Democracy in Egypt

After reading a wide range of articles and analysis on the current situation in Egypt I realized that there has been no decisive judgment for what Egypt is headed for and what is going to be the outcome of this whole diaspora.

The ample speculations range from-

    -If Egypt will end up becoming a more radical Islamic state under the Muslim Brotherhood or

    -If Egypt may have a rough democracy with illiberal connotations or 

   - If the military be able to stabilize socio-political unrest and bring about a smooth transition … so  on n so forth.

And then I stumbled upon the various surveys conducted by Pew research Centre Global attitudes Project which conducted surveys in the Muslim countries. The discoveries made by which are quite unforeseen.

·         - The Pew researchers in a survey- ‘the role of Islam in politics and society‘ found that 84 percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for people who leave Muslim religion.

·         -Another Pew survey finds that 90 percent of Egyptians say they believe in freedom of religion.

·         -Pew also found that a majority of Egyptians think democracy with protections of free speech and assembly is “preferable to any other kind of government”.

·       -  The Pew survey found wide streams of opinion in Egypt that seem at the very least inhospitable to democracy. When asked which side they would take in a struggle between "groups who want to modernize the country [and] Islamic fundamentalists," 59 percent of Egyptians picked the fundamentalists, while 27 percent picked the modernizers.

·         -In a country in which the army will likely play a deciding role in selecting the next political leadership, just 32 percent believe in civilian control of the military.

·-         And a majority, 54 percent, supports making segregation of men and women in the workplace the law throughout Egypt.

·        - When asked whether suicide bombing can ever be justified, 54 percent said yes (although most believe such occasions are "rare.")

·         -Eighty-two percent supported stoning for those who commit adultery.

·        - And yet at the same time, says Richard Wike, associate director of Pew's Global Attitudes Project, "We found support for some specific features of democracy -- free media, civil liberties, an independent judiciary." Indeed, 80 percent of Egyptians place a high value on free speech, 88 percent on an impartial judiciary and 75 percent on "media free from government censorship."

·        -The Pew 2010 report found that 82 percent of Egyptians hold an unfavorable view of the United States. That's higher than in Pakistan, higher than in Jordan, higher than 18 other nations Pew surveyed. And it is higher than the 72 percent of Egyptians who have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda.

·      -Egyptian opinion of the United States improved briefly in 2009, when Barack Obama became president, but it fell significantly in 2010. Muslim opinion of Obama, who made outreach to Muslims a top priority and traveled to Cairo in June 2009 to address the Islamic world, has also dropped.

It is certainly difficult to explain the coexistence of contrasting attitudes and therefore even more difficult to analyze what will happen next. As far as I can see, the situation in Egypt is headed for an illiberal democratic system.

Usually, In a Democracy, What we conveniently overlook is its ethos. For a democratic polity to function smoothly, requires a democratic fabric deep within. Here the concept of equality- economic, political and most importantly social plays a crucial role. The economic and socio-cultural aspects have to change a great deal in order make democracy a success. A conservative and rigid social existence cannot result into a healthy and flourishing democracy it can only mock it.

Machiavelli once said “we should esteem a man who is liberal, not a man who decides to be so.” This probably means that there is a philosophical difference between a man who has liberal values innate within himself and another who might as well resolve to be so but cannot go beyond pretence. In this context the difference lies in how one perceives democracy and liberal values. Is the call for freedom limited only to the economic disparity between elites and masses; unemployment and corruption or is it speaking of the western concept liberty and equality (Lock, Rousseau, Hobbes school of thought)?

Therefore, I believe the Egyptian revolution lacks ideas & ideology. It is a mass uprising, for a cause but the cause remains highly undefined in many areas. The very essential issue in the Arab world is of equality, women’s empowerment, gender equality, gender justice, economic disparity and freedom of thought and expression, these questions are still not seen to be discussed. And hence the democracy in Egypt will depend on the merit of its constitution and the constitutionalism that it aims to follow.  If this is the case with one of the most liberal states(Egypt)  in the middle east there is very little expected from the others who are following Egypt’s lead.

