OMG! Mubarak wins in election shocker!

[Az]

Iraq is a special case - it's a country in civil unrest.

Well, **** it, I am going to bed ( gotta get up at 5:20 AM)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So you're saying that the Egyptian elections are pretty much just internal party elections, and so don't have anything to do with democracy on the national scale?

I'm saying that the "cast out the ballot" part was useless this time. However, there is more to democracy than that. Even if we discount the whole "free society, rule of law etc." part, there is more to the democratic decision process than merely casting out the ballot.
The "campaign" part was extremely fruitful.

Now, you may play the "lalalaaaaaa I can't hear you" tune, and you can stop reading. If your definition of a democracy solely entails the fact that your ballot will be accounted accurately, and nothing else, you can forget about the rest of this post.

---

Democracy cannot appear out of thin air. There are several things that must pre-exist for a democracy (a nascent democracy even) to function.

1. A key component of a democracy is the emergence of a public opinion. Public option can be defined as such: it is made of the various judgements made by the people, on political matters of interests, as they are discussed in dedicated places (newspapers, TV, but also the local tea house).
As you can see, a public opinion needs both relevant items to evaluate, and places where to discuss it.
In this regard, the Egyptian elections have brought excellent news. The political expression during the campaign was free. People could discuss freely, they could even say ill things about Mubarak freely. That's quite a difference. Besides, the public opinion didn't focus on the political items Mubarak had pushed for years. The campaign wasn't about Iraq or Palestine: it was about unemployment and the economy in general. For the first time, Mubarak had to defend himself and to make promises in this regard.

Yup, there's quite a bit of difference.

2. A democracy requires pluralism, i.e. the acceptance that there are competing factions to lead the country. Pluralistic people (be they politicians, generals or ordinary citizens) agree with their defeat when it happens.
But pluralism is not only an accepteance of defeat, it's also an acceptance of compromise, even when you win. If there is no compromise because of lack of pluralism, you end up with the tyranny of the majority, which can seriously alienate a large chunk of the population.
I don't know to what extent pluralism has increased in Egypt thanks to the campaign. However, the simple fact that Mubarak had to defend himself against his opponents, the fact that he had to promote himself positively, probably contributed to create a climate of pluralism among the political elites. Even if you look at the opponents, they agree that they have lost (they just say they have lost with a considerably differnet margin).

Again, it makes quite a difference. Especially since the main threat to the democratization processes is when the established elites do not tolerate defeat, and keep power despite an electoral defeat.

3. A democracy requires trust. For once, the people have to trust their institutions (which didn't happen at all in these elections, as the Egyptians were jaded by decades of rigged elections).
And also, there has to be a trust toward the other people, and the politicians in general, that they aren't necessarily out to get you. Trust is not a naive belief that the others care for you, but it's the belief that the others will behave fairly honestly with you, that they won't **** you over at the first opportunity. For example, in Iraq, the main reason why the factions couldn't agree on federalism vs centralism was because they were certain the others were out to **** them over wrt oil.
In the matter of trust, I have nothing that leads me to believe there had been progresses in Egypt.


In any case, this election has allowed for an immense progression of the Egyptiian public opinion. Without the use of force, it will be hard to make the press and the people apathetic again. The emergence of this public opinion, if the trend continues, should allow for more and more pluralism, as alternative proposals and personalities will be promoted over time. The pluralism has also modestly progressed IMO, which is also good news.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm saying that the "cast out the ballot" part was useless this time. However, there is more to democracy than that. Even if we discount the whole "free society, rule of law etc." part, there is more to the democratic decision process than merely casting out the ballot.
The "campaign" part was extremely fruitful.

Now, you may play the "lalalaaaaaa I can't hear you" tune, and you can stop reading. If your definition of a democracy solely entails the fact that your ballot will be accounted accurately, and nothing else, you can forget about the rest of this post.

It's a necessary condition, yes.

1. A key component of a democracy is the emergence of a public opinion. Public option can be defined as such: it is made of the various judgements made by the people, on political matters of interests, as they are discussed in dedicated places (newspapers, TV, but also the local tea house).

Necessary but not sufficient. And anyway, many undemocratic societies had public opinion. Rome?

Again, it makes quite a difference. Especially since the main threat to the democratization processes is when the established elites do not tolerate defeat, and keep power despite an electoral defeat.

You that that they would've let the other side win? Didn't you say earlier that the army would step in?

3. A democracy requires trust. For once, the people have to trust their institutions (which didn't happen at all in these elections, as the Egyptians were jaded by decades of rigged elections).

QFT.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's a necessary condition, yes.

Yes. It's a necessary condition. It's not the only thing. We are in complete agreement here.

Necessary but not sufficient.

Well, duh, of course it's not sufficient.

You that that they would've let the other side win? Didn't you say earlier that the army would step in?

