (Iran) or even "democratic process", in which women participate (Iraq) ~ the tendency has been for Fundamentalism to take root, ~50% of the population losing their civil rights, thus.

          imho, women's rights are what it's all about, whether it's the 'War On (islamist) Terrorism' abroad, or the creeping (judeo-christian) Fundamentalism here in the U.S.A.

          now with regard to "democratic elections" in Egypt, many women in Cairo must be thinking, "we have little to gain by this, and a heluva lot to lose!"
          

          by MonsieurGonzo on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:41:48 PM PDT

  •  Women vote now

    Egypt is a SECULAR "Republic," more socialist than anything else.

    Islamic movements have been crushed there for decades now.

    by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:14:34 AM PDT

  •  Justified satisfaction?

    Did I miss something?

    Since when does the slaughter of 120,000+ Iraqi civilians become "...justifiably satisfactory?"

    I'm clueless, can somebody help.

    by louislemire on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:22:26 PM PDT

•  It Would Be Great, If True

  It would be great if true.  Of course Bush might not like the results when the millions on the "Arab Street" vote in anti-American governments accross the region.

  by Rob Waldeck on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:45:39 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely fascinating

    but completely unsurprising, to watch the Bushies spin every democratic development as something they themselves have authored.

    They have for years supported/propped up/tolerated all kinds of autocratic, quasi-totalitarian regimes (see Arabia, Saudi) in order to advance whatever the agenda of the moment is. Their newfound love of Middle Eastern democracy means nothing outside the context of domestic politics. As with everything they say, it's a cover for something else, something always involving some kind of upwards redistribution of wealth.

    Hell, they specifically opposed elections in Iraq until Sistani gave them the offer they couldn't refuse.

    I'm happy for the Egyptians, but the fucking Bush people had nothing to do with it. If anything it's a genie they don't want out of the bottle, as you indicated.

    by Jim J on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:16:52 AM PDT

•  History's perspective

  In the long run, progress towards Islamic democracy will be the only thing justifying the liberation of Iraq. Pro- and anti-war Westerners have both stated their case already; in the end it will be up to the people with the purple fingers, and not us, to decide whether it was worth it.

  by Hiero5ant on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:47:32 AM PDT

  •  purple finger?

    While that was an inspiring rendition it in no way illustrates any other reality than the bush spin.

    Are you saying that the 43% of the eligible Iraqi voters that voted in this (American led, executed and enumerated) sham election are the only ones who deserve to comment on whether the illegal invasion was worth "it" or not?

    What about the soldier killed in Iraq? Is his family allowed to weigh in?

    What about all of the lies.

    Your flowery words leave out the victims unable or to make it to, or unwelcome at the polling stations to get the requisite ink you say they need to determine the worth of their suffering.

    by AnonymousArmy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:31:27 PM PDT

•  Democracy is an idea

  The idea that the people get a direct say in government and the ability to check fire their leadership if it is not working in their interest.

  The elections in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, and yes also Iraq have dominated the news on the pan-Arab TV channels. Thus, democracy as an idea has been spred across the Middle East. I wouldn't be suprised if Lebanon ends up kicking out Syria and holding free and fair elections. Ideas are hard to kill, especially one that allows people to have a say in their own government.

  by ECH on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:58:00 AM PDT

•  Skeptical

  Color you skeptical is right: Rice Calls Off Mideast Visit After Arrest of Egyptian.

  by DavidNYC on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:59:16 AM PDT

  •  That happened before Mubarak changed his mind

    Egypt's Mubarak Orders Election Reform

    The surprise announcement, a response to critics' calls for political reform, comes shortly after historic elections in Iraq (news - web sites) and the Palestinian territories, balloting that brought a taste of democracy to the region. It also comes amid a sharp dispute with the United States over Egypt's arrest of one of the strongest proponents of multi-candidate elections.

    http://tinylink.com/?yThgBHkBEn

    by ECH on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:01:55 AM PDT

    •  Color

      Well then color me stupid. :)

      by DavidNYC on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:11:58 AM PDT

      •  No

        The connection is obvious - the question is is it real. The story you highlight is critical to interpreting what this means or may mean.

        I guess I should have had it up in the post to provide the context.

        by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:15:10 AM PDT

        •  Story

          My mistake was that I thought the Condi story took place after the story you wrote about.

          by DavidNYC on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:19:17 AM PDT

          •  Oh

            No, I knew the Condi story so my mistake was not talking about it in the post.

            It is the context for the post and for my questions.

            by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:24:41 AM PDT

            •  Update

              So stick an update link at the bottom.

              by DavidNYC on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:29:44 AM PDT

    •  "Election reform" doesn't mean anything

      When everyone who signs onto the ballot mysteriously stumbles into a jail cell in Cairo.

      "Ahh, so you want to run for President? These are the signatures of support you gathered? Yes, now you are honored guest of Egyptian government! And we will gather up all of these nice people to keep you company."

      Mubarak's got a history of police oppression of political dissidents leading back as far as the eye can see and has maintained very close ties with the United States all the way--only Israel receives more direct aid from us. An old Egyptian fox is not so kind, my boy. Bush is going to cling to this like a life preserver in the middle of the sea, but it doesn't mean much of anything. Mubarak knows we'll turn a blind eye to anything short of genocide and most things beyond.

      And as Stalin said, "It's not the people who vote that count--it's the people who count the votes."

      (No, my sarcasm detector isn't broken.)

      by Renleve on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:25:40 AM PDT

•  As far as I am concerned

  the movement toward Democratic reforms in the Middle East cannot justify the Iraq debacle, but can help atone for it.  If we are successful in nudging our autocratic allies in the region into allowing more and more representative government, we can expect Bush to be hailed as a Reaganesque visionary.

  It's still worth it.  But we must remind people again and again, that a similar favorable result could have been attained without making enormous mistakes like: hording the contracts that could have been used to gather international support and legitimacy for regime change, disbanding the Iraqi Army (thereby consolidating our hold on Iraqi assets by necessitating our long term occupation), basing the invasion on hyped, forged, and false intelligence, etc.).

  Furthermore, a true attempt to solve our security risks would have, of necessity, coupled the toppling of Saddam with an equally tough insistence that Sharon remove most of the settlements in the West Bank.  The failure to even attempt this reveals the Wolfowitz plan as a fraud that was more concerned with looting our treasury, stealing Iraqi oil-related contracts from the French, Russians, and Chinese, and providing additional time for Sharon to consolidate his territorial gains.