Thus the uprisings, sprouting all over Middle East, although very significant lack ‘thought’ as of now. One can only hope that this uprising takes the form of a movement and further leads to addressing the more deep-rooted questions and issues in the Arab society.

Egypt – what next?

When people’s aspirations are neglected and economic disparities become intolerable revolutions are bound to take place. But the current situation in the Middle East is constantly bringing me back to the thought as to – “what exactly constitutes a revolution?”

Revolution v/s Uprising

Both these terms may be synonymous to a lay man but in the case of Middle East they have to be distinguished conceptually from one another. A revolution is essentially known as a change in ideas and value system, i.e. a complete transformation. Where as an uprising is a revolt that symbolizes discomfort and may bring about certain level of change but may not be a transformation of any sort. The huge uprising in Egypt therefore, I believe, is still in the process of becoming a complete revolution. Overthrowing the president who ruled the country for almost three decades is certainly a commendable aspect of this uprising but the question remains-“what next?”

Just a mere change of power is not a revolution; a change in the value system is what constitutes one. The Egyptian socio-political scenario right now is confronting many questions at one go –

•             Leadership and democracy,
•              US influence
•               Muslim Brotherhood and the opposition

The US influence and the role of Muslim Brotherhood will play an important role in the coming days. It is a classic example of conflict of interests within and without, with the US supporting democratic movement and the opposition party of Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood) trying to realize its long awaited dream of an Islamic government. The trick to resolve this hitch lies in the hands of the leadership (which is yet to emerge). The school of thought that the leadership belongs to may give a definite direction to the movement.  Thus, I believe with regard to any revolution, the values the society evolves & resolves to follow is what shapes the constitution and leads to constitutionalism of the state.

Here I remember my Professor Dr. Yashwant Sumant’s (HOD Department of Politics, Pune University) lecture on Constitutionalism –“any polity is defined by its constitution. The constitution and the system of governance adopted by it define the role of individual within the polity. Thus the relationship between one individual and another, between individual and groups; and between individual and the state is defined by the constitution.”

In the case of Egypt and many other Middle Eastern states the revolutions seem to be stuck up with the overthrowing of the current heads of state, very little can be gauged about the society or people’s ideas on liberty, equality and gender justice. Only time shall tell the tale!  

Indo-US: A relationship of equals!

The current victory of the Republicans at the House of Representatives gives Barak Obama a strong pointer to think about his election as the President for the second term. Though it has recovered from recession, US economy is still not performing. The President is hardly two years old in the white house and one can see his popularity already declining. Obama’s policies of recovering the economy as promised after the presidential election, with the “yes we can” mantra don’t seem to have fallen in place yet.

The arrival of the US President at the commercial capital of India (Mumbai) with around 250 CEOs hoping to establish strong economic ties with India creates a level playing ground for us. Business can only be done by partners with equal stake. India has become a ‘new hope’ for the US and is no longer a ‘peripheral’ interest as it use to be. It is sort of amusing to realize that more than India being in awe of the US it is Obama who is in need of India. Indian markets can prove to be substantial in rebuilding American economy, As Exports of $1 billion will create 5,000 jobs in the US. Thus with the announcement of $10 billion in agreements Obama is taking back employment for almost 50,000 Americans. Plagued by a flailing economy, high unemployment and mid-term elections that led to the Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives, Mr. Obama said he planned to double U.S. exports to create more jobs.

“During my first visit to India, I will be joined by hundreds of American business leaders and their Indian counterparts to announce concrete progress toward our export goal -- billions of dollars in contracts that will support tens of thousands of American jobs, We will also explore ways to reduce barriers to United States exports and increase access to the Indian market,” Mr. Obama wrote in an op-ed piece published in The New York Times.

Hence there are a few things that will happen as a consequences of Obama’s visit:

Exalting virtues of democracy

People to people relations will increase

USA’s image will be improved with the Obamas visiting schools and encouraging the youth.

Collaboration, good will, charm and charisma will be explored and appreciated.

The things that may not happen are:

India may not get US backing for the permanent seat in the UNSC

There may be No clarity on Washington’s role in war against terror in the region.

