Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Optimistic Thoughts on Egypt and the New Year 2011

Unlike you may think of me, it is not always easy to write down my thoughts. Sometimes, they are too many and complicated to put in words. I had this feeling only two or three times in my whole life. Now is one of them. I feel like my mind is blank! I cannot express how I fee towards the new year 2011. 

I will be traveling to Argentina on the very first day of the year – only 3 days from now. My birthday is January 2nd and I want to be with my family on that very special day! Apparently, I will be somewhere between sky and earth on birthday. What a strange place to celebrate a birthday! Actually, I do not care. where to receive the new year in my life. What I really care for is that I will be there alone without my family! This is so painful.

Anyway, I have to be more optimistic about the new year. By mid-2011, I will achieve my long awaited dream to graduate from the prestigious Fletcher School with a Master’s degree in International Relations. My work with the American Islamic Congress is getting more interesting, fruitful, and influential day after day. I am looking forward to the many inspiring projects I am expected to implement on promoting and advocating civil rights all over the Middle East in 2011. Also, 2011, is carrying a lot of happy news for me regarding my love life. Wait for the good news soon ;)  

By autumn 2011, we will be having presidential elections. Some claim that it would be the last in Mubarak’s life and his son, Gamal, may make it to his father’s office in case Mubarak Senior refused to run for re-election. I disagree with those who claim that they can remove Mubarak, simply because there is no real alternative from among opposition. 

Elbaradie is nothing but a funny illusion that some failure Egyptian opposition elders created to hide their guilt and ease their conscience. Since introducing himself as a change-maker last year, he did nothing valuable at all, except hindering Egypt’s wheel for change and distracting people's confident steps towards reform. 

Ayman Nour, on the other hand, is fading away; primarily because of regime’s crackdown on him even after his release in 2009, and secondly because of his inability to make a sufficient sustainable plan and lead his followers through a clear path. 

The other potential competitors like the socialist Hamdeen Sabahi and the Brotherhood are too weak and unpopular to get any votes in the presidential elections; that is of course if we assumed that it would be fair elections. The painful experience of the fraudulent parliamentary elections last month makes it almost impossible for us to believe that the presidential elections might be any better.

Egypt’s socio-economic status is dramatically deteriorating. The majority of the 80 million citizens can hardly secure their living expenses. Unemployment and poverty rates are savagely increasing. Education system is getting from bad to worse. People are getting more repressed and angry as a result. This anger would lead to random violent action – or reaction – soon. I am not an astronomer, but I am predicting the miserable future from the facts I am seeing and living today as an Egyptian.

However, as an optimist, I would assume that this major stress on grassroots people and huge crackdown on political opposition elite would accelerate reform. We just need to let people know that there is a safe way to express their anger in a manner that would lead to real sustainable change. That is; nonviolent strategies and techniques. I dream that by the end of 2011 every one in Egypt, including the poor, uneducated and marginalized citizens to learn about nonviolent strategies and techniques. I will make it my primary mission in 2011 to educate as many grassroots citizens as possible about nonviolent action. I know this would not be an easy task and I have to expect resistance, but I have to try.

I still have hope! I still believe that our future is much better.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

في عشق رجل أتى من حيث تسكن الألهة

هي لا تعرف كيف تتصرف، فقد وقعت في حب ابن الألهة.. إنها المرة الأولى التي تختبر فيها تلك المشاعر اللامنطقية.. ذلك المزيج المتألق من الحزن والفرح وتلك الحالة الفريدة من سمو الروح وارتواء القلب.. يبدو أنه العشق.. والسبب رجل لا يشبهه على الأرض أحد.. رجل إذا مشى تكاد الشمس أن تقبل جبهته وتود الأرض لو تعانق خطوته.. فهي تدَعي وبكل ثقة أنه هبط إليها من عالم آخر.. ربما من السماء حيث تسكن الألهة.. لا يبدو عليها المبالغة حين تقول أنه شديد الروعة والبهاء كما إله لا يمكن لبشري عادي مثلها وصفه.. أو كأنه القمر في تمام اكتماله مسيطراً على أمزجة البحار.. أو كأنه الشمس في توهجها وشدة إبهارها وربما أيضاً نارها التي كلما استشعرتها تأكدت من أنها لا زالت على قيد الحياة.. بل إنه في نظرها أعظم من كل هذه المعجزات الكونية مجتمعة.

أكتشفت أن غزوات الحب التي خاضتها بجدارة من قبله لم تكن في الحقيقة تحب فيها من كانت تظن أنها تحبهم. بل كانت تحب نفسها في وجودهم، كانت تحب أن ترى الحب في عيونهم.. أنا تأخذ الحب دون أن تعطيه.. لكن معه تشعر بأنها أصبحت كنجمة تدور في فلكه، واصبح هو مركز كونها وسر استمرار حركتها، باتت عادتها الأولى كل صباح أن تفتح شباكها الصغير وتسلم نفسها للرياح القادمة من اتجاهه وتتعمد استنشاقها بقوة متجاهلة احساسها بالبرد.. ربما يتصادف ويدخل رئتيها نفس من أنفاسه.

