Alterman is deeply either misguided or willfully misrepresenting the situation in that article. The first tip off can be found in his utterly wrongheaded statement "their protests were never about Mubarak" - that is simply, blatantly, and absolutely wrong. I've been watching and listening to Egyptians for the past 18 days - the removal of Mubarak was, without a single question, the primary goal of those in Tahrir square and beyond. To claim otherwise is to attempt to express a very privileged view of this revolution by claiming "oh, *I* know better than the people in Cairo what this was *really* about" and it casts the rest of the article in a very negative light.
I agree that this is the start of something - and only time will tell what, if any, lasting change comes to Egypt. But the removal of not only Mubarak but, shortly thereafter, the entire Parliament and government and the promise of a transitional government and democratic elections are NOT a step back.
Hosni Mubarak tortured and killed his own people. Not just in the last 18 days, though there is a LOT of blood on his hands in that time period alone, but throughout his rule. The removal of him, his family, his VP, and his government IS a fundamental good - or, if it is not, then nothing can be said to be such a thing.
The military could have crushed this revolution. The elite generals, those state advisors who propped up and supported Mubarak, made it fairly clear that they wanted to put this down. The military as a whole, however, did no such thing. I think it is rash to suggest that simply because the military is stepping in to oversee a transition of power which, as you noted, is a NECESSARY step in the process because quite simply there is no standing organization ready to fill the void that somehow means Egypt has gone backwards. If the military attempts to maintain that power beyond the transition - certainly. But that has not yet happened. What has happened is that a corrupt regime HAS fallen to the will and the courage of its people who stood up, Muslim and Christian together, and said with one voice "We will be free."
And, honestly, if the people of Egypt decide that they want to become a theocracy (which is exceptionally UNlikely given the makeup of the population) then I will respect that decision. So long as a free and fair election is held and that is the will of the people then I see no reason to fear the outcome. That is, after all, the whole point of democracy - not that other countries are ruled as we choose to rule ourselves but rather that the people of each country have the right and ability to choose how to govern themselves.
There is a hint of anger in your words, my friend, and I ask that you take a step back for a moment and actually read what I wrote. Put some distance between the lunacy of some of the people that have driven you up the wall already, and consider for a moment what I am actually saying. I am not, nor could I, say that Mubarak and the status-quo needed to remain. There are many things that the man has to answer for.
I directly said that he is largely responsible for a great deal of the damage that the country has to heal. Even past his direct crimes, the blood on his hands, he helped institutionalize and set in stone the class divide in that country. To pull oneself up there, to gain education, independence, and perhaps, financial security, is next to impossible. And Mubarak had a direct hand in continuing the system that made it that way.
I don't disagree with you. Mubarak needed to be removed. I will absolutely grant you that many analysts say that the current military control may actually be the best interim outcome. The military could, indeed, have crushed the rebellion. They didn't. The military government that is now in place says that they are a temporary choice, there only until Egypt can have its own free elections. If that is true, if they keep to their word, then so be it.
But they cannot remain in power. That is what I speak of, my friend. It's a common story in the region for an uprising to take place, but to have the power vacuum filled by something either resembling what already existed, or something even worse.
The ideal situation is for the people themselves to decide what they will. Again, in that, we agree. My point was that the people at large in Egypt, I believe, really do want free elections. They want to choose for themselves. What I am advocating is that they should be allowed to.
The point I was making about the political system in Egypt was that, again, largely due to Mubarak's sham elections and strong-arm tactics, there isn't really a viable political apparatus there. The most prevalent cohesive group that opposed Mubarak isn't a viable alternative. And, again, like I said, while the people at large don't want a group like the Muslim Brotherhood in control, they have to have the know how and ability to put a cohesive opposition together.
I can point to Iran for an example of the results of that. The majority of the populace at large in that country didn't want the current form of government to rise. They, however, couldn't form a strong enough coalition to fight the well organized radical factions in their country.
Finally, I wasn't saying any outside form of government should be imposed upon the people of Egypt. You are reading things into my words that aren't there. My hope for Egypt is that the people there genuinely get a choice. Their true choice. Not something forced upon them because the current conditions there didn't allow them to get elections that actually matched what the country at large actually wants.
The words that I wrote were only meant to caution all of us not drop the ball and call the day won yet. Part of what actually caused Mubarak to step down was international scrutiny. So, we need to keep it up. We need to encourage the political process to actually continue. We need to help make sure that the nation of Egypt doesn't settle for the way things are, even now, but they reach for something real that they themselves chose.
There are elements still at work in Egypt that want to impose their own will rather than allowing the people to choose for themselves. That is what I am cautioning against. We can't call the day won yet. Not yet.
There is no anger towards you, my friend, as I know your heart and I know that you speak from a place of knowledge that I cannot share - I've not lived where you have lived, seen what you have seen, interacted with the people you have interacted with. I admit to anger at the author of the first article because, bluntly, he was being wrongheaded and thick - whether by intention or ignorance. But there is no anger at you because we are in agreement - this is a beginning, not an end, and only time will tell if this change is for the best or not.
