Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world

[Beet]

For decades, the Arab states have seemed exceptions to the laws of politics and human nature. While liberty expanded in many parts of the globe, these nations were left behind, their "freedom deficit" signaling the political underdevelopment that accompanied many other economic and social maladies. In November 2003, President George W. Bush laid out this question:

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?"

The massive and violent demonstrations underway in Egypt, the smaller ones in Jordan and Yemen, and the recent revolt in Tunisia that inspired those events, have affirmed that the answer is no and are exploding, once and for all, the myth of Arab exceptionalism. Arab nations, too, yearn to throw off the secret police, to read a newspaper that the Ministry of Information has not censored and to vote in free elections. The Arab world may not be swept with a broad wave of revolts now, but neither will it soon forget this moment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html?nav=hcmodule

[Sbane]

Of course he wasn't wrong about that. Where he went wrong was thinking it was America's job to "liberate" these people. These things need to happen from within, like we see in Tunisia and Egypt.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

in 3 to 5 years, if not sooner, this will show how naive Bush was to think democracy will bring about peaceful governments in the middle east.

[Lief 🗽]

Of course he wasn't wrong about that. Where he went wrong was thinking it was America's job to "liberate" these people. These things need to happen from within, like we see in Tunisia and Egypt.

Exactly. That said, the democracy in Tunisia is less than a month old, and the one in Egypt hasn't even been "born" yet. The fact of that matter is that democracy and liberal governments have a poor record in most of the world outside of Europe and North America.

Edit: Thinking about it, democracy/liberalism has a pretty poor record in most of Europe too, outside of the United Kingdom, France, Scandinavia, and Belgium/Netherlands.

[opebo]

The idea that a majority of these people will vote in something that more closely resembles 'liberty' than what the Mubaraks and Saddams provide is laughable.

'Liberty' has very little to do with democracy.

[Beet]

Of course he wasn't wrong about that. Where he went wrong was thinking it was America's job to "liberate" these people. These things need to happen from within, like we see in Tunisia and Egypt.

But is the Egypt one actually going to happen?

A couple of snippets from Secretary Clinton's CNN interview. She was asked: Is the US on the side of Mubarak or on the side of the protesters in the street? Clinton: Well there is a third option. The US is on the side of the Egyptian people. Hello? The Egyptian people are the protesters in the street. And there is no 'third option.' Mubarak wants to stay, the protesters want him gone. She was asked: Is the US backing away from Mubarak? Clinton: We don't want to be seen as backing forward or backing backward from anyone. What the heck is "backing forward"? Doublespeak if there ever was. I have never been so embarrassed by Clinton before.

[opebo]

A couple of snippets from Secretary Clinton's CNN interview. She was asked: Is the US on the side of Mubarak or on the side of the protesters in the street? Clinton: Well there is a third option. The US is on the side of the Egyptian people. Hello? The Egyptian people are the protesters in the street. And there is no 'third option.' Mubarak wants to stay, the protesters want him gone. She was asked: Is the US backing away from Mubarak? Clinton: We don't want to be seen as backing forward or backing backward from anyone. What the heck is "backing forward"? Doublespeak if there ever was. I have never been so embarrassed by Clinton before.

It isn't Doublespeak if you recognize that the protesters are not the same thing as 'the people'.

[Beet]

A couple of snippets from Secretary Clinton's CNN interview. She was asked: Is the US on the side of Mubarak or on the side of the protesters in the street? Clinton: Well there is a third option. The US is on the side of the Egyptian people. Hello? The Egyptian people are the protesters in the street. And there is no 'third option.' Mubarak wants to stay, the protesters want him gone. She was asked: Is the US backing away from Mubarak? Clinton: We don't want to be seen as backing forward or backing backward from anyone. What the heck is "backing forward"? Doublespeak if there ever was. I have never been so embarrassed by Clinton before.

It isn't Doublespeak if you recognize that the protesters are not the same thing as 'the people'.

The protesters appear to be calling for elections. Things are clearer now than they were on Friday, esp. now that the Muslim Bros. have backed El Baradei. It's not an Islamist revolution.

[phk]

Of course he wasn't wrong about that. Where he went wrong was thinking it was America's job to "liberate" these people. These things need to happen from within, like we see in Tunisia and Egypt.

They cannot happen from within in every country, even if the people want it.

[opebo]

The protesters appear to be calling for elections. Things are clearer now than they were on Friday, esp. now that the Muslim Bros. have backed El Baradei. It's not an Islamist revolution.

Dude, who do you think wins elections in Islamic countries?  Majority rule plays perfectly into their hands (just like with the Christians in the USA).

[Beet]

The protesters appear to be calling for elections. Things are clearer now than they were on Friday, esp. now that the Muslim Bros. have backed El Baradei. It's not an Islamist revolution.