كانت تريد أن تحب رجلاً هي تشبهه.. كانت تريده هو.. كانت تحمل في قلبها فراغاً على هيئته تماماً، لم يستطع أحد أن يملؤه إلا هو.. هي لا تعرف كيف أو متى أو لماذا أحبته، وفي الحقيقة لا تهتم كثيراً لمعرفة الأسباب، أو تبريرها لمن لا يهمهم الأمر. كل ما يشغلها الآن هو كيف ومتى تخبره بحقيقة أنها كانت تنتظره هو تحديداً منذ الأزل لتحيا به القادم من عمرها.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Democracy: Egypt’s Mission Impossible!

Supposedly, the current political season which started by parliamentary elections in November 28th, 2010 and ending with open presidential elections in fall 2011 is the most critical in Egypt’s modern history. The political practices of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), opposition political parties (e.g. liberals and socialists), civil rights organizations, grassroots movements, and Islamists (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood) in this particular year shall determine the political and socio-economic future of Egypt.

Those are not the first parliamentary or presidential elections in Egypt, but probably the last in the life of the aging Mubarak, president of the state since the assassination of Sadat by Islamists in 1981. The growing civil society and pro-democracy grassroots movements coinciding with Mubarak’s deteriorated health and the many internal conflicts in his NDP are expected to put an end to long 30 years of dictatorship; but hardly expected to facilitate the birth of a democratic state.

According to Sheri Berman, “… getting rid of an authoritarian regime is one thing; creating a stable democratic one is something else all together.”[1] The average Egyptian citizen is usually confused by state performance, which exhibits democratic practices (e.g. elections, pluralism, multiparty system) along with authoritarian rehearsals (e.g. emergency law and suppression on basic rights and liberties). Egypt today can be seen as neither a democracy nor an autocracy; it can be confidently labeled as an illiberal democracy.

In his amazing book “The Future of Freedom,” Fareed Zakaria mentioned that the Athenian definition of democracy as “the rule of people” through the process of selecting their government is “meaningless” if it is not supported by constitutional liberalism that would guarantee the fairness and openness of practicing democracy[2]. “If a country holds competitive multiparty elections we call it ‘democratic.’ When public participation in a country’s politics is increased – for example through the enfranchisement of women – this country is seen as having become more democratic.”[3] Ironically, President Mubarak has taken a smart initiative in 2009 by allocating 64 seats in the lower house of parliament for women in hope to increase the participation of women in the current 2010 parliamentary elections[4]. Thus, he skillfully hit two birds with one stone: on one hand, he polished the image of his regime in the eyes of the international community by showing that he is getting “more democratic” and supportive to women’s rights; and on the other hand, this would weaken the Muslim Brotherhood bloc, which currently holds one-third of the seats in parliament by filling more seats with women loyal to the NDP and the current regime[5].

Simultaneously, the regime did not shy away from adopting “illiberal” practices by denying international observers access to parliamentary or presidential elections, claiming that allowing international observation on domestic elections would “infringe the national sovereignty.”[6] In addition, grassroots movements and nongovernmental organizations are indirectly banned from observing elections because of the Emergency Law, in effect since 1980. “This law grants the president extraordinary powers to detain citizens, prevent public gatherings, and issue decrees with little accountability to Parliament or the people.”[7]

As a result, major opposition leaders and political parties, including the newly established bloc of opposition intellectuals from different political affiliations, namely “The National Association for Change” decided to boycott the parliamentary elections. Only, El-Wafd Liberal Party and the Muslim Brotherhood group allowed their candidates to run for elections against the NDP.

Likewise, the upcoming presidential election, scheduled in the fall of 2011, is expected to be as illiberal and illusionary as the parliamentary elections. Ayman Nour, former member of parliament and the leader of El-Ghad Liberal Party, who suffered detention and suppression on the background of running for the first ever open presidential elections in 2005, believes that the current parliamentary elections and the upcoming presidential elections are “a scene from a black comedy.” Nour’s El-Ghad Party is one of the opposition parties that decided to boycott elections “to unveil the ugly face of the corrupt regime and expose its anti-democratic practices, including but not limited to election fraud, freedom manipulation, and suppressing dissidents.” Nour argued that Egypt has gone far beyond the illiberal democracy barrier and has turned into an “authoritarian police state decorated by the malpractice of the so-called democracy.” In accordance with Nour’s argument, Egypt is ranked as an “Authoritarian State” with 3.89 general score on the Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy in 2008,[8]in spite of the fact that Egypt has been running parliamentary elections regularly since 1974 and open presidential elections since 2005.

This, again, supports Zakaria’s argument that democracy, if not preceded and then enhanced by stable liberalism, is meaningless. In the meantime, the Egyptian case evidently refutes Carothers’ argument “only if there is a serious political opening, including free and fair competition for the presidency, will there be any real hope for deep reaching reforms to build the rule of law.”[9] Egypt has failed dramatically to achieve liberalism in spite of its relatively democratic openness. Yet, although Zakaria’s argument that liberalization should come first proved right, at least in Egypt case, Crothers’ statement “democracy has no preconditions” makes sense. Liberalism is not necessarily a precondition for democracy, but it is a facilitator that paves the way and regulates the sequence of steps that should be gradually taken towards achieving democracy.