  If we can turn these lemons into lemonade, that's great.  But we can never forget HOW it was done.  It was criminal on dozens of levels.

  by BooMan23 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:59:44 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    The ends don't justify the means especially when the means were originally justified by an entirely different end.

    We should applaud any meaningful democratic reform in any region of the world. Unfortunately, the rhetoric from the Right that will hail Bush as a visionary will obscure the fact that war is and was not the only alternative here, a position which is, in the extreme, a serious threat to democracy at home and abroad.

    Let us also not allow democratic reform in other countries to further fog over the profiteering encouraged by Bush and his cronies.

    by frameone on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:29:45 AM PDT

•  good news in egypt?

  yeah, if egypt had one-man one vote elections, it would be a hostile anti-American/Israeli regime tommorrow! Great news! What a reason to celebrate! Yipppeee. I can't understand the arrogance of you amerikan kool aid drinkers (even on the so-called left) who presume to know that democracy is the best form of governance for all peoples in all places. don't say that "winston churchill said democracy is the best....  And it's also arrogance that you take joy in the fact that Egypt might become a democracy!! Wow! I never will profess to know what is best for other people, which is like the posters here do. And all of you are very naive to think that somehow America (of democrats and republicans) will stand by while Egypt elects anti-American people and becomes an enemy. All of this democracy hoopla really since the end of the cold war is a bunch of bs.

  by Mike from NJ on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:01:11 AM PDT

  •  As likely

    It would be a pro-European country, lobbying with reasonable chance of success for associate status with the EU, with especially close ties to Italy, Germany, and Turkey, with a little American subsidization thrown in.

    The Americans are just grandstanding to take credit for decades of other people's work.

    by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:07:41 AM PDT

    •  The British and French Invasion of Egypt...

      ...(along with the Israelis) in 1956 was the closing chapter of the European age of empire.  I'm sure the Egyptians have longer memories than you.

      by Grand Poobah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:16:08 AM PDT

      •  The last thing that is going to happen

        Is trading a hard-won understanding about mutual sovereignty with Europe for liberation, American-style.

        by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:23:10 AM PDT

        •  Hard Won Understanding About Sovereignty????

          That's a peculiar way of putting it.  France and Britain were quite blunt that they were invading Egypt for the purpose of seizing Egyptian waterways.  And the Euros were quite miffed when their declining empires were forced to give up imperialist claims to the Suez.  There is plenty of anti-American sentiment in the MidEast that is well-founded, however, this idea that people in devloping nations are eager to run into the arms of former European oppressors is absurd.  Developing nations are quite capable of forming their own independent alliances.

          by Grand Poobah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:37:45 AM PDT

          •  See far more substantive answer, same thread

            Looks like Egypt and the EU are getting along famously.

            They seem to have their hard-won understanding, after all.
            

            by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

          •  Siezing Egyptian Waterways?

            No. They were British. Paid for in hard cash. HM's government still has the reciept from 1875.

            Whether or not the Khaldive of Egypt should have sold the Suez canal to Great Britian is a completely different issue.

            If Mubarak manages to make a deal to retire peacefully like Moi of Kenya, that'll be just peachy.

            by messy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:37:26 PM PDT

            •  You're kidding right?

              "HM government has a receipt?"

              Give me a break! Don't they also have deeds to half of India?

              The US government still has receipts of the slaves who built the Washington DC. The DeBeers family has receipts of blood-diamond mines in Africa.

              Are you really defending these deals? Do you think it's OK to "buy" a countries resources if one guy in charge says it's OK? Who the hell are you?

              You apparently don't understandcolonialism.

              by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:12:23 PM PDT

              •  Suez

                The whole point of the Suez crisis was that Nasser had nationalised the Suez Canal Company and the former owners did not like this.

                The British PM Eden pursued a thoroughly dishonest policy. He was horrofied that the Treaty of Sevres (providing for Israel to attack Egypt, so Britain and France would have a pretext to seize the canal) had been put in writing. Eden had the Foreign Office send him all the British copies which were never seen again.

                Of course the perfidious French filed their copy Treaty in the official archives and the Israeli copy was found in one of Ben Gurion's suits after his death, still those little defects in the coverup were not discovered until many years later.

                The Suez expedition horrified President Eisenhower, who exercised American soft power by declining to provide financial support for the ailing pound (which incidentaly demonstrates that military power can be trumped when your currency is so weak that you are in the power of another country - perhaps someone should explain this to President Bush before the Chinese pull the plug on the dollar).

                However I would not suggest that American's gloat too much about the follies of European Empires. What happened in Panama in the early 20th Century was not that different from what was done in Suez in the 19th Century.

                by Gary J on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:21:03 PM PDT

                •  Thanks, and

                  I think that was the high point of the last 50 years, as far as international relations go.

                  Kinda sad, since it was 49 years ago.

                  Sigh, Ike's 2nd term.

                  by JoshNarins on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:27:20 PM PDT

      •  EU relations with Egypt - Splendid

        Associate agreement between the EU and Egypt

        The Association Agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Arab Republic of Egypt enters into force today, opening a new era in their relationship. Following ratification by the two parties, all aspects of the Agreement - political, economic, and social - are now operational. The trade and trade related provisions of the Agreement entered into force provisionally on 1 January 2004. The Agreement will be instrumental in bringing Egyptian law more closely in line with EU legislation and promoting economic reform. It will also upgrade the current political dialogue with the objective of developing shared political values. This is the sixth Association Agreement to enter into force in the Mediterranean region, bringing one step closer the region-wide Free Trade Area which the Barcelona Process aims to create by 2010.

        EU Commissioner just visited Egypt

        
        The European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, will begin a trip to the region this week with a bilateral visit to Egypt. During her visit she will discuss prospects for the Middle East Peace Process and the European Union's deepening relationship with Egypt. She looks forward to meeting President Hosni Mubarak, Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif, Foreign Minister Abul Gheit, among others.

        On the eve of her trip, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner said:

        "The fact that my first bilateral visit to the region is to Egypt reflects importance to Europe - as a partner in the Middle East peace process but also a key player in the Mediterranean area. I warmly welcome President Mubarak's invitation to Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas to hold a summit in Sharm el Sheik on Tuesday, which is characteristic of Egypt's vision and leadership in the region."

