this is not an essay

[lagilman]

Watching the news coming out of Egypt this week, I keep being struck by one phrase, over and over again. "30-year rule."

I am a citizen of the United States. I was raised with the idea of a peaceful democracy, where every four years there is a more-or-less orderly transition of government. It is, I suspect, one of the reasons why we tend to take a lot of things we should protest against - because we know, sooner rather than later, we will get a voice in what comes next.

[how well that voice is heard, and the limitations of a majority voice vs a sizable minority voice, are things for another think]

The idea of a government - one leader, specifically - continuing for a decade, or several decades... I am a creature of my upbringing. I cannot think this is a healthy thing.

No matter how perfect a leader at point A, things change. Countries change, worlds change, people change. And the isolation/idolation of long-term leadership seems almost inevitably to lead -- if not to corruption, than certainly to disconnection. And then, near-inevitably, a refusal on the part of the people to be ignored.

If the two conflict, as they will... violence.

And, after so long a rule, a sense of the unknown, the unknowable. If the structure is broken down, where does the new structure come from?

I am, by training and preference, a historian, not a political theorist. I can't comment with specific accuracy on what's going on outside my own political surroundings, and I am hesitant to make comments about someone else's government when my own is hardly perfect. That's not only arrogant, it's rude. But history tells us that revolution - the disorderly change of a political structure -- is an unpredictable beast. Sometimes it leads to a better day, a stronger country, a healthier and vital nation.

Sometimes, it doesn't.

I have no idea what will come out of Egypt - indeed, the entire Middle East, in the immediate future, after this week. Perhaps nothing will change. Perhaps everything will. I hope that it will be healthy change. I hope that it will be peaceful, focused on bettering the lives of the people who birthed it in positive ways, creating a structure that will give them a voice, and a means to express their will, whatever that will might be.

Do I hope that it is also friendly to the western nations? Of course. I am tired of hate, I am tired of war, and I am tired of Us vs Them at a personal and a global level. (I am, I discover to my amusement, that much of an innocent). But I have also seen what happens, historically, when one government attempts to install a "friendly" regime somewhere else. Better to let the people choose.

I wish you good luck, Egypt. Good luck, to all of us.

EtA: Egypt is taken off-line by its government
The NYT updates the situation, as best they can

Comments

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

*applause*

[arouraleona.livejournal.com]

Being in Thailand on Thai internet I'm honestly a little hesitant to say how much I agree with the long-term rule of a single individual point ...

But as far as Egypt goes (and Tunisia as well), I hope they use this to build themselves a better home.

[ckd]

More to the point, remember that Mubarak took office after Anwar Sadat was assassinated. Sadat took office after Nasser died of a heart attack. The last time the leadership of Egypt changed without a death was in 1954, and that was after a "power struggle" won by Nasser. Election? What election?

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

I'm following this situation in France. It doesn't look good.

[saladinahmed.livejournal.com]

"But I have also seen what happens, historically, when one government attempts to install a "friendly" regime somewhere else."

It's worth pointing out that this is precisely what's up in Egypt today. Mubarak's a dictatorial scumbag, and people there have hated him for twenty-odd years. Thing is, like the Saudis, he's 'friendly' (despite street-appeasing empty anti-Western rhetoric) to 'our' interests. So guess who's been giving him the $ for his secret police for 20-odd years?

[rwglaub.livejournal.com]

There basically is no government in Cairo right now. The people has lost their fear. Many of the demonstrators are middle- and upper-class people who are tired of the corruption and the mismanagement and the regime failing to do anything for it's own people. The ruling party's headquarters are burning and has been sacked by looters. The police had been breakig heads for the past few days, but stopped when the army showed up. The army has the respect of the Egyptian people; the police do not.Mubarak's son with his family have left for London. The administration has called for the respect of human rights and the lifting of all barriers to communication. Practically we can't do any more than that, because we have no idea of what will happen in the next few hours. All it will take is one stupid person with one stray shot to ignite a firestorm.

Sorry to run on. I'm not going to get much of a weekend...

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

In the short run, if the protesters lose, the Egyptians are stuck with a corrupt ruler. If the protesters win, a democratic Egypt will be a more Islamic Egypt, which means Israel and the US could lose an ally.

American political commentators tend to focus on the anti-Americanism of radical Islam, ignoring how the frustration behind the movement is fanned by the corruption in Middle Eastern dictatorships that used to be Cold War pawns of the CIA and KGB. Our best hope is that democratic self-governance will eventually, in of itself, teach tolerance, which could have a moderating effect on regional politics. Historically, when Muslims have been tolerant of each other's differences, they have also been more tolerant of outsiders (like Jews), and when they are intolerant towards outsiders, they are also intolerant of each other.