More elections, this time in Egypt

Here are some quick thoughts on the Egyptian election.

1. So people are electing a president whose powers are not defined. They will be defined later in the Constitution, once it gets written. Maybe this is putting the cart before the horse, but if all anyone focuses on is that the foundation is not fully laid, nothing will be built.

2. Many of the reports feature quotes where people say that for the first time they feel as though their vote counts and their voice is being heard. This is immeasurably important. In a dictatorship, the choices are be trampled on or join forces with the dictator. Neither one is a very good choice. The possibility of making one's voice heard without abetting a dictatorship is liberating. Once people feel that they can affect what happens to them and believe that there will be dividends to planning for the future, other aspects can take off; business, education, social entrepreneurship. Investing in something for future gains can only happen when people believe that those gains will not be taken away from them. Otherwise, people only focus on the here and now, which is admittedly a Herculean task for the many Egyptians mired in poverty.

3. Some of the reporting focuses on Copts, and their voting to exclude an Islamist candidate. That's an understandable strategy. Clearly, they are worried, and they have reason to be. How popularly elected regimes in Muslim countries deal with religious minorities is an open question. And the answer is often not well, as this op-ed about Indonesia demonstrates.

However, and this is a big however, majority Muslim countries need to come to terms with how they choose to reconcile religion and government. For that reason, the participation of Islamist parties and candidates is key. Religion plays a very important role in Egyptians' lives.  In fact, religion plays an important role in many people's lives, the world over. It's an issue with which we continue to struggle here in the United States, and the way religion and politics intersect evolves and develops with time.

Here are two larger points, about Islamists and elections:

Whether or not third parties are comfortable with Islamists, they represent a political current in Muslim majority states. Since people support them, it is necessary for observers to take them seriously and deal with them, not some imaginary, wish-fulfillment character. And not some telegenic, charismatic, English-speaker. If a candidate or party is trying too hard to win over outsiders, why should Egyptian (or other) voters trust that this person has their interests in mind? Of course, maybe observers should consider the reasons why Islamist parties and candidates garner support. There are a couple reasons. First, people are seeking an alternative to their present leaders, who serve their interests poorly. Second, many people believe that Islamist parties and candidates are more moral and less corrupt. If your country is plagued by corruption and graft, it is rational to seek an alternative. Finally, many workaday people are proud of their religion and heritage and would like to be able to express those feelings openly, which has not been possible under a significant number of dictatorships. Remember that people were arrested in Tunisia just for attending dawn prayers too often before rolling one's eyes and exclaiming "why do they care so much?"

Now, some of the appeal is also based on what Islamist parties claim they will do. And there, as with all such claims, what they say must be taken with a grain of salt. That said, while Islamists are outside of power, they can claim whatever they want, and their claims are not tested. Once they are tested in government, with competing interests and the balancing and compromise that entails, their claims may seem unrealistic. That's not a bad thing; in fact, it's a necessary step to creating a functioning democracy.

Let's develop this idea further. When people vote, they vote for whichever candidate represents what they want or need. Then, if they are happy with that person or party, they can vote for them again. If they are not happy, they can vote for someone else. Different voting schemes allow for different methods of picking candidates. Thus, two rounds, as in Egypt, allows for a fuller field of candidates, to represent a wider variety of opinions, and then the run-off affords citizens the opportunity to fine-tune and recalibrate their expectations. Thus, a person could have entirely different, but equally legitimate reasons for first and second round picks. While this may seem strange from a U.S. two-party viewpoint, it probably actually allows for more viewpoints and possibility of compromise. It's a mistake to look at elections either as an end in themselves or as a finished product. Legitimate government is only possible with long-term, sustained participation by electors, with regular elections to act as a regulating mechanism.

It looks as though the front-runners are Shafik and Morsi. Your blogger would have preferred Aboul Foutoh, since his break with the Muslim Brotherhood represents a crack in the fortress of their monopoly on Islamist politics and a welcome step toward pluralism. Whatever happens in the second round, it will certainly be interesting.

Finally, Egyptians are approaching the elections with humor, which is a nice change of pace from either overly optimistic or non-stop doom and gloom reporting.

Talking to "El General"

Foreign Policy has an interview with Hamada Ben Amor where he provides an interesting viewpoint on the Tunisian Revolution. Known as El General, he was arrested and interrogated in the days leading up to Ben Ali's departure.

The entire interview is interesting, but the key is the idea that people define themselves in multiple ways. He says: "I'm just a Tunisian citizen. I'm Muslim. I'm an African from a poor country. I'm proud of my heritage. I'm 21. I travel but I mostly stay in Sfax. My family is here. My parents have regular jobs; my mom owns a book store and my dad works at the local hospital. My girlfriend -- I call her my wife -- she's here."

This is important because it's very easy talking about people involved in current political events to essentialize them and stick them into neat categories that don't reflect reality. And it's even more important to have a good grip on reality because bad information leads to even worse decisions. Luckily, the internet provides a platform to access multiple sources of information, as well as allowing voices like El General's, to be heard.