        She added

        "EU-Egypt relations entered a new phase last year, with the entry into force of our Association Agreement which paves the way for a future free trade area between us. I hope that this year we will be able to take another leap forward in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and start work developing an Action Plan to bring us even closer".

        The European Neighbourhood Policy is a new and substantial offer to those countries that show that they want to work closely with the EU on common interests and shared values. The offer includes the gradual opening of certain European Community programmes, continued reduction of trade barriers and a stake in the biggest Single Market in the world.

        Action Plans have already been developed with seven countries - Jordan, Moldova, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia, Israel and Ukraine. In each case it is tailor-made to meet the interests and needs of the country concerned. Plans negotiated so far contain detailed measures to help countries participate in the EU's Single Market, as well as measures to increase co-operation in fields as varied as transport, environment, technology, and research.

        Egypt is a very important player in the Middle East Peace Process, and the EU warmly welcomes its offer of support in the context of Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza. The EU shares Egypt's desire to see a resolution of the conflict and is determined to play its part, as a member of the Quartet and as the major donor to the Palestinians.

        The EU also values Egypt's positive role regional affairs: its decision to host the Sharm el Sheikh meeting on Iraq last November, its position as lead Arab nation in the preparations of the ten-year anniversary of the Barcelona Process, nd host to the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures, which will be launched in the coming months.

        The EU is Egypt's biggest trading partner - approximately 40% of Egypt's exports go to the EU and about 34% of Egypt's imports come from the EU.
        

        Trade between Egypt and the USA, never mind formal associative ties, does not even come close.
        

        by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:28:59 AM PDT

        •  Can Americans Get Our $50 Billion Back ?...

          ...that taxpayers in U.S. have forked over to the Egyptians in order for them to accept that peace treaty with Israel.

          by Grand Poobah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:41:23 AM PDT

          •  Ah, you noticed!

            
            Sure...along with the $100 billion+ we've given as subsidies for Israel's nuclear program, which the country could not possibly afford on its own dime.

            by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:42:38 AM PDT

            •  I'd Gladly Cut Off The Israelis...

              ...and as for the Egyptians, I would be happy as well for the Euros to take over the American tab as well, but I know they're not that stupid.

              And as for the new chummy relationship between Egypt and the Europeans, all you have to do is take a walk through the British Museum and the Louvre to see who has always gotten the best of that relationship.  Nasser would have known better.
              

              by Grand Poobah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:52:40 AM PDT

      •  Why that'd almost be as unlikely

        as France and Germany becoming the closest allies in the European Union, right?

        by Aexia on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:51:17 AM PDT

        •  Wrong !

          White nations have routinely formed shifting alliances with each other in which they treat partners as equals.  No post-colonial era white nation has ever entered into relationships with dark-skinned nations treating as equal partners.

          by Grand Poobah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:47:46 PM PDT

          •  Commonwealth of Nations

            This is an association in which most of the countries of the former British Empire plus Mozambique, which was allowed to join though it was never under British rule, are members with equal status.

            Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings seem to spend a lot of energy complaining about British policy so it is by no means dominated by the British agenda.

            by Gary J on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:32:59 PM PDT

    •  ha

      The Americans are just grandstanding to take credit for decades of other people's work.

      WTF else is new?

      by Jim J on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:19:33 AM PDT

  •  Why do you care

    if Egypt is friendly to the US?

    Their people loath our foreign policy, so what's wrong with their government loathing our foreign policy?

    Do you have a theory of how Egyptians are better off because they have no representation?

    by BooMan23 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:08:32 AM PDT

    •  i obviously don't give a damn

      if the egyptians loathe our government. my contention is merely with the predominant assumptions that underpin all of this talk about democracy being so great. I take issue with the assumption that all people have the same desires that we as americans do. I don't believe in 'universal values'. What if in other countries they value hierarchy? what if women have a subordinate place in society? that's not my decision to make. I object to trying to influence others to make them in accordance with what works for us.

      by Mike from NJ on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:18:55 AM PDT

      •  right on

        Buddy, we are seeing first hand in Iraq that democracy is as garbage-in, garbage-out as anything else in the world, and that "democracy" is not necessarily the synonym for "freedom" that Bush insists it is.

        A majority vote for a medieval theocracy... here and there!

        Freedom's on the march! More like Asimov's entropy of galactic civilization...

        by Jim J on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:24:45 AM PDT

      •  I still don't get it

        what universal value are you referring to?

        the value I am referring to involves having a say in who runs your government.  Having a say in whether your government totally ignores the people's wishes.

        If they want to have a male-dominated society, let them vote for it.  

        Under what theory do people actually prefer to be oppressed, tortured, given propaganda instead of news, etc.?

        What they might vote FOR would reflect their different values.  The lack of a vote is not a value they relish.

        by BooMan23 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:32:42 AM PDT

      •  "they"?

        
        

        What if in other countries they value hierarchy? what if women have a subordinate place in society?

        I can imagine that the folks wielding power might be the one in your hypothetical statement who "value hierachy". And that it's the men who subordinate women.

        The powerless and the women are probably yearning if not struggling for change.

        peace
        

        by peace voter on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 10:54:43 AM PDT

  •  what do you think america will do

    if they elect a hostile government?

    to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
    i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

    by Tacoma Narrows on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:08:36 AM PDT

    •  demonise it

      and cut off the billions of $ of military aid in hopes of destabilising it. and that's on a good day.

      by wu ming on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:19:29 AM PDT

      •  there are billions of dollars in military aid

        going to egypt? interesting. i did not know that.

        to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
        i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

        by Tacoma Narrows on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:30:35 AM PDT

        •  per the LA Times

          Under Bush's latest budget request, $1.8 billion in economic and military assistance is earmarked for Egypt.

          by 3rdeye on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:42:54 AM PDT

        •  part of the payoff

          for sadat's peace treaty with israel back in the day, in addition to a nudge away from the soviet union's sponsorship of socialist arab nationalism. egypt's out #2 moneypit in the region.

          while i'm not particularly against foreign aid per se, i am against military aid (nonproductive at best, destabilizing at worst), and i'd be much happier to see our $2 billion tied to substantive legal and democratic reforms, knowing full well that they would lead to a regime which opposes the united states and israel more consistently. only a healthy egyptian civil society will undercut the militants, nationalist and fundamentalist, which is most definitely in everyone's interest.

          by wu ming on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:01:36 PM PDT

  •  I'm beginning to agree

    Democracy gave us a Bush second term. Ipso facto, democracy can't be all that good.