And the USA’s relations with China and Pakistan will not be explicitly put forth.

Though, some deals will be announced and some initiated, this visit will certainly show the world the increasing Indo- US closeness than ever before!

India’s election to the United Nations Security Council

India’s election in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as one of the 10 non permanent members, I believe, reinstates India’s role in International politics. It has resulted into a lot of chatter about India establishing her credentials in handling issues of International importance and the degree of ‘responsibility’ involved.

I wonder how we define “responsibility” here-

·        Does responsibility mean submission to the US led policies due to the rising Indo-US proximity?

·        Or does it mean that India keeps her ‘right to reason’ intact and makes her own decision carefully managing the checks and balances and follows the old policies?

·        or taking a step further, does it mean that its time India shed the ‘post-colonial’ notions to accept and believe that India’s huge population, increasing economic and political influence is only bringing India closer to the permanent membership of the UNSC, and that its time India consolidates her role as a key player in International politics who is set to represent and lead the world of emerging economies and huge comparable populations?.

Though the second one sounds more reasonable enough I think it’s this third responsibility I would like India to own up for. India has been elected as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) after 19 years with a whooping support of 187 of the 192 member states in the General Assembly. The last time in 1996 when India contested for the elections of UNSC non-permanent member it lost to Japan, only 42 countries voted for India then. Ever since, India’s image has enhanced manifolds, her no first use policy of the Nuclear weapons and a strong record of non-proliferation compliments the international arena in one way or the other. Moreover, her liberal democratic polity, significant contribution to the UN peacekeeping efforts and ability to reason for herself and stick to her own position builds a strong case in favor of India.

The next two years in the Security Council are certainly going to be a testing ground for India. Every move or decision she makes in favor or against any issue of international concern is going to be analyzed, criticized and scrutinized in every possible angle. Hence, as much as, what decisions we make, ‘how’ we make them is certainly going to matter a lot. One very important factor that India needs to keep herself aware of is her complex identity which represents -a peace-loving, democratic, secular, developing, nuclear nation-state guarding a huge population with a diverse ethnic fabric along with being a fast growing economy. With this ‘all-inclusive’ image that India carries it’s going to make it difficult to make decisions simply based on our foreign policy agenda or diplomatic inclinations. I think this is where the idea of India’s ‘responsibility’ will be speculated. It is not going to be enough to stick to the old stand; India is seen to have matured as a player in the International relations and will be expected to rethink on certain issues. Issues like the very old Israel-Palestine conflict or the independence of Kosovo or the UN stand on Iran and the sanctions resolution on Iran all these will require a profound foreign policy. There will be no place for adhocism. This is going to be difficult as there has to be synthesis between India’s sovereign foreign policy and the approach/policy expected from an up coming global power representing Asia in the UNSC. Changing stands and shifting positions while making decisions on these matters will only lead to a dwindling position of India in front of the globe.  The diplomacy lies in using logic and conviction while seeking a comprehensive view, although the approach to any question cannot be justified unless India reaches an actual decision making situation. 

Therefore, I think its time India’s foreign policy portrays a strong determination to change the earlier image of a neutral non-aligned state to a nation-state that is in synch with her intrinsic worth and ambitious character. India’s election to the UNSC, I believe can be considered as nothing but a harbinger of an extraordinary opportunity for India to demonstrate her potential as a global power to the world.

Permanent Membership of the UNSC

The United Nations Security Council was set up in the backdrop of the Second World War. It consists of five permanent members and ten non-permanent members. The ability of the permanent member to exercise ‘veto’ is known to be one of the major characteristic of the UNSC. Today, Two decades after the end of cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world order has certainly undergone phenomenal changes.  Today’s scenario depicts a very subtle revolutionary development, the representation of three key players- South Africa ,Brazil and India of the IBSA grouping of emerging economies have made it into the UNSC as non-permanent members at the same time. They make a promising representation of the South block. Also, all the four countries of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) are now represented in the UNSC. Moreover strangely as it is so Pakistan voting for India to take its place in the Security Council has peculiar implications. 

