The Middle East: Tribesmen v. Twitters

Clearly, something great is unfolding in the Middle East. Thanks to the Internet and cellphones, those mass-based technologies that are proving to be the great equalizers of our century, disseminating information far and wide in remote villages and harsh deserts of the Middle East, the minds of the youths of these lands have been opened to new and great possibilities. They now are hungry for change and have the freedom to say it. They want to be treated with dignity. They want the duties and obligations of full-fledged citizens and discard the slavish dispositions and passive resignations of subjects they acquired from their tyrannical regimes.

But what are the obligations of a citizen in a democratic republic? What makes a good citizen? It begins first and foremost with understanding the foundations of self-rule, both political and moral.

Democracy in its practical political sense is equated with equality that is the basis of one-man, one-vote principle, of self-rule that is the foundation of republicanism, of enlightened representation through the equal consent of its citizenry. The individual is the source of sovereign power, but whose power he equally shares with his fellowmen through a representative government that he and the others empower, to represent his and their interests. But that individual together with the rest must be wise, enlightened, and just. And insofar as he and they are ruled sometimes by unruly passions and prejudices, a representative government provides the mechanisms with which to check such excesses.

Michael Novak puts it this way:

. . . What Americans meant by liberty are those acts that are made from reflection and choice. The acts that we commit ourselves to when we have reflected on the alternatives and when we understand the consequences.
That's freedom.

What you do by impulse, by contrast, is not freedom; that's slavery to your impulses. Such slavery is what the animals live under. They're hungry; they need to eat. That's not freedom; it's animal instinct.

Freedom is not doing what you want to do; freedom is doing what, after reflection, you know you ought to do. That's what freedom is, and that's why early American thought has been summed up thus: "Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law." Freedom springs from self-government,after reflection and calm deliberate choice.

. . . To have reflection and choice, you need people with enough virtue to have command of their passions. You need people, that is, with the habits that allow them to reflect, to take time to be dispassionate, to see consequences clearly, and then to make a choice based upon commitment. None of us act that way all the time. But we do aspire to have at least sufficient virtue to live responsibly. For how can a people unable to govern their passions in their private lives possibly be able to practice self-government in their public lives? It doesn't compute. In short, freedom in a republic is not feasible without virtue in a republic. . .

Democracy unlike tyranny guarantees a liberal space where freedom in all its facets can flourish. Where conditions of freedom are absent, as manifest in a nation’s value-system steeped in class-consciousness and inequality, or absence of security for movement of goods and people, or in an unenlightened citizenry, then corrupt elections ensue, and bad regimes come to power.

The Middle East is at a crossroads. Either it moves forward or falls backward. As tribesmen should be made to understand the virtues and obligations of becoming members of a political community, so should twitters be made to see that their social movement needs a proper grounding on the virtues and obligations of a republican citizenship.

Showdown in Libya and Beyond

These are heady times in the Middle East! Those revolutions that have toppled down tyrannical regimes in the region these past weeks are cheap (relatively speaking, that is, although lives that have been sacrificed are priceless). And they are quick, although Libya is being difficult. Measures currently in place against the Qaddafi regime may prove effective, but my money is on those rebellious military personnel defecting to the opposition and boldly building a provisional government in Benghazi, not too far from Tripoli. One should not discount tyrannicide as well, despite a NY Times article about problems that a power vacuum may create in the eventuality that Qaddafi is forced to leave. I say anything is better than what Libyans have been dealing with these past 40 years.

Foreign policy analysts and experts are being challenged to come up with a new policy towards the Middle East. There cannot be one, as conditions relative to our national interests and theirs vary from regime to regime. Whatever policy we adopt, these four -- 1) education; 2) religious liberty; 3) equal rights for women; 4) entrepreneurship and property rights -- should be its main pillars. Educating the young ensures a bright future for these countries in terms of producing skilled and intelligent citizenry. Promoting religious liberty allows a spirit of comity and friendship among peoples of different faiths yet ensures the right of everyone to freely worship his or her God. Equal rights for women will make for strong and assertive citizenry of equal and responsible individuals. And entrepreneurship and property rights will inculcate private effort and initiative that are the foundation of national strength and prosperity.

Can Ballots Liberalize Regimes?

One popular argument in the current discourse on democracy is that there is too much of it in the world today. But it is of the illiberal kind that gives more value to the outside trappings of democratization rather than to the principles of individual liberties and enlightened consent. Democracy has become a mere popularity contest, devoid of rational deliberations supposedly among equally competent and intelligent citizenry. Indeed, in many Third World countries today, elections often yield autocrats and oligarchs that win elections on the ignorance and weaknesses of their unenlightened majorities. The way out of this problem, experts recommend, is to strengthen liberal institutions that will put limits to the unchecked powers of government.

