Democracy is based on a few criteria:
(1) Effective Participation
(2) Equal Voting at the Decisive Stage
(3) Enlightened understanding
(4) Control of Agenda’s scope
(5) Inclusiveness
Funding IMET brings democracy to the doors of Egyptian politics. To understand this principle, we must first understand that Egypt is currently being run by the military: election policies are being made and “reformed” - though not as of yet - by military leaders. So it is an oligarchy at present, an oligarchy that can only be reformed and further revolutionized into a democracy by “the few”, the oligarchs. And so our job at present, or rather, the responsibility of democratization in Egypt lies with the military. Any sort of successful democratic attempt in Egypt must be rooted in the military. And, sure enough, the IMET - in striving to provide Egyptian military students access to American Military academies - is the best connection the US has to the Egyptian military. Moreover, in addition to an education primal for surviving on the battlefield, the core advantage of American military academies, some of the best in the world, off-field training, based on two premier democratic assumptions: (1) the Principle of Fairness (nothing should be imposed on a person that he or she had no say in conceiving) and (2) the Principle of Intrinsic Equality (that “all men are created equal”). Disagree with these principles as you may, but understand that these principles are key in a democracy and are fundamental in an advanced democracy. Present any sort of objection to these principles and a quick glance at an Advanced Democracy’s rise to “universal suffrage” shall profess the ill-logic flowing through your argument. Denying these principles would equate to denying such rights and, moreover, such revolutionary movements that helped spur progressive movements, whose virtue can easily be defended in the arbitrariness that spurs from a conservative rationale that is based on personal prejudices rather than concrete fact.
These two principles have five especially interesting implications that further the point that democracy is not only desirable but attainable. The Principle of Fairness and the Principle of Intrinsic Equality can be combined to create a sort of new assumption, the Principle of Strong Equality, that is to say all people, for a democracy to be truly democrayic, must have a say in binding decisions. Now this law of consideration has two implications: consideration of interests allows for the rights of citizens to not be violated, but the basis of the process - “means justify the ends” - is still questionable, that is, who is to say that the results of a democratic process will be “right” - for “the people,” for the sake of communal morality. Thus, we arrive at a set of five tightly knit criteria, presented by Robert Dahl in his A Theory of the Democratic Theory. To secure the rather concrete first implication of the law of consideration, two criteria must be met by any sort of polity: effective participation (that is drawn by equal political political rights, the right to equal political opportunity) and equal right to vote at the decisive stage, the point at which proposals are made into policy, either enacted or rejected. As to answer the questionable ends of the democratic process: if the demos, the voting public, the citizenry, were to hold enlightened understandings of their problems and the problems of their allies and competitors, such problems can be avoided when applied hand in hand with case law based court systems as the question is not so much the moral question of ends but rather the compilation of interest based on precedent, how precedent justifies the current. Of course, there are other rules, but they would only apply to the perpetuation of the state, but when dealing with Egypt, for the sake of succinctness, we will for now consider these three criteria.
Egypt has been and is the lynch pin of the Arab World. The former Prime Minister Anwar Sadat pledged his support for the Palestine-Israel Agreement 1979, spearheaded by the American president Jimmy Carter and pressed forward the issue since it was first conceived in the late 1940s. This keen idea has lasted even to this day. Sure, people have argued that Ben Ali’s abdication had sparked the Arab Spring, but that was but the reason. It was by no means the spark. The difference lies, sadly but truly, in the different levels of publicity of the two events. The Tunisian rebellion hadn’t garnered even a fraction of Egypt’s overall publicity. Egypt is a much more important state, a state whose influence not only is reflected in the Middle East but the West, which is the real reason why Western news organizations gave such a publicity to such an event. Egypt is without a question a very influential state.
Egypt’s future is the World’s future. Like the rest of the Arab World, Egypt provides the World with a certain set of material profits. It is a producer of oil, but, more importantly, it maintains the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal, built during the ancient times, modernized by the British and continuously succumbing to the whim of Global Politics, provides for basic economic functions, including passing highly valuable shipments, such as petroleum. Moreover, the Suez Canal provides for defensive functions as well. It is no secret that the United States and many other countries pass defense shipments, equipments and even vessels through the canal. Any sort of danger encountered by the Canal itself poses a direct economic and security threat to the nations of the World.