    No, seriously.

    by Jim J on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:20:48 AM PDT

  •  Bad Thing?

    it would be a hostile anti-American/Israeli regime tommorrow!

    Yes, and? America was a hostile anti-British/Spanish regime for years after it achieved independence. We've been oppressing and abusing these nations far more brutally than Britain abused us. Why should we expect anything different, or keep their people in chains because of that?

    by RHunter on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:54:40 PM PDT

•  As likely a reason for Egyptian liberalization

  Pressure from Europe, and a desire to distance itself from fellow-Ba'athi Syria and (former) Iraq.

  by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:03:10 AM PDT

•  the iraq situation

  may have to be taken as a proof of concept. if this goes the way mubarak claims he wants it to, it may be just the beginning. it would be hard to argue against the neoconservative approach to foreign policy at that point.

  i suppose there are important issues of stability here that could just as easily become the core of a foreign policy position for the democratic party, but like i said, there won't be much room for that if egypt and other countries undergo significant shifts toward democracy.

  to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
  i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

  by Tacoma Narrows on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:06:13 AM PDT

•  Middle East democracy is IN SPITE OF Dubya

  First of all, Iran has been have elections for a decade plus. International observers were all over monitoring the Iranian elections, and they were fairly conducted. So Iran was the one who proved democracy could work in the Middle East.

  Please remember that Dubya's plan was to hand over power to Dubya's hand picked successor in Iraq. Free elections in Iraq were FORCED on Dubya.

  Also, Saddam Hussain and his sons were willing the leave Iraq in the last couple of days before the invasion for a foreign country. Bush claimed that if Saddam and his sons left the country, they would be willing to halt the invasion. That was BS. Saddam and international parties started serious negotiations for Saddam to leave, and Bush responded with the early Shock and Awe decapitation bombing.

  The invasion and bombing of Iraq was totally unnecessary no matter how you look at it.

  by rebellingboxer on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:06:55 AM PDT

  •  Fair Iranian elections

    That's a stretch, my friend.

    The Iranian mullahs all but blacklisted the reformists last go-around.

    by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:08:29 AM PDT

    •  After the US invasion in Iraq

      Iranian elections before the US Iraqi invasion were overseen by international observers and were judged quite fair by international observers.

      The US made an improving situation in Iran much worse.

      by rebellingboxer on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:16:10 AM PDT

      •  The blacklisting of reformist candidates

        Is a matter of historical record, and beyond redemption or reproach at this point.

        These are not nice guys, these mullahs.

        There is no value to true supporters of freedom to jump in line with theocrats, either Shia or Republican.

        by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:20:32 AM PDT

        •  It's all relative...

          You have an excellent point. But compare Iran to any of the Arab ME countries, it is eons ahead in the area of democracy. That's more democracy than

          • Saudi Arabia
            
          • Jordan
            
          • Egypt
            
          • Sudan
            
          • Yemen
            
          • Oman
            
          • UAE
            
          • Qatar
            
          • Bahrain
            
          • Pakistan
            
          • Afghanistan
            
          • Libya

          The Coporate Media and the Neocons are trying hard to make it look like it's the same as every other country in the region, calling it "fundamentalist dictatorship," etc. But this is misleading. Even the ousted Undersecretary of State (Rich Armitage) called Iran a "democracy" 2 years ago. Bush is avoiding this point like the Plague.

          So I accept your point that they are not a full-democracy yet. But we have to be fair and honest about what they do have.
          

          by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:27:50 AM PDT

          •  Refuse to be painted into this corner

            
            My disputation: Calling Iran a place where fair elections happen flies in the face of many, documented, brazen, unapologetic abuses of power by a constitutionally-entrenched elite in the Islamic Republic.

            That far worse tyrants abuse, oppress and pillage on the American dime (among them, for quite a while, Saddam Hussein) is a very important and very different issue.

            by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:31:37 AM PDT

            •  You've put yourself in the corner...

              of binary thinking. It's not a "fair" or "not fair" issue, it's "how fair" it is. How democratic, how pluralistic.

              You should have no problem admitting that for example in the US a direct election for President would be more democratic than an electoral college system.

              The point isn't to say "Iran already has democracy." It's to point out the lies and hypocricy of the Bushies, to expose their disingenuous rhetoric.

              by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

              •  I 'm speaking of a single case

                And forwarding my agenda was not germane, never mine forwarding anyone elses.

                Though your goals are morally impeccable. :)

                b Binary thinking?

                I'm the one who introduce the concept of 'how fair' to the thread.

                I feel wrongly maligned. :(

                by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:40:05 AM PDT

                •  I respect you enormously....

                  And your stories are very fun to read. I didn't mean anything hostile. :)

                  I'm only saying that putting Iran in the same catagory as Saudi Arabia is also inaccurate.

                  Therefore, we cannot fall into the Repug rhetoric of  justifying invasion because "Saudi Arabia held democratic elections" but "Iran still hasn't."

                  by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:44:54 AM PDT

                  •  I think I'm okay, here

                       Fair and competitive elections...

                    ...are superior to corrupt competitive elections...

                    ...which are are superior to uncompetitive elections...

                    ...which are (nominally) superior to having no elections at all...

                    ...which is (supposedly) superior to having anarchy...

                    ...though I've got friends who'd contest that last. :)

                    by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:56:41 AM PDT

                    •  hi!

                      I haven't read your stories (yet) so I'll only comment on my perception of your posts as a non-American.

                      IMHO with the selection of Bush in 2000 Americans officially lost the ability to offer advice on how other countries should organize their government.

                      It seems that Americans need to get their own house in order before they worry about anyone else.

                      To think even for a second that Bush wants anything remotely resembling democracy (as it is taught worldwide) is as delusional as creationism.

                      Bush knows there is no perch from which he can preach the gospel of democracy that will have him herd beyond his own boarder.

                      He also knows that real politk demands the US pay attention to world events and even try and influence outcomes. Sadly he knows this influence can now only be achieved at the barrel of a gun.

                      The easiest way for Americans to stop the endless war perpetrated by your country is to actually create the democracy you demand of others at home.

                      If your children are well behaved at home chances are they are well behaved when they are out with friends unsupervised.

                      by AnonymousArmy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:27:18 PM PDT

                      •  Since I do not think well of the Bushies at all

                        I am quite sure that we are operating from a common perspective, here.