Apparently, the best workable solution for Egypt case is to go back to ground zero of autocracy and restart, slowly but surely, its gradual path to democracy through political and socio-economic liberalization. Pressuring democracy immediately without going through this path could be counterproductive: as explained above, it would give legitimacy to the current autocracy; or even worse, it may bring in radical groups (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood, who have already won one-third of parliamentary seats in 2005) and thus the country moves from the secular form of dictatorship (autocracy) to the sacredly-complicated religious form of dictatorship (theocracy) via the dark tunnel of illiberal democracy. In view of that, the ideal gradual path to democracy should turn illiberal autocracy (authoritarian state) into liberal autocracy (semi-authoritarian), and then turn liberal autocracy into liberal democracy.

Liberalism, as used by Zakaria, is the nineteenth century “classical liberalism” which is concerned with individual economic, political, and religious liberties[10]. To achieve this form of individualistic political and socio-economic liberalism, certain steps should be taken, respectively: constitutionalism, economic liberalization, and civil society empowerment.

Constitutionalism is about establishing constitutional liberalism and its supportive liberal institutions. Zakaria described the constitutional liberalism as “not about the procedures for selecting government but, rather, government’s goals… the term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain… that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it places the rule of law at the center of politics.”[11]

Although originally a western concept, constitutional liberalism is not a new concept for Egyptians. In 1866, long time before European countries do, Egypt got its first parliament and written constitution[12]. Then in 1923, Egypt adopted a liberal constitution after a successful nation-wide nonviolent campaign led by liberal opposition. However, that liberal era got to a tragic end by the 1952 military coup, which brought the socialist officer Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Arab-nationalist theories to power. Since then, various amendments on the Egyptian constitution were applied, but they did not really harm or affect its liberal nature. Although the constitution is the supreme law of Egypt, it is not properly enforced.

Egypt has a lot of public sector and legislative institutions dedicated to preserving the constitution and applying the laws, but they are mostly corrupt and entirely illiberal. Egypt is ranked 98 out of 178 countries with general score 3.1 on Transparency International Corruption Index CPI 2010[13]. Paradoxically, the Egyptian government, in the past decade, had established various institutions to fight corruption, including the Administrative Authority Council and the Central Auditing Agency. In addition, a committee of integrity and transparency was established in 2007 with a mandate “to formulate a strategy for combating corruption. However, lack of independence, access to information, protection of whistle blowers and lack of clear mandate of the agencies has crippled their impact in fighting corruption.”[14]

In fact, Egypt is not that far from establishing constitutional liberalism. It already has a solid liberal constitution and various supporting governmental institutions. Applying a greater amount of pressure on the Egyptian government to fight corruption and liberalize its institutions while adopting viable mechanisms to enforce the stipulations of the constitution would solve the dilemma. Local civil society and international community, represented by international nongovernmental organizations and democratic governments, which have economic or political ties with Egypt, can easily apply such pressure.

Similar to constitutional liberalism, economic liberalization is not a foreign concept for Egyptians. The Egyptian government has been adopting economic liberalization policies since 1970s. The market-oriented regime of the assassinated president Sadat adopted the Open Door policy stressing economic liberalization as “a necessary condition to attract foreign capital”[15] investments. But the immense resistance from the then strong Nasserist/socialist opposition hindered Sadat from realizing his free market ambitions. As soon as Mubarak came to power in 1981 after Sadat’s assassination, Egypt went through an economic crisis and its foreign debt increased dramatically. By 1990s, “half of the foreign debt was either forgiven or rescheduled, but in exchange Egypt was forced to implement fully structural adjustment and economic liberalization programs sponsored by IMF and World Bank.”[16]

However, the government purposefully manipulated the economic reconstruction process through applying protective privatization policy. Only the wealthy took advantage of the process and the majority of people suffered its consequences. “The privatization process created an industrial and rural elite dependent on the [autocratic] state for access to public economic resources.”[17] The uncompetitive economic context perfectly tailored by the government enhanced private monopoly by selling state assets and public sector enterprises for prices much lower than their actual value to individual investors with proven loyalty to the autocratic regime. “The Egyptian government's practice of selling assets to anchor investors (single individuals) or to a small group of investors is increasing the monopolization of the economy… with such a privatization process, few, if any, of the members of the new elite would be interested in democratization.”[18] Those investors are not only businessmen monopolizing the private sector, but were also appointed as ministers, members of parliament, and members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

Therefore, the IMF and World Bank are highly encouraged to monitor the systematic abuse of the economic liberalization policy in Egypt and force the Egyptian government to end market monopoly, encourage fair and transparent competition, and ultimately provide equal economic opportunities to all citizens.