Such a threat is also directed at the same subjects, but in regard to a different object. As said before, Egypt IS, by precedent, a lynch pin, a leader, in the Arab World. The Arab League, which actually dismembered its founder and home, Egypt, after the Camp David Accords and the passing of the Egypt-Israel Agreement, soon returned membership in 1989, that is under the hand of Hosni Mubarak, who grappled a pro-Arab and pro-Israel mindset. Regardless of the seemingly impossible, this feat only captures Egypt’s impeccable influence within the Arab AND outside world.
These two principles, that is the influence of Egypt in gloabal affairs and its frontcover image of the Arab World, when combined, foster the importance of Egypt in the consummation and completion of the Arab Spring, to make it not a one-nighter but a marriage “until death do us apart.” If we assume that the democracy, that was the inherent impetus that drove those Egyptians to stake life and limb in Tahrir Square, will be achieved by IMET, and that democracy and IMET will serve as not only a “role model” to the other Arab movements, but they will be parts of the structural framework, the blueprint by which these other states - Libya, Syria and the like - can follow so that they do not become an Iraq or Afghanistan, tyrantless, yet government-less. Yes, the risk of a failed attempt of democracy might seal the future of a perputually undemocratic Middle East.
So what if such a undemocratic Middle East were secured. No doubt, such a rogue nation as Syria, who today fears not to lob grenades at its very own people, will have no problem in launching lethal machines of a greater caliber at “enemies of the state.” (Note: how this conclusion is arrived based on the actions of a dissatisfied citizenry, who would have been satiated by a better-considering, a lesser agenda controlling system) From here, it is only a matter of cementing domino theory. Only time can tell when the undemocratic domino reaches a known nuclear holder, like Iran or Pakistan, who are known enemies of other nuclear weapon-holding countries, like Israel or India, which could, no doubt, start a global war, a global NUCLEAR war. Indeed, it is only a matter of gaining a spark, the probability of which lies eye to eye with the failure of Egypt in her Democratic attempt.
Yes, Democracy must be secured in Egypt and the Arab spring and must be secured NOW. The only one way, the one relatively easy, comprehensive way to go about this is to fund the IMET and to fund it now. Now, before chaos seeks to poison internationally used infrastructure, before the unprecedented political activism of the Arab World goes without fruitation, before blood is spilt in vain, before the world, OUR WORLD, is consumed in global nuclear war.
(2) Equal Voting at the Decisive Stage
(3) Enlightened understanding
(4) Control of Agenda’s scope
(5) Inclusiveness
Funding IMET brings democracy to the doors of Egyptian politics. To understand this principle, we must first understand that Egypt is currently being run by the military: election policies are being made and “reformed” - though not as of yet - by military leaders. So it is an oligarchy at present, an oligarchy that can only be reformed and further revolutionized into a democracy by “the few”, the oligarchs. And so our job at present, or rather, the responsibility of democratization in Egypt lies with the military. Any sort of successful democratic attempt in Egypt must be rooted in the military. And, sure enough, the IMET - in striving to provide Egyptian military students access to American Military academies - is the best connection the US has to the Egyptian military. Moreover, in addition to an education primal for surviving on the battlefield, the core advantage of American military academies, some of the best in the world, off-field training, based on two premier democratic assumptions: (1) the Principle of Fairness (nothing should be imposed on a person that he or she had no say in conceiving) and (2) the Principle of Intrinsic Equality (that “all men are created equal”). Disagree with these principles as you may, but understand that these principles are key in a democracy and are fundamental in an advanced democracy. Present any sort of objection to these principles and a quick glance at an Advanced Democracy’s rise to “universal suffrage” shall profess the ill-logic flowing through your argument. Denying these principles would equate to denying such rights and, moreover, such revolutionary movements that helped spur progressive movements, whose virtue can easily be defended in the arbitrariness that spurs from a conservative rationale that is based on personal prejudices rather than concrete fact.