I said there was progress in this regard. I din't say the process was complete yet, far from it.
I actually believe that the process would go much faster if the established leaders lost to "acceptable" opponents next time (if they are pluralistic enough that they consider any opponents "acceptable", which I hope). The victory of an "acceptable" opponent would actually allow for a civilian transition of power.
OTOH, if an "unacceptable" opponent wins (Islamists), the army will seize power, and the whole democratization process will come back to square 1, after much death and destruction.



I think you have misunderstood me. I've never said that Egypt had suddenly become a democracy. It definitely isn't (and actually, I do think Iran is more democratic, though I think Iran has structural problems that hamper it in going further).
However, it is flat out wrong to dismiss the whole thing by saying "oh, a rigged election, what else is new?". The campaign has allowed very significant changes in the Egyptian political life. That's progress. That's the kind of thing one needs in a democratization process.

And this is why these elections are a step in the right direction. I'm sorry if your worldview cannot accomodate the idea that a strongarm dictatorship doesn't turn into a democracy in just one election.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes. It's a necessary condition. It's not the only thing. We are in complete agreement here.

Well, yeah, you also need to get rid of voter intimidation.

I said there was progress in this regard. I din't say the process was complete yet, far from it.

What's the evidence fo that?

I actually believe that the process would go much faster if the established leaders lost to "acceptable" opponents next time (if they are pluralistic enough that they consider any opponents "acceptable", which I hope). The victory of an "acceptable" opponent would actually allow for a civilian transition of power.

Why is confidence going to develop through completely phony imitations of a democratic transfer of power?

OTOH, if an "unacceptable" opponent wins (Islamists), the army will seize power, and the whole democratization process will come back to square 1, after much death and destruction.

OTOH, if you disarm the ****ing army, it won't be able to.

(Obviously, this step requires a bit of finesse.)

And this is why these elections are a step in the right direction. I'm sorry if your worldview cannot accomodate the idea that a strongarm dictatorship doesn't turn into a democracy in just one election.

In a completely phony one, no.

[Bereta_Eder]

FREE PALESTINE!
(could be appropriate somehow)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why is confidence going to develop through completely phony imitations of a democratic transfer of power?

That's pluralism which should be affected. And yes, if the candidate not-backed-by-the-army wins, and if the army accepts it, it will be a considerable step for pluralism.
Another, less radical, possibility favourable to pluralism are multiparty parliamentary elections where Mubarak's party has a plurality. They'll have to learn to compromise and to build a coalition for the institution to work. If the Mubarakites learn that they can't simply do what they want, they'll be much more pluralistic than now.

OTOH, if you disarm the ****ing army, it won't be able to.

What a great idea! Let's trigger a civil war between different factions, in which the Muslim bortherhood will win! You like Iran and Saudi Arabia? You'll LOVE Brotherhood's Egypt

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

OTOH, if you disarm the ****ing army, it won't be able to.

What a great idea! Let's trigger a civil war between different factions, in which the Muslim bortherhood will win! You like Iran and Saudi Arabia? You'll LOVE Brotherhood's Egypt

Actually, why don't we just leave Egypt as undemocratic but stop pretending it's making advances?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, why don't we just leave Egypt as undemocratic but stop pretending it's making advances?

Because a sensible democratization is actually the key for the development of the country, and for defusing the domestic Islamist threat?

[Kuciwalker]

Well, since no democratization seems to be actually taking place...

[Spiffor]

Nice way to completely disregard everything I said, including the parts you agreed to

For reference:

A key component of a democracy is the emergence of a public opinion. Public option can be defined as such: it is made of the various judgements made by the people, on political matters of interests, as they are discussed in dedicated places (newspapers, TV, but also the local tea house).

Necessary but not sufficient.

So, we have seen the progress of a key component of democracy, even by your standards, but there's no democratization taking place, nosirree

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see how there's necessarily any more public opinion than before. It's being printed more openly.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's being printed more openly.

That's part of the public opinion. When the opinions aren't printed, or barely so, they don't make a public opinion. That's the very point.

Besides, the items on the agenda of the public opinion weren't Mubarak-made. For a long time, the "public opinion" focused on the issues Mubarak fed it with: Palestine mostly, on which a broad consensus exists. Now, the issues are about unemployment and other domestic issues. Mubarak's propaganda machine isn't the reason why these issues are discussed. The public opinion is becoming autonomous, which is also a leap forward.

Thanks to the fact that domestic issues are discussed, Mubarak isn't above criticism. Unlike matters like the terrorist threat or the support to the Palestinian brothers, it is not immoral for an upstanding citizen to disagree with Mubarak on internal matters. It allows for a breach in the false consensus. This is why the issues that are discussed are now politicized

+openness
+autonomy
+politicization
= +public opinion.

A good step in the democratization process, albeit a largely insufficient one.