The countries -Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan make a strong demand for permanent seats in the UNSC. Japan and Germany are the UN's second and third largest funders respectively and Brazil and India are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN peace-keeping missions. The formerly colonized continents- Africa, South America and South Asia – are seen to have strong emerging economies. These countries not only represent a large amount of world population but are also determined to enhance their stature in World Politics.

 Moreover, Siddhart Varadarajan, the Strategic Affairs Editor of The Hindu, argues that –“there is a structural problem with the security council which runs much deeper than the existence of the veto power in the hands of the P-5…today despite the growing American ability to mobilize all permanent members behind its initiatives the UNSC has not managed to make much headway because it is unrepresentative and because the solutions it proposes lack credibility”. Similarly, many scholars criticize the UN to be a defunct organization which is tied to the apron strings of the Unites States as it has been unsuccessful in dealing with problems of International concern. Therefore, I guess it becomes important to showcase how a restructured Security Council constructed around a more inclusive policy towards the rising powers like India, Brazil, and South Africa stands a better chance of addressing the world’s issues. It’s high time the UNSC becomes more democratic in its functioning and reflects the changed realities of the world.

A critical analysis of the role of media

Communication as we all know is an important factor when it comes to development and change. I think it is obvious in the 21st century that transmission of new ideas through mass media creates a conducive environment for change. It introduces and exhibits new ideas which bring about a change in values, attitudes and communication.

Today’s news market is huge – the government actually sells the rights to tell the public whatever the government wishes the public to “know” (true or not). News networks such as CNN and BBC cover the globe, and even small countries like Sweden with only nine million people have television channels broadcasting only news – around the clock.  

Thus, cultural autonomy of nations is in jeopardy under globalization. At the social level, the structures and institutions of traditional culture get disrupted. The media texts produced in the Western countries have come to dominate media channels all over the world. In our own country, television networks have started broadcasting programmes that are made in foreign countries .These programmes destroy local cultures. They carry ideological messages that subtly brainwash people into accepting alien values and beliefs. In the name of cosmopolitan culture, a shallow consumerist package is being distributed in the Third World countries. Under the influence of such a culture every relationship tends to become a short-lived activity for materialistic satisfaction. Values such as- sharing, collaboration and harmony decline and tension in society increases. This degradation in the realm of culture is indeed a serious negative aspect of the media.

Most importantly media encourages “embourgeoisiement” in the social life of people. People start aiming higher. They are constantly hammered, through advertisements and commercials as to how good and comfortable their life can be if they buy a certain product or have access to a certain service and facility. This in turn makes the individual constantly want for ‘more’. It characterizes or internalizes the idea of a ‘standard way of life’ and also puts forth the means of achieving the same because it is the best and every one else possess it.   Martin Esslin in his book “The Age of Television” points out that “television brings an endless stream of collective daydreams and fantasies in our homes, and this leads to a blurring of the difference between the real world and the fantasy world. Television feeds our desire to be rich and caters to our erotic desires.” This aspect of media-effects diverts our attention from the reality of life and brings loss of the ability to think logically. It also introduces newer skills and techniques. Media and the communication through it help to enlarge the mental horizons of people. It can be used to raise the levels of aspirations as well. Moreover, people start imitating other cultures, especially the culture of the developed world as it is always referred to as a success story by the media.

The entertainment media, especially, has a great impact on the people, it makes them stereotype; as they are exposed to similar type entertainment Programme. It thus plays an important role in socialization of people. Mass media exposes us to various new ideas of change and development. They not only put forth ideas but also ‘romanticize’ them; the media creates a rosy picture of newer products and lifestyles. There is always a subtle, if not direct, comparison between societies and cultures of the world. This makes the media powerful as it influences masses. Thus media gradually develops“Hegemony” and thus controls and chanalizes the thoughts of the people. 'Hegemony' in this case means the success of the dominant classes (here media and other elites) in presenting their definition of reality, their view of the world, in such a way that it is accepted by other classes as 'common sense'. The general 'consensus' is that it is the only sensible way of seeing the world. Any groups who present an alternative view are therefore marginalized. Media uses this hegemony to influence the population and thus also brings about cultural change.