These two principles have five especially interesting implications that further the point that democracy is not only desirable but attainable. The Principle of Fairness and the Principle of Intrinsic Equality can be combined to create a sort of new assumption, the Principle of Strong Equality, that is to say all people, for a democracy to be truly democrayic, must have a say in binding decisions. Now this law of consideration has two implications: consideration of interests allows for the rights of citizens to not be violated, but the basis of the process - “means justify the ends” - is still questionable, that is, who is to say that the results of a democratic process will be “right” - for “the people,” for the sake of communal morality. Thus, we arrive at a set of five tightly knit criteria, presented by Robert Dahl in his A Theory of the Democratic Theory. To secure the rather concrete first implication of the law of consideration, two criteria must be met by any sort of polity: effective participation (that is drawn by equal political political rights, the right to equal political opportunity) and equal right to vote at the decisive stage, the point at which proposals are made into policy, either enacted or rejected. As to answer the questionable ends of the democratic process: if the demos, the voting public, the citizenry, were to hold enlightened understandings of their problems and the problems of their allies and competitors, such problems can be avoided when applied hand in hand with case law based court systems as the question is not so much the moral question of ends but rather the compilation of interest based on precedent, how precedent justifies the current. Of course, there are other rules, but they would only apply to the perpetuation of the state, but when dealing with Egypt, for the sake of succinctness, we will for now consider these three criteria.
Egypt has been and is the lynch pin of the Arab World. The former Prime Minister Anwar Sadat pledged his support for the Palestine-Israel Agreement 1979, spearheaded by the American president Jimmy Carter and pressed forward the issue since it was first conceived in the late 1940s. This keen idea has lasted even to this day. Sure, people have argued that Ben Ali’s abdication had sparked the Arab Spring, but that was but the reason. It was by no means the spark. The difference lies, sadly but truly, in the different levels of publicity of the two events. The Tunisian rebellion hadn’t garnered even a fraction of Egypt’s overall publicity. Egypt is a much more important state, a state whose influence not only is reflected in the Middle East but the West, which is the real reason why Western news organizations gave such a publicity to such an event. Egypt is without a question a very influential state.
Egypt’s future is the World’s future. Like the rest of the Arab World, Egypt provides the World with a certain set of material profits. It is a producer of oil, but, more importantly, it maintains the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal, built during the ancient times, modernized by the British and continuously succumbing to the whim of Global Politics, provides for basic economic functions, including passing highly valuable shipments, such as petroleum. Moreover, the Suez Canal provides for defensive functions as well. It is no secret that the United States and many other countries pass defense shipments, equipments and even vessels through the canal. Any sort of danger encountered by the Canal itself poses a direct economic and security threat to the nations of the World.
Such a threat is also directed at the same subjects, but in regard to a different object. As said before, Egypt IS, by precedent, a lynch pin, a leader, in the Arab World. The Arab League, which actually dismembered its founder and home, Egypt, after the Camp David Accords and the passing of the Egypt-Israel Agreement, soon returned membership in 1989, that is under the hand of Hosni Mubarak, who grappled a pro-Arab and pro-Israel mindset. Regardless of the seemingly impossible, this feat only captures Egypt’s impeccable influence within the Arab AND outside world.
These two principles, that is the influence of Egypt in gloabal affairs and its frontcover image of the Arab World, when combined, foster the importance of Egypt in the consummation and completion of the Arab Spring, to make it not a one-nighter but a marriage “until death do us apart.” If we assume that the democracy, that was the inherent impetus that drove those Egyptians to stake life and limb in Tahrir Square, will be achieved by IMET, and that democracy and IMET will serve as not only a “role model” to the other Arab movements, but they will be parts of the structural framework, the blueprint by which these other states - Libya, Syria and the like - can follow so that they do not become an Iraq or Afghanistan, tyrantless, yet government-less. Yes, the risk of a failed attempt of democracy might seal the future of a perputually undemocratic Middle East.
So what if such a undemocratic Middle East were secured. No doubt, such a rogue nation as Syria, who today fears not to lob grenades at its very own people, will have no problem in launching lethal machines of a greater caliber at “enemies of the state.” (Note: how this conclusion is arrived based on the actions of a dissatisfied citizenry, who would have been satiated by a better-considering, a lesser agenda controlling system) From here, it is only a matter of cementing domino theory. Only time can tell when the undemocratic domino reaches a known nuclear holder, like Iran or Pakistan, who are known enemies of other nuclear weapon-holding countries, like Israel or India, which could, no doubt, start a global war, a global NUCLEAR war. Indeed, it is only a matter of gaining a spark, the probability of which lies eye to eye with the failure of Egypt in her Democratic attempt.
Yes, Democracy must be secured in Egypt and the Arab spring and must be secured NOW. The only one way, the one relatively easy, comprehensive way to go about this is to fund the IMET and to fund it now. Now, before chaos seeks to poison internationally used infrastructure, before the unprecedented political activism of the Arab World goes without fruitation, before blood is spilt in vain, before the world, OUR WORLD, is consumed in global nuclear war.
No comments:
Post a Comment