                        I would not want anyone to think that I am the least bit fond of the Bush administration, when I believe them to be the single greatest disaster that has ever struck the United States.

                        We have lost something as precious as life under their suzerainty: we have lost our honor as a nation.

                        by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:50:33 PM PDT

                      •  To some of your points.

                        
                        IMHO with the selection of Bush in 2000 Americans officially lost the ability to offer advice on how other countries should organize their government.

                        This ability to give advice is something Americans never had in the first place.

                        To think even for a second that Bush wants anything remotely resembling democracy ... is as delusional as creationism.

                        The problem with creationism is that by itself, it's not delusional.  It's teleology masquerading as science.  Bush is a plutocrat and a kleptocrat.  He has no desire to spread democracy, but to loot other countries and control their resources under the guise of it.

                        He also knows that realpolitik demands the US pay attention to world events and even try and influence outcomes.

                        If only it were that simple.  Realpolitik involves the creation of scandals, tensions, the exacerbation of conflict and well-timed war to get what one wants.  It's only effective practitioner was Otto Von Bismarck.  William Kristol wishes he were good old Otto.  The neocons don't want to influence outcomes, they want to control them entirely.  They want a simple world, and they'll get it by pushing all the right buttons, they think.

                        The easiest way for Americans to stop the endless war perpetrated by your country is to actually create the democracy you demand of others at home.

                        I'm not as optimistic as you are.
                        I'm waiting for another civil war, a bigger one this time and much more bitter than the last.  And this time, the north really will win, the solid south will be flatter than gold leaf off the roll.

                        If your children are well behaved at home chances are they are well behaved when they are out with friends unsupervised.

                        Yes and the lack of resources and mourning our losses will make us better everywhere.  Only don't think of us as friends to you until we are comfortable with ourselves.  
                        Wait a millennium.  Or two.

                        by vivens fons on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:46:12 PM PDT

                        •  I think we agree.

                          Sorry if I wasn't clear.

                          I meant to say one that believes that bush intends to spread democracy is as delusional as one that believes creationism as fact.

                          Realpolitik

                          I think what you described was realpolitik U.S. style. Or more accurately empirical realpolitk as this style is not exclusively employed by the U.S.

                          There are many smaller nations that must maneuver through this without the `might is right authority' that countries like the U.S. and Russia can.

                          Canada and Sweden for example have managed to achieve a competitive quality of life for its citizens with far less economic and military might.

                          I would also argue without any of the dirty tricks you mention above. (Notwithstanding Canada's recent inexplicable foray into Haiti)

                          Subtly American's are told that if the U.S didn't dominate the world by force they would be reduced to 3rd world status by their adversaries.

                          Instead of offering truth the U.S. ruling elite need to slither, spin, lie, and cheat in order to get the American people to authorize policies that enrich only themselves and subject their citizen to revenge attacks from their victims.

                          by AnonymousArmy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:27:18 PM PDT

                          •  And to these.

                            I think what you described was realpolitik U.S. style. Or more accurately empirical realpolitk as this style is not exclusively employed by the U.S.

                            Yes, and my example was Otto Von Bismarck, the Junker that made the nation of Germany out of well-timed wars.

                            There are many smaller nations that must maneuver through this without the `might is right authority' that countries like the U.S. and Russia can.

                            Yes there are.  The fact that they must use maneuver against strength and do so with effectiveness is much to their credit.  They remind me of Robert E. Lee, who faced an enemy with vast resources and yet won battles through maneuver.

                            I would say Canada and Sweden have managed to achieve a superior quality of life in contrast to the U.S.  CONTRAST them, do not compare them to us.  In this country, 18,000 people a year are said to die prematurely because of their lack of health insurance.  That's 18,000 people murdered by social neglect alone.
                            Competitive?  Oh if it were only that simple.

                            Subtly American's are told that if the U.S. didn't dominate the world by force they would be reduced to 3rd world status by their adversaries.

                            No.  Americans have been told this explicitly.  You should hear the repetition in the lessons about Pearl Harbor . . . we must fortify and be aggressive in the world lest we be attacked again, goes the line.  Do you think I bought it?  Well I didn't then and I don't now.
                            It's pure manipulation.
                            Our response to 9/11 had nothing to do with genuine emotions, it was manipulated by the government to be as bitter and as paranoid as possible.
                            I bought none of it.
                            We had a movement, isolationism.
                            Isolationism was widespread and advocated by some of our best minds.  It remains intelligent.  It should be considered as a course of action.
                            Yes, isolation is action.  Action where it's needed most, by Americans on America.

                            Instead of offering truth the U.S. ruling elite need to slither ... and cheat in order to get the American people to authorize policies that enrich only themselves and subject their citizen to revenge attacks frm their victims

                            The U.S. government has become a one-party state belonging to the elites, both bloodless and alive.
                            They do slither, and they believe that if you package any outrage, any evil in righteousness, make it seem virtuous or at least benign, the American people will buy it, support it, etc.  I hate to say it, but half the American people who voted voted for this fascist bastard regime.  I and all who advocate the fruits of my voice have been railroaded out of government and the media.  Here is one of the few places you will find us communicating.
                            The American people have forgotten that mercy comes before righteousness.  That is what is missing in both our foreign and domestic policies.
                            Perhaps you don't know me.  I don't travel abroad.  I probably never will because I'll never earn the kind of money that facilitates it.  Even if I did, I don't think I could do so safely.  Maybe you are in the same boat.
                            In my country, there are mothers walking in weather below freezing wearing only t-shirts, with small infants who are wrapped only in one blanket and two if they're lucky.
                            There are middle-aged to old men dying of cancer who have worked all their lives, but have never been covered by health insurance-- their wives cry because the men refused to be examined by doctors year after year.
                            Do you know why they refused to be seen by doctors when their conditions were survivable?
                            They refused because they didn't want to impoverish their families further.  That's why.
                            Their corporate masters deem it convenient that they'll never collect pensions, I'm sure.
                            And their wives?  Well perhaps Social Security.  Perhaps.
                            Imperialist ambitions don't comfort these men or their wives.  
                            Imperialist ambitions helped kill them.  Yes, they helped kill them.
                            Do you understand that the love of righteousness at the expense of mercy is the recipe for evil all over the world?  The amount of mercy people show to each other must be the ultimate gauge of civilization now and in the future.  By that measure, this, or should I say my country, is not civilized.

                            by vivens fons on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:34:43 PM PDT

                            •  Thank you for your reply.