Undoubtedly, liberalization and then democratization are dependent on the efficiency of the civil society. “Democracy after all is a set of rules and institutions of governance through a peaceful management of competing groups and/or conflicting interests. Thus the normative component of ‘civil society’ is essentially the same as that of ‘democracy.’”[19] The Egyptian civil society is as old as the nineteenth century. During the nineteenth and early twentieth century, its activities were limited to cultural and charity activities by the upper class and European communities who had been living in Egypt. During the liberal era of 1923 - 1952, civil society played an important role in supporting cultural and moderate religious life as well as economic and political liberties of the Egyptian people. By the birth of the repressive, authoritarian, and highly centralized state after the 1952 military coup, the civil society was intentionally silenced by the regime. By late 1980s, the Egyptian civil society started to revive again thanks to western pressures on the Mubarak’s government to encourage the promotion of human rights.[20]

Today, the Egyptian civil society composed of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), grassroots movements (e.g. Kefaya, Youth for Change, National Association for Change, etc.), and Islamists (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood), is growing stronger. The NGOs are established and run by liberal advocates and are concerned with supporting and educating the public about human rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, and democracy. Grassroots movements are mostly led by Nasserist/socialist activists and are basically concerned with pressuring for labor rights, political change, and peaceful exchange of power. Unlike NGOs, grassroots movements’ relationship with opposition political parties is very strong. Islamists, or the Muslim Brotherhood, are, supposedly, the most organized opposition group in Egypt. They are working mainly with youth and they are highly active in providing social and health services to people in the lower class. On another level, they are active in mobilizing the Egyptian public to support Arab and Islamic causes; e.g. Palestinian rights.[21]

Egyptian civil society is growing stronger but perhaps in the wrong direction. The international community should pay a special attention to guiding the Egyptian civil society to the right path towards enhancing the state transfer to liberalism and consequently liberal democracy. This can happen through sending experts to work with civil society actors or offering special funding opportunities for projects related to supporting liberalism. The liberal NGOs could be a fertile soil for this struggle. In addition to their valuable role in advocating rights and supporting the public about civil rights and liberal ideals, they should be encouraged to play a more effective role in fighting corruption in governmental institutions and exposing the abuses of economic liberalization and constitutionalism by the current authoritarian regime. Simultaneously, the international community should provide them with the proper moral and legal protection against the severe violations they continuously suffer under the police state and unjust laws.

To conclude, Egypt is not a hybrid state that inhibits both democratic and authoritarian practices. It is a centralized dictatorship that has been abusing democracy for decades to protect the authoritarian regime and the corrupt government on the expense of people’s rights and liberties. Egypt is considered a living example on Zakaria’s concept of illiberal democracy. Therefore, Zakaria’s theory of sequentialism provided a workable solution to turn the country into a liberal democratic state through gradual progress.

In other words, Egypt needs first to change from repressive autocracy into a liberal autocracy through adopting transparent and fair practices of economic liberalization, constitutionalism, and empowering civil society. Then, later on, Egypt would smoothly transfer from liberal autocracy to liberal democracy; as the people empowered by liberalism would have the power not only to select their government but also government’s goals and practices.

[1] Sheri Berman, How Democracy Emerge: Lessons from Europe, Journal of Democracy January 2007, Volume18, Number1
[2] Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom, (NY: Norton 2003), pp18&19
[3] Ibid.
[4] The American Islamic Congress, Modern Narrative for Muslim Women in the Middle East, Washington DC 2010, pp14
[5] Ibid.
[6] Michele Dunne & Amr Hamzawy, Does Egypt Need International Election Observer?, Carnegie Commentary, October 14th, 2010 (http://carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=41733) accessed: November 8, 2010
[7] Bruce K. Rutherford, Egypt after Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and Democracy in the Arab World, Princeton University Press, pp.1
[8] The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2008
[9] Thomas Carothers, How Democracies Emerge: Sequencing Fallacy, Journal of Democracy January 2007, Volume 18, Number 1
[10] Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom, (NY: Norton 2003), pp.19
[11] Ibid.
[12] Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Toward Muslim Democracies, Journal of Democracy, Volume 18, April 2007, Number2, pp. 7
[13] Simon Rogers, Corruption Index 2010 from Transparency International: find out how each country compares, The Guardian Data Blog, October 26, 2010 – accessed: November 11, 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/26/corruption-index-2010-transparency-international)
[14] Focus on Egypt, Transparency International Country Report – accessed: November 11, 2010 (http://www.transparency.org/regional_pages/africa_middle_east/current_projects/mabda/focus_countries/egypt)
[15] Nadia Ramsis Farah, Egypt’s Political Economy: power relations in development, The American University in Cairo Press, 2009, pp. 78
[16] Ibid. pp. 80
[17] Ibid. pp. 81
[18] Ibid.
[19] Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egypt, Islam, and Democracy, The American University in Cairo Press, 2004, pp. 246
[20] Dalia Ziada; Egypt Whereto?; Tharwa Foundation; 2008, pp. 11-45 (Arabic)
[21] Ibid.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