In the end it doesn't truly matter what your or I call it - this is a time for the Egyptian people to, I hope, chart their own course in history. I believe we are both on the same page in desiring only that they have the chance to truly achieve the freedom they suffered and died for in this revolution.
Thank you for your responses, my friend. In truth, I was hoping you would be at least one of the people to write back on this. Your offerings always make me take the utmost care with what I write, and ultimately, bring out the greatest clarity.
Also, please understand, no personal experience of mine invalidates anything you have to say, even should you and I disagree on something. In this case, we don't really disagree, but I wanted to be clear with you on that. You pay attention to the world around you, which is more than I can say for many. While I definitely don't always agree with your conclusions, I believe they come from a place of caring about the world around you.
Anyway, thank you for your response, sir. I am glad that we can understand one another.
I agree that this is the start of something - and only time will tell what, if any, lasting change comes to Egypt. But the removal of not only Mubarak but, shortly thereafter, the entire Parliament and government and the promise of a transitional government and democratic elections are NOT a step back.
Hosni Mubarak tortured and killed his own people. Not just in the last 18 days, though there is a LOT of blood on his hands in that time period alone, but throughout his rule. The removal of him, his family, his VP, and his government IS a fundamental good - or, if it is not, then nothing can be said to be such a thing.
The military could have crushed this revolution. The elite generals, those state advisors who propped up and supported Mubarak, made it fairly clear that they wanted to put this down. The military as a whole, however, did no such thing. I think it is rash to suggest that simply because the military is stepping in to oversee a transition of power which, as you noted, is a NECESSARY step in the process because quite simply there is no standing organization ready to fill the void that somehow means Egypt has gone backwards. If the military attempts to maintain that power beyond the transition - certainly. But that has not yet happened. What has happened is that a corrupt regime HAS fallen to the will and the courage of its people who stood up, Muslim and Christian together, and said with one voice "We will be free."
And, honestly, if the people of Egypt decide that they want to become a theocracy (which is exceptionally UNlikely given the makeup of the population) then I will respect that decision. So long as a free and fair election is held and that is the will of the people then I see no reason to fear the outcome. That is, after all, the whole point of democracy - not that other countries are ruled as we choose to rule ourselves but rather that the people of each country have the right and ability to choose how to govern themselves.
Reply
I directly said that he is largely responsible for a great deal of the damage that the country has to heal. Even past his direct crimes, the blood on his hands, he helped institutionalize and set in stone the class divide in that country. To pull oneself up there, to gain education, independence, and perhaps, financial security, is next to impossible. And Mubarak had a direct hand in continuing the system that made it that way.
I don't disagree with you. Mubarak needed to be removed. I will absolutely grant you that many analysts say that the current military control may actually be the best interim outcome. The military could, indeed, have crushed the rebellion. They didn't. The military government that is now in place says that they are a temporary choice, there only until Egypt can have its own free elections. If that is true, if they keep to their word, then so be it.
But they cannot remain in power. That is what I speak of, my friend. It's a common story in the region for an uprising to take place, but to have the power vacuum filled by something either resembling what already existed, or something even worse.
The ideal situation is for the people themselves to decide what they will. Again, in that, we agree. My point was that the people at large in Egypt, I believe, really do want free elections. They want to choose for themselves. What I am advocating is that they should be allowed to.
The point I was making about the political system in Egypt was that, again, largely due to Mubarak's sham elections and strong-arm tactics, there isn't really a viable political apparatus there. The most prevalent cohesive group that opposed Mubarak isn't a viable alternative. And, again, like I said, while the people at large don't want a group like the Muslim Brotherhood in control, they have to have the know how and ability to put a cohesive opposition together.
I can point to Iran for an example of the results of that. The majority of the populace at large in that country didn't want the current form of government to rise. They, however, couldn't form a strong enough coalition to fight the well organized radical factions in their country.
Finally, I wasn't saying any outside form of government should be imposed upon the people of Egypt. You are reading things into my words that aren't there. My hope for Egypt is that the people there genuinely get a choice. Their true choice. Not something forced upon them because the current conditions there didn't allow them to get elections that actually matched what the country at large actually wants.
The words that I wrote were only meant to caution all of us not drop the ball and call the day won yet. Part of what actually caused Mubarak to step down was international scrutiny. So, we need to keep it up. We need to encourage the political process to actually continue. We need to help make sure that the nation of Egypt doesn't settle for the way things are, even now, but they reach for something real that they themselves chose.
There are elements still at work in Egypt that want to impose their own will rather than allowing the people to choose for themselves. That is what I am cautioning against. We can't call the day won yet. Not yet.
Reply
In the end it doesn't truly matter what your or I call it - this is a time for the Egyptian people to, I hope, chart their own course in history. I believe we are both on the same page in desiring only that they have the chance to truly achieve the freedom they suffered and died for in this revolution.
Reply
Also, please understand, no personal experience of mine invalidates anything you have to say, even should you and I disagree on something. In this case, we don't really disagree, but I wanted to be clear with you on that. You pay attention to the world around you, which is more than I can say for many. While I definitely don't always agree with your conclusions, I believe they come from a place of caring about the world around you.
Anyway, thank you for your response, sir. I am glad that we can understand one another.
Reply
Leave a comment