                              I read blogs like this to refresh my hope that the American people will fix their situation before it gets fixed for them.

                              We will all suffer horribly if the world needs to respond because the American people refuse to or are unable.

                              Thank you for your concern and thoughtfulness.

                              by AnonymousArmy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:34:50 PM PDT

    •  you mean....

      ...like we did with Ralph Nader?

      by Inverted on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:01:00 PM PDT

      •  It's a bit more serious than that

        Also, in the case of Ralph Nader, that would be the mullahs blacklisting the man they bankrolled to run against reform.

        by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:17:01 PM PDT

  •  Egypt

    But not this development. This si clearly a result of the Bush Co drive on the issue - even if it is just PR.

    by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:12:58 AM PDT

    •  Only in the way wrecking car can fix bad paint job

      A guy had a car with a really crappy paint job. The guy in the badly painted car puts said car into a tree. Guy calls insurance company, car gets towed to body shop, and gets repaired.

      Did the car wreck fix the crappy paint job?? Well... it was the cause of the crappy paint job getting fixed. However, it was not the true cure of the crappy paint job, was it? The auto body shop after the wreck actually fixed the crappy paint job.

      Dubya is the car wreck of the Middle East. Lack of democracy is this example's crappy paint job. Dubya has caused chaos and instablity (car wreck) for all who supported US policies in the Middle East. To calm the chaos and instability in Egypt that Dubya has caused, Egypt is calming his people with calls for elections. Fair elections is the shiny new paint job.

      by rebellingboxer on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:49:01 AM PDT

  •  Free elections in Iran???

    What? That is prepostorous.  Iran holds "free elections" only after the mullahs remove 1000's of "unacceptable" candidates from the list of nominees.  Their elections can't even pass the EU sniff test. This from the first google search result for "Iranian elections"

    The Council of EU foreign ministers expressed its deep regret and disappointment that large numbers of candidates were prevented from standing in this year's parliamentary elections... making a genuine democratic choice by the Iranian people impossible," it said.

    There are many Iranian patriots who despise the theocratic Mullahs but have grown weary of open dissent after seeing so many others publicly hanged, and imprisoned for their acts.  Don't give the Mullahs legitimacy by spreading the lie about the free Iranian elections.

    by flying monkey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:33:36 AM PDT

•  Speculative geopolitics

  This doesn't really pass the smell test for me. It's a surprising development from a country that hasn't been the focus of much attention for quite some time.

  • We know Bush's political capital is tied to the success of the neocon dream of "democracy in the Middle East".

  • The Iraqi "elections" were more for show than for actual democracy, and even with the muddled results there's a question of legitimacy.

  • Saudi Arabia recently implemented "democracy" in a farcical manner.

  • The Bush Administration has been shown to bribe governments directly to get certain things.

  One is left wondering how much money the Bush Administration promised Egypt if they put on a PR show of democracy to make it look like Bush's policies are generating results.

  This is pure speculation but I think we should consider the possibilities. The history of the Cold War taught us that superpowers have manipulated smaller countries for their own political goals, not necessarily for the benefit of the smaller countries.

  by puppethead on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:07:16 AM PDT

  •  Bush to Mubarak...

    ...Dude, don't worry I can get you some excellent electronic voting machines for the election. Now the people will know they want you. ;)

    by Alumbrados on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:29:15 AM PDT

•  Your skepticism is well founded

  While the news is, on its face, a step in the right direction, history seems to indicate that we will see what Fareed Zakaria so eloquently described in his treatises on "Illiberal Democracy", and what can be seen again and again in the former Soviet republics.  Democracies where the systems and mechanics are so tightly controlled that the opportunities for any real reform are non-existent.

  I think that this announcement is likely a sop to Washington to smooth the feathers which were ruffled by the arrest of Ayman Nour at the end of January, and the subsequent cancellation- FIVE days ago - of the upcoming G8 democracy  conference.  Have to keep those Camp David dollars flowing, don't ya know.

  I truly, truly hope to be proved wrong on this one, but I don't see it happening.

  by Wayward Wind on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:11:27 AM PDT

•  Here's an odd pairing

  On January 29, 2005, Egypt detains opposition lawmaker.

  Ayman Nur, founder of the al-Ghad, or Tomorrow Party, was taken into custody on Saturday after the Egyptian parliament stripped him of his parliamentary immunity.

  Lawmakers approved a request by the justice minister for Nur's parliamentary immunity to be lifted so he could be detained.

  Nur denies the forgery accusations.

  His arrest came two days before the ruling National Democratic Party was due to meet with Egyptian opposition parties to discuss political reform.

  Crying foul

  "What is going on is a flagrant violation of the political rights of citizens," Nur, a vocal government critic, said in comments carried by the country's semi-official Middle East News Agency.

  State security investigators have accused Nur of forging all but 14 of the more than 2000 signatures he was required to present to the committee responsible for licensing political parties.

  Investigators searched his home and office for additional documents.

  Nur has described his party, one of just three to be given permission to operate in the past 25 years, as a liberal democratic party that represents youth.

  The "prompt" action by a pro-democracy Bush administration

  After FOUR WEEKS, SOS Rice 'abruptly' cancels visit to Egypt.

  
  WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday abruptly canceled a trip to several Middle Eastern countries that had tentatively been scheduled for next week, a decision apparently made because of Egypt's arrest of a leading opposition politician last month.

  The cancellation highlighted a rift with an important ally over President Bush's push for democratic change. It came a day after Bush's tense meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was uncomfortable with Bush's criticisms of Russia's democracy as well.
  

  All these rifts with important allies, all at once.

  Russia, Canada, now Egypt.

  Waiting for weeks to punish Egypt? No.

  I think Egypt is being punished for something else, something we don't recognize right away, because the Gannonized Media doesn't want to dig.

  by cskendrick on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:14:53 AM PDT

•  Who is this really good news for?