Dude, who do you think wins elections in Islamic countries?  Majority rule plays perfectly into their hands (just like with the Christians in the USA).

So what, the USA should become a dictatorship now? If the religious party wins a free and fair election, it should be accepted. Yes there is a danger of the Iran-style outcome, but there is a danger too in allowing Mubarak to continue. Right now the opposition is relatively moderate. Even if the Muslim Bros. won an election, they could still be constrained by a new, liberal democratic constitution. More like Turkey. If Mubarak stays on too long it could radicalize.

[Sbane]

Of course he wasn't wrong about that. Where he went wrong was thinking it was America's job to "liberate" these people. These things need to happen from within, like we see in Tunisia and Egypt.

They cannot happen from within in every country, even if the people want it.

But would the people want war? They may want liberty, but they don't necessarily want their country destroyed to get there.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Edit: Thinking about it, democracy/liberalism has a pretty poor record in most of Europe too, outside of the United Kingdom, France, Scandinavia, and Belgium/Netherlands.

Actually it took about a century for France to become a functioning democracy after the first French revolution, so that might not be a good example either.

The thing is that all functioning stable democracies has to evolve slowly and peacfully. The UK, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, all have one thing in common, they didn't obtain democracy by war or revolution. The only exception to that I can think of is the US, but you guys are the exception that confirm the rule. You can just make a 180 degress turn from complete dictatorship to complete democracy, a country has to have time to mature and have the democracy grow on them.

That being said, getting rid of a dictator like Mubarak would hopefully be the first step on a long road towards democracy.     

[Silent Hunter]

The thing is that all functioning stable democracies has to evolve slowly and peacfully. The UK, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, all have one thing in common, they didn't obtain democracy by war or revolution. The only exception to that I can think of is the US, but you guys are the exception that confirm the rule. You can just make a 180 degress turn from complete dictatorship to complete democracy, a country has to have time to mature and have the democracy grow on them.

What about Poland and Romania?

[opebo]

So what, the USA should become a dictatorship now? If the religious party wins a free and fair election, it should be accepted. Yes there is a danger of the Iran-style outcome, but there is a danger too in allowing Mubarak to continue. Right now the opposition is relatively moderate. Even if the Muslim Bros. won an election, they could still be constrained by a new, liberal democratic constitution. More like Turkey. If Mubarak stays on too long it could radicalize.

No way!  Dictatorship by a secularist or at least not overtly religion-imposing potentate is worlds better than democracy with religious in control.

I just don't care a fig about means, only ends.  And that faraway disinterested potentate leaves one with far more personal freedom than a million little dictators meddling in your business right at your elbow.  

[Associate Justice PiT]

Edit: Thinking about it, democracy/liberalism has a pretty poor record in most of Europe too, outside of the United Kingdom, France, Scandinavia, and Belgium/Netherlands.

Actually it took about a century for France to become a functioning democracy after the first French revolution, so that might not be a good example either.

The thing is that all functioning stable democracies has to evolve slowly and peacfully. The UK, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, all have one thing in common, they didn't obtain democracy by war or revolution. The only exception to that I can think of is the US, but you guys are the exception that confirm the rule. You can just make a 180 degress turn from complete dictatorship to complete democracy, a country has to have time to mature and have the democracy grow on them.

That being said, getting rid of a dictator like Mubarak would hopefully be the first step on a long road towards democracy.     

     Even the United States still had stuff like the Alien and Sedition Act in its infancy, not to mention that the electorate was initially restricted to white, land-owning men. While the United States transited fairly seamlessly into being a democracy, it took close to 200 years for it to become a genuinely liberal one.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The thing is that all functioning stable democracies has to evolve slowly and peacfully. The UK, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, all have one thing in common, they didn't obtain democracy by war or revolution. The only exception to that I can think of is the US, but you guys are the exception that confirm the rule. You can just make a 180 degress turn from complete dictatorship to complete democracy, a country has to have time to mature and have the democracy grow on them.

What about Poland and Romania?

I'd be lying if I said I knew anything about Romanian politics. Poland was in many ways more liberal than the rest of the Eastern block already before the fall of the communists, which meant it was easier for it to make the transition. The fall of the Communist Party wasn't violent either from what I know either. 