دعوة لحضور مهرجان القاهرة لأفلام حقوق الإنسان

دعوة لحضور

مهرجان القاهرة لأفلام حقوق الإنسان
في دورته الثالثة
 يوميا من ٦ إلى ١٠ مساءاً، في الفترة من ٤ إلى ٨ ديسمبر
في ساقية الصاوي، قاعة الكلمة، أخر شارع ٢٦ يوليو - الزمالك 

الدعوة عامة وعروض الأفلام مجانية


لمزيد من المعلومات حول مواعيد العروض والأفلام، وكيفية حضور حفل الافتتاح  الذي يحيه المطرب محمد رشاد وفرقة صحبة ويتم فيه تكريم المحامي والناشط الحقوقي البارز الأستاذ/ نجاد البرعي بوصفه شخصية العام في مجال حقوق الإنسان، يرجى زيارة موقعنا الاليكتروني، أو الاتصال بنا عبر الأيميل أو الهاتف

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

How to control the fast and furious train of globalization?

If institutions are the railway, which regulates the pace and direction of the fast and furious train of globalization; Social Capital shall be the driver of the train. How? Let me briefly clarify the importance of having institutions like the IMF and World Bank and other similar economic and political international institutions to regulate our globalized world.

The world, either we are pleased to know that or not, is heading towards complete political and economic globalization. The free capital market and neo-liberalism, either we ideologically believe in them or not, are the dominant rule of today’s world. I am entirely with free capital market. But, with all the positive consequences and economic and political openness brought by such economic-political theories, still there are some minor negative aspects that would primarily affect the developing and poor nations and then threaten the already developed countries.

Stiglitz mentioned clearly that after 9/11 attacks – and I would say even since 1990s – the world realized the importance of enhancing cooperation in reforming and developing emerging and under-developed economies. Hence comes the importance of the role of international institutions like the IMF, World Bank, etc in stabilizing the fast and furious free capital market in our today’s world, especially when trying to transform it to the emerging economies.

Thus, the primary role of those institutions should start before the time of the crisis. IMF is not a rescue squad. It is an international financial organizations meant to help world economy to flourish and regulate the pace and force of global capital market through enhancing cooperation and compatibility among developed and under-developed countries. However, those institutions should not be given absolute power to decide the fate of the world.

The domestic civil society of concerned developed and developing countries and the international community, including powerful states like the US, should compose a network or supervision group to, directly or indirectly, regulate their work, prevent early signs of corruption, and support their basic roles to enhance and stabilize world economies.

Accordingly, I would say that, yes IMF and similar institutions are important and should continue to exist. We, even, need more international political and economic institutions to act as the railway, which regulates the pace and direction of the train of globalization. The role of those institutions is much bigger than a rescue squad that makes up the faults of the inefficient-yet global free market.

Those institutions require an unusual type of supervision by an independent group to ensure its success in its mission in stabilizing world economy and empowering emerging capital markets. This unusual supervision group, which Putnam called the Social Capital, should be constructed as an independent variable (i.e., completely independent) that has no interest in the respective institutions, IMF or any other political or economic institutions. The goal of the Social Capital should be to ensure the quality and transparency of the work of the international institutions. So it must be independent.

Building institutions correctly is another issue. I believe we need more institutions than the very few international institutions working today. Those institutions, I think, should be the dependent variable. In other words they should be built according to the policies of Social Capital and be dependent on it, on the policy level. If institutions are the railway, which regulates the pace and direction of the train of globalization; Social Capital is the driver of the train.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Why advanced countries should help the least developed countries?

Advanced economies like US, Japan, EU, etc. have exerted a lot of efforts and taken a lot of risks while climbing the ladder of economic reform. They, accordingly, believe that they should not expose themselves to risk any more, especially if this risk is related to the least developed countries of the world. They support the values of free market and work hard in transforming the theories of free market and capitalism to the developing countries to help them develop. However, they are not taking any tangible steps towards helping those least developed countries practically, despite the fact that advanced industrialized countries’ success cannot be assured and secured without supporting the growth of the least developed countries.  

Now, what should countries like EU and US do to help least developed countries climb the ladder? First of all, they should stop sending funds to least developed countries in the form of international development aid to these countries. Instead, they should use those funds to encourage and increase the number of investment projects in least developed countries, either directly or indirectly by offering certain incentives to investing countries. This would be of a great benefit for both sides and will definitely encourage the least developed countries to improve its status to rise to competition level. They say give a man a fish feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime!

Second, yet most important, is to remove the “iron curtain” of tariffs and taxes on international trade, particularly exports, coming from the least developed countries. I once read a very interesting study by Thomas Hertel and Will Martin, arguing that global economy revenues will increase by 70 billion dollars per year – 75% of which will go to developing countries – if the international trade tariffs were lowered by 40%. The advanced countries should work on lowering the tariffs barrier, if not removing it completely, on the exports or other international trade activities from least developed countries.