But institution-building must first and foremost recognize that individuals are the final source of sovereign power, and that liberal institutions must have its proper grounding on individual rights and liberties. There must be a deliberative participation by the people in any democratic process in terms of having the opportunity to acquire political education and exercise property rights, among other things. Political education and property rights are good indicators of a liberalizing democracy as political education leads to one’s understanding of his rights and political obligations, while the exercise of his property rights cultivates private initiative and personal responsibility that are the bedrock of economic liberties.

Any country that recognizes the importance of strengthening its people’s rational deliberative participation is on the road to a genuinely liberalizing democracy.

Arming Afghan Villagers

In January 2009, I came across a Washington Post article, In Afghanistan, Terrain Rivals Taliban as Enemy, describing the dilemma of the US military on whether or not to arm tribal elders against the Taliban. Lt. Col. Patrick Daniel, Jr., put it this way:

"For a lot of us out here, we recognize that it's much like how we feel about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the States" . . . But we already have tribal disputes that are resolved by violence, and when you give them more weapons, that could mean those disputes could get resolved with those weapons. So it's a roll of the dice. Still, you can't rule it out . . . because people here need to protect themselves."

In an e-mail note I sent to a friend back then, I said that for this strategy to work, perhaps the US military could do the following: 1) educate in clearest possible terms those who will take part in this "arms program" as to the purposes, duties, and responsibilities that come with owning a gun and require everyone to express allegiance to an honor code that upholds those purposes, duties, and responsibilities; 2) on less lofty terms, offer them incentives in the form of community-based livelihood programs such as cooperatives, road-building, water purification, energy infrastructures -- programs that lead to community sustenance and development, but with a caveat -- anyone abusing or misusing the use of weapons will be removed from such programs; community-building projects create a network of individuals engaged in collaborative efforts and are held accountable to each other; 3) also, require a collateral for every gun that is given away, say a horse or something of great value to the person, especially among folks who live in remote areas and are not able to take part in community programs. All these, after all, are meant for everyone’s well-being.

I am revisiting this as yesterday another article came out, assessing this time the effectiveness of this strategy. It points out the risks involved, namely, that some of these armed militiamen are now using their weapons against other tribes for their own personal vendettas. This could get out of hand. While they serve an important role in America’s fight against the Taliban, these militias must be held accountable for their actions, at all times. There must be mechanisms for accountability as well as principles that can elevate expediency to a higher standard of justice.

A Happy Compromise?

According to this WSJ piece, Regime Seeks an Exit for Mubarak, one of the possibilities being considered towards solving the deadlock between President Mubarak and the Egyptian people is to make the president into a figurehead, a symbol of continuity during a proposed transition period, but completely stripped of executive powers. As to how that will play out remains to be seen.

But it seems to be a happy, well-conceived compromise. Perhaps a win-win for everyone. The arrangement seems practically prudent not only because of the chaos and turmoil but also because of the major security concerns in the Middle Eastern region that require stability within the Egyptian government. This compromise may give Mubarak the opportunity to tell his people that he gets their message (doing so will dignify his legacy), and that indeed it's time that they be made the sole source of all sovereign powers in Eqypt.

But a peaceful transition does take time. And so this proposed arrangement presents an opportunity for the people to show their common sense and practical understanding of the limits of power: that they have made their will known in the public square, and that they recognize that at some point they have to go home to attend to the business of everyday living. But they will leave the public square with a promise from their government that liberty and well-being are there for their taking, with nothing less than the rest of the world as their witness.

Egypt is the seat of one of the great ancient civilizations. It will survive this crisis with dignity.

Egypt Must Save Itself

What to do now that the latest Mubarak offensive did not work out, I wonder. It seems there's only one course left: Mubarak must step down. Perhaps he could talk to his nation again, tell them that indeed Egypt must come first, that its well-being must come above any man's glory or pride or ambition or service. And it is in this sense of humility that he would acknowledge that his service to the nation must take on a different path.

He then should hand power to his vice-president who will start a caretaker government that will transition the country into its democratic future.

Since the Muslim Brotherhood is anti-democratic, it should not be engaged in political dialogues unless its members are ready to embrace freedom of religion and respect other people's right to worship freely, a principle that is the cornerstone upon which democracy is built.

If Mubarak refuses to step down, the Egyptian military should start withdrawing support from him. Without them, Mubarak will be rendered practically powerless.