  Right now the fact that elections are going to happen in Egypt, and have already happened in Iraq and Palestine seems to lend some support to Bush policies, but I bet that a year from now it isn't so clear.  If the polls are right about the level of anti-American sentiment in the region, and if the tendencies toward increasing religious influence in government continues, it seems likely that we will see democratically elected, conservative, religious, anti-American governments in the region.  Then Bush & co. will be in a real pickle, because of all the "freedom, democracy, liberty" rhetoric.  Of course what they are really looking for is governments they can deal with, coopt, and otherwise bamboozle into development and resource extraction deals favorable to the US, that leave them dependent on the US economically and for security.  If the new democracies are not so easy to deal with as the old autocracies they've been supporting for years, they are going to have to contradict themselves.  Nothing will make them look worse than acting in such a way as to revoke their support for democracy in the region, but it seems fairly likely that is what is going to end up happening after awhile.  It is clear that all their pro-democratic rhetoric was only an afterthought and a post-disaster justification anyway.  It might turn out to be fairly amusing to watch as they have to contend with the consequences. It may be that making "liberty" the post hoc justification for the Iraq invasion turns out to be good for everyone except the Bush administration and their backers.   That would be a good outcome in my book.

  by arktan on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:17:14 AM PDT

•  When can we quit sending ca$h?

  Interesting development, but don't break out the bubbly just quite yet. I wonder how "free" the elections will really be. Remember Stalin's famous line, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."  

  I think it is likely Hosni is subscribing to the Keith Richards "I'm gonna walk, before they make me run." strategy by having some sham election now in order to deflect growing international clammoring for Democracy in the ME.

  My big question is when can we stop sending Eygypt the $2 billion yearly subsidy.  I can think of a few better places to spend the money at home.

     

  by flying monkey on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:17:28 AM PDT

•  Doesn't mean shit...

  Don't get me wrong, it could lead to some sembolance of an actual democracy. But Saddam's Iraq and (I think Lybia, and a dozen of African countries) have technically the same arrangement. Just because there could be multiple candidates doesn't make it a genuine democracy.

  My personal suspicion is that nothing would really change. Mubarak or his son would still win the next few elections.

  But it's going to give Repugs some ammunition ala "our pressure made that happen."

  by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:17:50 AM PDT

•  Maybe Arab autocrats, like Mubarak,

  are getting a wee bit nervous that the only major elections happening in the Middle East lately are under American or Israeli occupations?  lol

  by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:27:53 AM PDT

  •  That's not true.

    by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:31:13 AM PDT

    •  What's not true? That's Afganis

      and Iraqis are under American occupation, and Palestinians are under Israeli occupation, and, yet, all 3 are having major national elections, drafting Constitutions, etc.?  

      by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:34:07 AM PDT

      •  He's thinking Iran

        Bahrain and the local elections in Saudi Arabia.

        But I think you have a point - I think you are a bit off in the describing of it though. See my update in the post.

        by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:38:28 AM PDT

        •  The update merely reflects our

          America-centric focus, IMO, but this is way bigger.

          It's about Mubarak's seismic policy shift statement televised on Egyptian TV.  There hasn't been a multi-party election in Egypt since 1952, from what I've read.  This is HUGE, and it'll be fascinating to watch it develop.

          by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:48:56 AM PDT

          •  Not huge. Nothing's happening here.

            No real election.  Guaranteed.

            by Cheez Whiz on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:09:51 AM PDT

            •  You think Mubarak's going to fabricate

              a crisis and backtrack? Considering we along with the U.N. can pull off elections during wars and occupations, it's gotta be a doozy :)

              by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:29:15 AM PDT

              •  No. I just think a sham election will do...

                just fine. Ala Central America 1980s style.

                This is just cover for Condi's snub, that's all.

                by Cheez Whiz on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:39:48 AM PDT

                •  The whole world doesn't revolve around

                  us; it really doesn't.

                  by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:59:05 AM PDT

                  •  We surround the whole world.

                    We do.  We really do.

                    by Cheez Whiz on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:13:14 PM PDT

      •  Turks, Iranians, Lebanonese

        Major national elections are heppening in other countries too. And constitutions are already in place in other countries.

        by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:41:21 AM PDT

        •  Turks aren't Arabs; Iranians aren't

          either, of course, but the Mullahs shut out reformers from the political process and have ultimate veto power, so that's a dubious 'democracy', and the Lebanese might revert back to the quasi-democracy they enjoyed for a few decades, if we, along w/the French, succeed in getting Syria out of there. for starters.

          by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:52:46 AM PDT

          •  Neither are Afghans...

            Don't confuse the issue. You said "Middle East" not "Arab."

            Secondly, you're being biased ala MSM, if you're calling the Iranian elections 'dubious' but calling the Iraqi and Afghan elections genuine. None are perfect but as I explained above in the tread, things are relative.

            Don't fall into Bush's trap of "Invasion = Democracy." That's Bullshit.

            by Florida Democrat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:01:12 AM PDT

          •  Iran

            Iran has a very strong democracy in the following senses: they have regular elections at several levels of government.  The elections are fair and open, and counted accurately.  Candidates are allowed to campaign openly, and (within certain restraints) criticize the government.

            In these senses, Iran has a more solid democracy than Turkey (where the military routinely overturns election results).

            However, the Council of Guardians does exert absolute veto power over legislation.  That's undemocratic.  And in recent years they have begun prohibiting reformers from running for office.  That's very undemocratic.

            However, there is no comparison with Iraq, where the people are unfamiliar with campaign politics, where there is no history of democracy, and where they do not have a voting infrastructure in place.

            Iran's strong democratic infrastructure is the strongest hope for peaceful reform, and the best argument for not invading them.  They don't need their government to ripped up and started from scratch.  They just need to rid themselves of the Council of Guardians and they can prosper quite nicely.

            by BooMan23 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:15:56 AM PDT

            •  Turkey

              In these senses, Iran has a more solid democracy than Turkey (where the military routinely overturns election results).

              The Turkish military has not done this since 1980.  This hardly qualifies as "routinely."

              by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:54:07 PM PDT

      •  What's not true?

        Wee, there's Lebanon, where one of the biggest parties is Hizbollah.

        The US has historically been the enemy of democracy in the Middle East. Look at our overthrow of Iranian democracy in the 1950s, and our wholehearted support, including training and financing of the secret police, of any number of pro-US dictatorships.

        There were fair, internationally supervised elections in Palestine in 1996, by the way. Arafat won. Did Israel and the US honor the results?

        Given Arab feeling about US policies it's currently practically impossible for a movement to be both popular and friendly to the US.