Now the question is why the advanced industrialized countries should help the least developed countries to climb the ladder. There are claims that this would increase the number of competitors and threaten the advanced countries’ dominance over the global market. That is because the least developed countries will be able to offer low prices for certain products that were for so long controlled by the advanced countries, because in developing countries, operation expenses and labor salaries are much lower.

The answer is, simply, that helping the developing countries to have better access to international market would save the advanced countries from this claimed risk. The least developed countries have less operation expenses because they work with dilapidated equipments and they pay low salaries because the workers there are less educated and less interested in improving their skills. They are not motivated to do.

Thus, when the advanced countries open more space for the least developed countries to compete at the international market by applying the main two steps, mentioned above, among other steps of course; the least developed countries will spontaneously encourage workers to improve their skills use advanced equipments. Accordingly, they will incur higher operation expenses, which will force them to provide competitive prices on their products within the range, which would not threaten the advanced countries or destabilize the global free market.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

On Arabs, Democracy, and Iraq War!

Who said Arabs does not want democracy? First, what do we mean by democracy? Is it the rule of people? Is it citizens’ right to informed choice that would lead to political and economic reform? Well, if this is how US understands democracy, this is how Arabs understand it too. Democracy, liberty, and human rights, are common human values shared by the members of the huge human family, no matter what we call them: Arabs, Americans, Chinese, whatever.

The Arab people all over the region, even in the most conservative societies and strong dictatorships are fighting for democracy, or more specifically liberal democracy (take Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia as clear examples). The civil society and pro-democracy movements there are growing strong and the pressure they are imposing on dictators is increasing. Although there are no tangible results that I can use as evidence, I can confidently claim, as an on-ground observer, that they are on their way.

Arabs, especially the young generations, who form more than 60% of the region’s population, are not coping with the lack of democracy. I disagree. Arabs suffer from the lack of democracy, true! But they do not look forward to the bloody democracy that comes through war and violence. What happened in Iraq was a nightmare to the whole region. Innocent civilians killed, sectarian tensions expanding and increasing, natural wealth stolen. No one, including the pro-democracy activists, wishes to see their country in the horrible status of Iraq. It is true Iraq now is enjoying some initial signs of democracy, but this won’t remove the past misery and the expected consequences. As soon as the American troops completely leave Iraq, things will turn worse. Why? Because, while imposing democracy by warfare, the people lost their most-needed opportunity to absorb democracy and transform their mentalities and life-styles from the very closed tunnel under Saddam to the wide-open horizon after Saddam. They were pre-occupied by saving their lives.

That is, of course, if we assumed that US intentions in invading Iraq were sincerely for promoting democracy, not for hunting down Saddam Hussein (as a person not as a dictator), or for the revival of Bush’s “holly crusade.” Now, thanks to the information leaked through some reputable websites like Wikileaks and some reputable writers like McCelellan (of “what happened” book), and other international reports, we realized that the war on Iraq was not for saving the world by finding the hidden nuclear bombs or promoting democracy in a country that was governed by a hard-liner dictator like Saddam.

So, obviously, the neighbor Arab countries won’t get jealous of Iraq’s democracy. They are scared! And, the people there cannot and will not accept to be another Iraq, even if Iraq became the most democratic country in the world.

I can also claim that dictators in the region became stronger after the fall of Saddam. They – the dictators – are using the Iraq example to frighten their people and enhance their dominance over their seats. I can go further and say that by waging war on Iraq, US harmed democracy and enhanced dictatorship in the region. If America really wants to help, it should care more for promoting democracy in the Middle East through disseminating knowledge about civil rights, enhancing civil society, and supporting nonviolent resistance and struggle by the people in the region against their dictators. This support can take many forms starting from financial and moral support to the pro-democracy initiatives, up to imposing diplomatic pressures on the dictators to apply liberal democracy principles. But war is not and can never be a reasonable or working option!

Nevertheless, I would like to put something really clear about Arabs in general and Muslims in particular. The Middle East is the region where the three divine religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam - which form the majority of the religions in the world – emerged. People there are religious by nature, regardless what religion they embrace. They can hardly understand any thing in the world or embrace any ideal or principle if it is not introduced and justified through religion. Actually, as I mentioned in an earlier post, democracy (Shura) is an obvious and non-negotiable rule in Islamic Shaira (law). Democracy is not a strange concept for Muslims or Arabs. Accordingly, Arabs/ Muslims would never hate to have democracy, but they will absolutely prefer eternal dictatorship to democracy promoted through war.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Democracy is compatible with Islam but not with Arab-Islamists!

Building on my previous post on the necessity of spreading democracy in the Middle East, I thought it would be wise to explain why I believe that democracy is compatible with Islam but not with Arab political Islamists. It is absolutely appropriate to place considerable emphasis on the compatibility/incompatibility of democracy and Islam. Islam is not only a spiritual religion that cares for nothing but believers’ spiritual relation to their God (Allah). However, it could be viewed as a political religion that regulates the relationship between people in the Muslim society (the umma) and the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims all over the world. Islam’s holly texts (Qura’an and Hadith) and moderate (non-salfi, non-extremist) interpretations embedded in moderate Shari’a dictate the various forms of governance and political systems under which Muslims and non-Muslims living in Muslim countries (known as Ahlul Kitab or the people of the book) should live.