[seanobr]

I think it's very important to bear two things in mind: universal democracy will not lead to universal peace; and no one is disputing that there was an element of truth in what Bush wanted to accomplish in the Middle East.  As I conceded yesterday, September Eleventh required a decisive response, a coherent international counterterrorism front, and an evaluation of the strategy we had employed in the region to that point.  But there is a difference between believing that we have an obligation to impose democracy -- the notion that influenced the decision to act on the questionable intelligence regarding Iraq -- and trying to nurture it through a principled outreach effort.  There is no reason why an Arab spring couldn't have been summoned into being without resorting to the explicit threat and use of military force.  Even if championing liberalism is your highest cause, neoconservatism has actually been counterproductive, because it only furthered antipathy for America, was entirely inconsistent in its application, and failed to properly evaluate the region's character.  The Bush administration seemed to conflate the idea of an amenable Middle East with a democratic one, and that was never a guarantee, primarily because it ignored why we valued the stability offered by dictatorial governments in the first place.  You cannot detach its conduct from the charged decision now facing us; I would submit that we were left with no other choice but to hope that Egypt did not fall prey to a democratic uprising, because the emergence of a hostile government could do irreparable harm to our interest and Israel's perception of its position.  With anti-American sentiment unlikely to abate, we can ill afford to lose a crucial regional partner.

I do respect the argument that, by continuing our current policy, we may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, heightening the danger of radicalism and the potential for it to thrive in a power vacuum.  But we also shouldn't ignore what is taking place in democratically-elected Pakistan, where fundamentalism is incontrovertibly on the rise and Salman Taseer's assassination over the blasphemy law has created a rather chilling atmosphere; Turkey, which is flirting with Iran's sphere of influence and falling to a harder line interpretation of Islam; or even the schism in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which presaged the end of Bush's democracy vision.  Through our own negligence, we have contributed to a cancer in the Middle East, and simply pulling the carpet out from under the regimes that we may find personally distasteful is not going to eradicate it overnight.  An inclusive government in Egypt may not be inimical to our self-interest, but there is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that it would be.  While careful engagement can alleviate this deficit of trust, we have been providing significant assistance to Pakistan while restraining our need for decisive action in North Waziristan, and it has done nothing to contain the animosity directed toward us.  The drone program has contributed to the population's anger, but if the military was willing to do what is required in the tribal region, it wouldn't need to be as virulent.

Bush's idealism may have been noble, but it will never be vindicated no matter how desperately some in the foreign policy establishment would like it to be.  I can have nothing but scorn for a policy that left Saudi Arabia, the center of Wahhabism, as our only influential ally in the region, while we foisted our construct of democracy on a secular, if malignant government by force.  There is a fundamental illogic to the entire enterprise that will forever taint Bush's adventurism for me, no matter the outcome of the uprising in Egypt.  In my judgment, it is occurring in spite of him; and we also shouldn't forget that, discounting the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, popular revolution resulting in a liberal democracy is exceedingly rare.  There is also a worrisome contrast between the fervor now plaguing Egypt and the harsher authoritarianism that has forced Iran's population into contentment.  Any contagion that only besets governments malleable to American policy will not be to our advantage, no matter how righteous it may be.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What about Poland and Romania?

It wasn't quick and simple process.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Of course he wasn't wrong about that. Where he went wrong was thinking it was America's job to "liberate" these people. These things need to happen from within, like we see in Tunisia and Egypt.

This.

Edit: Thinking about it, democracy/liberalism has a pretty poor record in most of Europe too, outside of the United Kingdom, France, Scandinavia, and Belgium/Netherlands.

Actually it took about a century for France to become a functioning democracy after the first French revolution, so that might not be a good example either.

The thing is that all functioning stable democracies has to evolve slowly and peacfully. The UK, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, all have one thing in common, they didn't obtain democracy by war or revolution. The only exception to that I can think of is the US, but you guys are the exception that confirm the rule. You can just make a 180 degress turn from complete dictatorship to complete democracy, a country has to have time to mature and have the democracy grow on them.

That being said, getting rid of a dictator like Mubarak would hopefully be the first step on a long road towards democracy.      

Actually the UK's situation was in fact built upon several revolutions and uprisings, throughout the 13th and 17th Century you had several mini-Civil Wars... including THE Civil War which laid the groundwork for the current UK system

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also, you know...

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Well if you want to be really nit-picky, the Swedish transition into democracy had some violence as well. But the point I'm trying to make is that, the fully functunal democratic systems didn't just work after that violence, it took a few centuries from the civil war in England, the revolution in France, and the coup d'états in Sweden, until we actually saw equal voting-rights, free press, politicians who stepped aside when defeated and so on. The transfer from dictatorship to democracy didn't happen over night, and certainly not with a bloody revolution. And yes although violence will probably occur sometime on the road towards stable democracy, in most democracies that are worthy the name, it is rarly the last step.


   

[phk]

-Egyptians (Sunni Muslims) rise up against their tyrannical ruler -> immediate outpouring of sympathy from the Muslim world.

-Iraqi Shias and Kurds wage successive uprisings against Saddam during his brutal reign -> indifference at best, supportive at worst... ethnosectarian factor, anyone?

[To be is the answer to all penus]

Dubya was obivously right on this, and pretty much all foreign policy matters.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Dubya was obivously right on this, and pretty much all foreign policy matters.

....K