        I think we will continue to find that, when the chips are down, the US will intervene on behalf of an autocratic regime that is friendly to the US, against more popular movements that are not friendly to the US.

        by No Preference on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:10:38 AM PDT

        •  Arafat had frequent flyer miles from

          visiting Clinton's White House and Camp David!

          by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:28:02 AM PDT

          •  What happened when

            Arafat stopped visiting Camp David?  The US not only  
             stopped meeting with him. It refused to even acknowledge him as the leader of Palestine. Which he was, like it or not.

            by No Preference on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM PDT

•  I've a bad case of the déjà vu

  "The audience before [Mubarak] at Menoufia University broke into applause and calls of support, some shouting, "Long live Mubarak, mentor of freedom and democracy!" Others recited verses of poetry praising the government."

  Oh, they have loyalty oaths over there too?

  /snark

  by Renleve on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:30:00 AM PDT

•  Here and Now

  In the end, it seems difficult for me to imagine that the progress likely to be achieved towards democratic reforms in the Middle East can ever justify the Iraq Debacle, but the possibility of good news in Egypt on this front is a good thing.

    This is the dilemma those who opposed this misguided war face.  If we acknowledge the events in Egypt, we inadvertently show some measure of support for the Bush doctrine.  The administration will trumpet this news as further evidence that the war in Iraq was justified.  The rally cry of "freedom on the march" receives validation through perceived pressure on the Egyptian government.
    Those on the left are naturally supportive of any action that furthers human rights and empowers people.  This value is now in a conflicted state, because while we feel happiness for ordinary Egyptians(if this pledge towards democracy is genuine), we are hesitant to applaud any action that will be manipulated by the administration.
    The same logic applies to the Iraqi elections.  I was ecstatic to see the joy of many Iraqis as they went to the polls, it was truly moving.  That event, taken by itself with tunnel vision, was impressive and had the potential to better the situation in the country.  However, when all the baggage surrounding the elections, and how we reached that point, is added to the equation, it is easy to remain sceptical and see things in a negative light.  The struggle is to separate your core value for human dignity and empowerment, from your disgust with this bloody war, begun under dubious circumstance.  How do you support Egyptians, without giving Bush his talking points? The dilemma of the left, and not easily manueuvered.  
  

  by Stevo on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:39:01 AM PDT

  •  Don't agree

    I fairly famously declared the Iraq elections "pretty pictures" and I stand by that. Why? Because the focus on Iraq is how do we get ourselves out of that Debacle and I believe that Iraqi elections have done nothing to help us do that . Indeed, I think it has and will make our position even more difficult.

    For Egypt, my reaction is genuinely 'well, I hope this mean something that could be good' because the US does not have a mess to clean up in Egypt - this could be the result of effective diplomacy.

    Or it could just be a little game playing. One speech does not an election make.  Let's hope it is good news in Egypt.

    The last point is do you think Nush can trumpet Iraq as the cause of Egyptian reform without inflaming certain segments of Egypt? Thee will be a lot of pushback on this - from Mubarak's government.

    by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:45:11 AM PDT

    •  Curious

      Armando,

      Why do you think that the elections in Iraq will make our position more difficult?  Is it because of the Sunni boycott, or for other and more varied reasons?

      Also, in response to parent of this thread, I strongly recommend against begrudging Bush any credit for successfully bullying our allies into allowing better representation.  We need to support that.

      But we MUST highlight the criminality of this administration and we MUST flush out the cronyism and corruption and war profiteering.

      We MUST be successful in pushing these memes into the American consciousness...because it is true and it will benefit us on every front...and because it will act as a speed bump on Bush using marginal successes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt as an excuse to destroy the best democracy in the region...Iran.

      by BooMan23 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:56:49 AM PDT

      •  Read my front page posts

        on the subject.

        by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:18:53 AM PDT

        •  I thought I had n/t

          by BooMan23 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:22:03 AM PDT

          •  Apparently

            you forgot what I wrote in them.

            by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:50:32 PM PDT

    •  I'm confused by your response.

      Which part of the post did you not agree with?

      by shock on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:58:49 AM PDT

      •  The part equating the Iraq election

        with this development in Egypt. I think I explain it pretty clearly.

        by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:21:08 AM PDT

        •  Equations

          In my reading, if any "equating" was being done in the original post, I believe it was in this line:
             ..., we are hesitant to applaud any action that
             will be manipulated by the administration.
          and how both the Iraqi election and this news create a dilemma for the left.

          Of course we have no idea yet whether this will be good or bad in Egypt -- either for our policies or for their people.  But what does seem predictable to me is that, irrespective of the eventaul outcomes, Bush and co. are going to seize this announcement today as evidence of their "domino theory".  (No matter what the pushback from Egypt.)

          And I think I understand (and agree with) your position that the elections in Iraq have made our position more difficult and were not even a positive step from the standpoint of Iraqis either.  (And I suspect Stevo is sympathetic to this as well, given the "all the baggage surrounding the elections" --> "negative light" line.)

          But it seemed to me the main point of Stevo's post was that, for obvious political reason, in making these points about Iraq we still have to be very clear that we still support the basic human right of the Iraqis or Egyptians to pick their own leaders, even if it makes things worse for us and even if it appears to temporarily make things worse for them (e.g. because of the marginalization of the Sunnis) from our perspective!  (I know, this should be obvious, but you know how Rove works.)

          Anyway, I agree with Stevo:  this dillema is not easily maneuvered.

          by shock on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:16:25 PM PDT

    •  Bush

      The last point is do you think Nush can trumpet Iraq as the cause of Egyptian reform without inflaming certain segments of Egypt?

        This administation trumpets everything they can to justify their policies, why would this be any different?  Afterall, they used Libya at every turn, even when evidence suggested our policies were a non-issue to Libya.
        As far as "pretty pictures" concerns, I agree but would add it was nice to see those images, rather than the ones we have become so accustomed.  Do the elections get us closer to leaving?  No, it is clear we are going nowhere, however it really is all about how the Iraqis see the elections, not us.  It remains an open question whether the elections were a positive, for that reason I keep an open mind.

      by Stevo on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:03:52 AM PDT

      •  Well

        to me the question is did the Iraqi elections further US interests. I concluded that the 1/30 election did not. BTW, Juan Cole reached the same conclusion.

        by Armando on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:20:12 AM PDT

        •  Why?

          Why is always just one question, seems somewhat more complicated?  On that one question, I agree with Cole, however on the question of Iraqi interests I argue it remains open.  Irregardless of the elections, it is painfully clear that we are not leaving so you could argue that the "US interests" angle was a non-starter in this instance.  Anyways, I understand your point, lets move on :).

          by Stevo on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:25:55 AM PDT

    •  'I fairly famously said ...