One of the most known Islamic governance system in Islam is called “Shura” and it is very similar to the secular concept of democracy. In other words, Shura gives the people the right to elect their leaders, participate effectively in the decision making process, and hold their leaders accountable if they failed in their mission. Shura system is not an option for Muslims to take or to leave. However, it is a divine order that they should obey and follow as is.

Now, the question: if Shura (democracy) is an integral part of Islam, why the Middle East is an all-dictators area – except for Israel/Palestine and maybe Lebanon? The answer is simply because the version of Islam applied in the Middle East is a distorted version that inhibits the ill interpretations of Salafis and the Bedouin culture of the nations that lived long in deserts under arbitrary leaders of tribes or groups, whose their only license to power were their muscles and wealth!

The lack of democracy in the Middle East is not an Islamic problem but a dilemma created by Arab Islamists! Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia are clear examples on what I am saying. They are politically motivated groups who use/abuse the religion of Islam to control the vast majority of devoted Muslims.a   

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Why Democracy... and why democracy in the Middle East?

I disagree with those who claim that democracy and Islam are not compatible or that democracy is not necessarily the appropriate form of government in the Muslim World. From my point of view, democracy is the only good form of government for any country in the world, including the Middle East. Centralization and the absolute powers given to autocrats and theocrats have incurred dire consequences not only to the Middle East but also to the whole world. Spreading democracy in the Middle East would improve the future of the people in the region and the world. However, for democracy to succeed it should be paired with liberalism.

Democracy, as I understand, is mainly about the rule of law and giving people the free will to decide their present and future based on informed choice. It is much more than merely running and participating in free and fair parliamentary or presidential elections. It has nothing to do with the type of the ruling regime of a given country, either a monarchy or a republic. Some monarchies like UK are successfully applying democracy, while some republics like Egypt are failing dramatically in achieving the minimum requirements for viable democracy. Thus, democracy is not about the elite or the regime. However, democracy is about the people and whether they enjoy their basic rights to freedom, equality, and economic prosperity under the rule of law. And, this is the core principal of liberalism.

The Middle East problem with democracy has nothing to do with Islam. The Middle East is perhaps the only region in our world that incorporates this large number of dictatorships (e.g. Islamist theocrats and secular autocrats). The lack of democracy in the region has resulted into angry but mostly apathetic group (large group) of people, especially young people, who tasted the bitterness of injustice and accordingly became an easy prey for the Islamists who programmed them into terrorists and fanatics. As religious by nature, the Middle Easterners found in the Islamists’ mostly wrong interpretations of holly texts a space to breathe out their anger and probably winning the eternal welfare at Heaven by sacrificing their soul for the “sinful” causes of fanatics. The ears of average Middle Easterners are deafened by dictators from one side and Islamists from the other side. The voice of pro-democracy or liberal Muslims and intellectuals is hardly heard under such strong pressures.

Applying democracy would act as a de-programmer for those escaping the bitter injustice under dictatorships by surrendering their “unfree will” to the Islamists in exchange of a fake promise of welfare in the afterlife. Democracy would empower the average people in the Middle East by allowing them to have the final say in their own lives and decide their own future. Accordingly, democracy, or better to emphasize “liberal democracy,” in the Middle East is the best and probably the only good from of government that would serve the interests of the people in the region and beyond.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Dalia Ziada wins the Anna Lindh Euro-Med Award

I won the prestigious Anna Lindh Euro-Med Prize. I received the award in the presence of the Prince of Monaco. I will tell you more details about this amazing experience very soon.

My photo with Prince Albert of Monaco and Ms. Hala Hashish, the head of Egypt's Satellite Nile TV Sector after winning the Anna Lindh Award.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

ورشة عمل لتدريب الشباب على مهارات المناظرة في القاهرة

هل لديك وجهة نظر وتريد أن تتعلم كيف تطرحها وتدافع عنها؟ إنضم إلينا في ورشة عمل تتضمن تدريب عملي على مهارات المناظرة ترعاها مبادرة محاربون من أجل حرية العقيدة التابعة لمنظمة المؤتمر الإسلامي الأمريكي.

إن كنت طالب، أو ناشط سياسي، أو ناشط حقوقي، أو باحث، أو حتى شخص عادي مهتم بتعلم مهارات التفاوض والمناظرة ليستفيد منها في عمله أو حياته اليومية، فلا تفوت الفرصة. حيث سيعقد مكتب شمال أفريقيا لمنظمة المؤتمر الإسلامي الأمريكي، ومقره القاهرة، ورشة عمل لمدة يوم واحد على مهارات المناظرة، في 27 يونيو 2010، وسوف يسمح للمتدربين بالمشاركة في جلسة مناظرة سيتم عقدها في مطلع شهر يوليو 2010 لتبادل الأفكار والآراء مع متخصيين حول حرية العقيدة والتسامح الديني في مصر.

