Egypt’s Leaderless Revolution

When news of street protests in Egypt was breaking a few days ago, the first question I asked to a colleague of mine was, “who is acting as the leader behind these protests?.” To which he answered, “no one; the whole thing will take on a life of its own, it will take care of itself.” I went away perplexed, as I have a habit of wanting to see the big picture all at once. Stories must have a beginning and an ending. And street protests must not only be spontaneous; they must have a purpose, and a plan on how to get there.

The latest news from Egypt about looting and lawlessness proves my point: these protests could easily slide into something unintended. An Egypt on the brink of anarchy is certainly not what these protesters have in mind. Yet, there is no one at the helm to offer guidance and directions.

All this reminds me of the Philippines’ People Power Revolution, a bloodless revolution that was propelled by the sheer force of the collective will and hopes of millions of Filipinos who on the streets of Manila in that year of 1986 dared stop armored trucks and tanks on their tracks, wooed the Philippine military with rosaries and flowers, and successfully toppled down a dictatorship. It was, as others would have described it, a revolution won on a wing and a prayer.

At the center of it all was a leader, Cory Aquino. Her sincerity, quiet strength, and commitment to democratic principles catapulted her to national fame that she herself did not anticipate. The Filipino people, tired and weary of 20 years of dictatorship and cronyism, saw in her a new hope, an inspiration of better things to come.

Soon, however, realpolitik set in. While helping to restore democracy for the country, Cory found herself defending her government against at least 7 coup attempts. But what she brought to the table of Philippine politics was an inspiration, a hope, a symbol at a time when the country needed it most.

But an inspiration is just that, a moment meant to encourage and, well, to inspire. Her regime’s purpose was to provide a transition from a dictatorship to a constitutional democracy. It was meant to represent a symbol of better things to come.

Egypt’s street protests don’t have a leader. Still and all, the protesters are succeeding in making their point – they want an end of the Mubarak regime.

Lest Egypt slide into chaos and fall into the hands of opportunists and Islamists, the Egyptian military are reaching out, and rightly so, to the moderate majority who are behind these protests. While watching over them, Mubarak, for his own sake, should start contemplating about viable options open to him, options that will prevent a power vacuum from occurring. Perhaps he should resign and call for early elections, or resign and form a caretaker government that will attend to the business of governing until the September elections.

Until then, it is hoped that Egypt’s street protesters will come to understand that what they have started -- a democratic movement and an ethos so new and liberating for a country with no democratic tradition – will transform itself into a genuine republicanism, at the core of which is an intelligent populace who choose and empower their leaders through their enlightened consent.

The New York Times and Spy Thrillers

Because of the kinds of things that the New York Times has been liberally publishing these days (Wikileaks and now this), its readers have the right to ask of them this question: what do they gain from all this? I am not referring to monetary gains or publicity. Those are easy answers. I am referring to things like honor, patriotism, and loyalty to one’s country. If there are internal controversial disagreements behind our foreign policies and military operations, as expected of a democracy, why air them publicly? Journalistic reporting should at least be able to withstand the scrutiny of prudence and decency. I wonder if the New York Times ever asks itself whether the stuff that it publishes undermines America and feels guilty about it.

Whittaker Chambers in his book, Witness, showed us the ugly face of bearing false witness against one’s country.

Upcoming Peace Talk with Filipino Communists

Another round of peace talks between the Philippine government and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) is scheduled to begin next month in Oslo, Norway. Among issues to be settled are: 1) the communists’ demand that the Philippine government take its time in implementing its Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program; 2) the release of a captured communist leader; and, 3) the legitimacy behind those revolutionary taxes being levied on private companies doing business in “rebel-controlled” territories.

Still and all, CPP issued this statement: “The Filipino people cannot principally rely on peace negotiations to achieve a just and lasting peace, especially given the duplicity of the (Philippine government) and its repeated violations of existing agreements,” . . . “The revolutionary forces must continue to firmly hold on to their arms, and relentlessly wage people’s war until the puppet reactionary rule is finally replaced and a new democratic order is established.” Whatever.

What if for a minute we take these thugs seriously, ask them about their agenda for a more just, more prosperous Philippines, and give them the opportunity to defend and describe in concrete terms their ideologically-inspired programs and projects for the Filipino people? During this round of peace talks, let’s have the Philippine government pit these communists against the best free-market minds in the Philippines (preferably economists and other scholars who are former communists who have long abandoned the movement), to see whose ideas are indefensible, once and for all. Hope that would lead to a communist’s self-examination on how and when he can start becoming a productive member of the Philippine society.

For the question that this peace talk should really address is whether the CPP, with all its grandiose plans and abstract notions of peace and social justice, has the right to continue to exist.

China’s Achilles Heel

Amidst talks about China’s rising military prowess and debates over which, between cooperation or conflict, is the better path with which to achieve a more stable US-Sino relationship, China remains vulnerable on at least two fronts: the state of its currency and the state of its political affairs.

President Hu, in this Washington Post interview, acknowledges the importance of pegging its currency to the dollar, as the dollar remains the currency used for global trade and international financial transactions. He recognizes that China’s own currency cannot replace the dollar at the moment as “it takes a long time for a country’s currency to be widely accepted in the world.” Both countries have been accusing each other of currency manipulation that sets off global inflation. In particular, Hu has criticized the Federal Reserve’s effort to keep interest rates low, while Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been critical of the Chinese government’s deliberate move to keep its currency value artificially low.

While on the surface it seems that the US has the upper hand in this monetary war, its monetary weapons can only be effective if they are grounded on sound principles. Sound money is a reasoned, principled way of commanding respect on the world’s financial stage. With honesty and integrity in the dollar comes leadership and strength.

China’s second vulnerability lies in its lack of liberalizing political reforms (in what the State Department would call human rights violations). In this same interview, Hu, however, was quick to explain China’s own version of its political reforms, which lie in an expanded socialist democracy.

We will continue to expand people’s democracy and build a socialist country under the rule of law in keeping with China’s national conditions . . . We will define the institutions, standards and procedures for socialist democracy, expand people’s orderly participation in political affairs at each level and in every field, mobilize and organize the people as extensively as possible to manage state and social affairs as well as economic and cultural programs in accordance with the law, and strive for continued progress in building socialist political civilization.

But how does socialist democracy justify continued government control over people’s political participation? Hu has this to say: The fact that China has enjoyed sustained, rapid economic growth and social stability and harmony proves that China’s political system fits China’s national conditions and meets the requirement of overall economic and social development.

All this affirms the communists’ unchanging yet abstract notion of the “people,” who are viewed as a collective whole and as mere instruments of the state to be used in attaining the country’s material well-being. This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party of vanguards, the “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the communist revolution. Instead of benefitting from the enterprising and creative spirits of a free people, the Chinese government continues to treat its people as children, to be led.

For as long as communism fails to see the character, dignity, and freedom-loving nature of every human being and his tendencies towards enlightened self-interestedness, it is safe to say that in China’s future political horizon lies seeds of political dissent.