تفاصيل أكثر عن ورشة العمل:

تعلم مهارات التفاوض والمناظرة

27 يونيو 2010 من 9 إلى 5 مساءاً

في القاهرة – سيتم إخبار المتدربين الذين يقع عليهم الإختيار بالمكان النهائي وجدول التدريب فيما بعد

الموعد النهائي لتقديم الإستمارة: 20 يونيو 2010 – سيتم إختيار المتدربين بناءاً على المعلومات المذكورة في استمارة التقديم ومقابلة شخصية سيتم تحديدها مع كل متقدم على حدى. مع العلم أن الأولوية لمن يتقدم أولاً.

التكاليف: مجانية بالكامل – سيحصل المتدربين على شهادة من المنظمة تفيد باكتساب المهارات الواردة في منهج التدريب. كما سيسمح للمتدربين بالمشاركة في جلسة مناظرة سيتم عقدها في مطلع شهر يوليو 2010 لتبادل الأفكار والآراء مع متخصيين حول حرية العقيدة والتسامح الديني في مصر.

للمشاركة في ورشة العمل، برجاء تحميل هذه الإستمارة وتكملتها وإرسالها مع السيرة الذاتية إلى:

سنقوم بالتواصل مع أصحاب الإستمارات الناجحة لعمل مقابلة شخصية.

إن منظمة المؤتمر الإسلامي الأمريكي هي منظمة غير حكومية مهتمة بنشر الحقوق المدنية في العالم الإسلامي من خلال الدعوة إلى التسامح وتبادل الأفكار بين المسلمين وبعضهم البعض وبين المسلمين وغير المسلمين في جميع أنحاء العالم.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

And... the other point of view on Israeli raid on the Gaza flotilla

PBS interview with the Israeli Ambassador: Soldiers Had 'No Choice But to Defend Themselves'

MICHAEL OREN: Well, I think that there will be allies defending our right to defend ourselves. Keep in mind the policy that Israel has on Gaza is not Israel's alone. It's also Egypt's.


- The Egyptian President instructed the opening of Rafah terminal and allowing Palestinians with serious injuries or those in need for humanitarian aid to access Egypt.

I've just signed this petition at Avaaz.org:

We call for an immediate, independent investigation into the flotilla assault, full accountability for those responsible, and the lifting of the Gaza blockade.

Join me in signing at this link:



Israel's deadly raid on a flotilla of aid ships headed for Gaza has shocked the world.

It's an outrageous use of lethal force to defend an outrageous and lethal policy -- Israel's blockade of Gaza, where two thirds of families don't know where they'll find their next meal.

The UN, EU, US, and nearly every other government and multilateral organization have called on Israel to lift the blockade and, now, launch a full investigation of the flotilla raid. But without massive pressure from their citizens, world leaders might limit their response to mere words -- as they have so many times before.

Let's make the world's outcry too loud to ignore. Join the petition for an independent investigation into the raid, accountability for those responsible, and an immediate end to the blockade in Gaza -- click to sign the petition, and then forward this message to everyone:

The petition will be delivered to the UN and world leaders, as soon as it reaches 200,000 names -- and again at every opportunity as it grows and leaders choose their responses. A massive petition at a moment of crisis like this one can demonstrate to those in power that sound bites and press releases aren't enough -- that citizens are paying attention and demanding action.

As the EU decides whether to expand its special trade relationship with Israel, as Obama and the US Congress set next year's budget for Israeli military aid, and as neighbours like Turkey and Egypt decide their next diplomatic steps -- let's make the world's voice unignorable: it's time for truth and accountability on the flotilla raid, and it's time for Israel to comply with international law and end the siege of Gaza. Sign now and pass this message along:

Most people everywhere still share the same dream: for two free and viable states, Israel and Palestine, to live side by side. But the blockade, and the violence used to defend it, poisons that dream. As a columnist wrote to his fellow Israelis today in the newspaper Ha'aretz, "We are no longer defending Israel. We are now defending the siege. The siege itself is becoming Israel's Vietnam."

Thousands of pro-peace activists in Israel today protested the raid and the blockade in demonstrations from Haifa, to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem -- joining demonstrations around the world. Regardless of which side threw the first punch or fired the first shot (the Israeli military claims it did not initiate the violence), Israel's leaders sent helicopters of armed storm-troopers to raid a convoy of ships in international waters bringing medicine and supplies to Gaza, and some now lay dead.

Their lives cannot be brought back. But perhaps, together, we can make this dark moment a turning point -- if we arise with an unshakable call for justice, and an unbreakable dream of peace.


Live coverage from Al Jazeera

Live coverage from the Guardian

"The Second Gaza War: Israel lost at sea" - Bradley Burston, Ha'aretz

Analysis of violence from IDF's perspective from Debka, reporters with ties to Israeli intelligence

70% of Gazans suffer from food insecurity - 2008 ICRC report, cited by al Jazeera

Analysis of possible political consequences of the flotilla attack