None of this means that everything out there is true, or even that having access to multiple viewpoints can break a pundit out of tunnel vision. For a humorous take on confirmation bias, consult Sarah Carr's send-up of Thomas Friedman. She demonstrates exactly why relying on Western experts to "explain" other countries is a problem.

Some unintended consequences?

The Arabist had a link to a well done, if very difficult to watch, set of interviews with women who have been trafficked. With such an uncomfortable issue, there are so many challenges to be addressed.

The women interviewed on the site are from Eastern Europe and were trafficked to Turkey, the UAE and Israel. But it's what put them at risk that makes the issue particularly relevant. After the fall of communism, these women and their families were struggling without employment or a way to support themselves and sought jobs abroad. Hoping for jobs in restaurants or as nannies, they were tricked into prostitution and many were seriously injured (both physically and psychologically).

Recently, President Obama urged Poland as a model for the Arab Spring, and many people have compared 2011 to 1991. To be fair, he was not overly sanguine about the prospects of democracy movements, saying , “What you have is a process that’s not always smooth...There are going to be twists and turns, there are going to be occasions where you take one step forward and two steps back.”

However, he is talking about election cycles and establishing independent institutions, not about the possibility that vulnerable girls from Egypt and Tunisia may find themselves the prey of traffickers.

What's different in Algeria/ Qu'est-ce qui distingue l'Algérie?

Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, commentators have been speculating which countries will experience similar uprisings, how governments will respond, and what motivates citizens to rise up. Against the backdrop of ousted leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, civil war in Libya and stirring unrest in Morocco, why has Algeria remained relatively calm?

On the Foreign Policy Middle East Channel, Lahcen Achy advances five characteristics that differentiate the protest movement in Algeria from its neighbors.

• The people do not have a shared set of grievances.
• The opposition forces are divided among themselves and regulations prevent the organization of protests.
• The security forces in Algeria are large and strong.
• The military is integrated into the political and business power structure, so a change of president makes little difference.
• People are still suffering from the traumatic effects of the civil war in the 1990s.

Achy admits that none of this makes change impossible in Algeria, simply that “in spite of the sporadic demonstrations and of the calls for change from prominent intellectuals and political figures, a unifying movement that transcends societal divisions is yet to be seen in Algeria.”

Much has been made of the characteristics that Tunisia and Egypt share (incidentally also with Iran) but now the movement has spread across a variety of countries all across the Middle East. For instance, while Egypt and Tunisia had cohesive historical identities, the same cannot be said for Yemen, nor for Syria. Tunisia has a relatively small and homogenous population, while Egypt has the largest, and a significant Coptic Christian minority. Algeria's population is also relatively large and diverse. While Tunisia's population is relatively affluent and middle-class, this does not hold true in other countries.

The only factor Achy mentions that may really have a durable effect is the legacy of the civil war. Other countries have experienced terrorism and atrocities, like the Hama massacre in Syria, but a civil war is different from even the most repressive tactics of a dictator. Having turned against one another in recent memory, it is understandable that they would want to avoid repeating the same situation.

Depuis le début du Printemps Arabe, les experts cherchent à discerner quel serait le prochain pays à se revolter, la réaction des dirigeants, et c'est quoi exactement qui pousse des citoyens jusqu'à là reprimés à agir. Entouré par des drames poltiques, le départ des dictateurs en Tunisie et en Egypte, la guerre en Libye, et la montée de contestation au Maroc, pourquoi l'Algérie reste relativement calme?

Sous la rubrique “Moyen Orient” de la revue “Foreign Policy”, Lahcen Achy signale cinq traits qui differencie le mouvement protestataire algérien de celui de ses voisins.

• Le peuple ne partage pas des doléances communes.
• Les forces de l'opposition ne sont pas réunis et sont limités dans leur capacité d'organiser et de se manifester.
• Les forces de l'ordre sont nombreux et puissants.
• Les responsables militaires sont bien integrés dans les milieux politiques et commerciales, diminuant l'importance de la fonction présidentielle.
• Le traumatisme de la guerre civile reste dans les esprits.

Selon Achy, rien n'empêche un mouvement révolutionnair de déclencher en Algérie, mais “malgré des manifestations sporadiques et des appels au changement de la part des intellectuels et des hommes politiques, un bloc qui pourrait dépasser les divisions sociétales n'existe pas encore en Algérie.”

On parle beaucoup des caracterstiques que partagent la Tunisie et l'Egypte (et l'Iran d'ailleurs) mais maintenant que le mouvement prend ampleur et gangne plusieurs autres pays au Moyen Orient. Par exemple, tandis que la Tunisie et l'Egypte jouissent des indentités historiques cohésives, il n'en est pas ainsi pour le Yemen ni la Syrie. Un pays relativement petit, et d'une population homogène, la Tunisie se differencie de l'Egypt, avec ses 85 millions et sa minorité coptique assez importante. De manière analogue, la population algérienne comporte les Kabyles dans ses 35 millions. En fin, l'affluence relative et la place occupée par les couches moyennes en Tunisie se manifestent peu dans la région.

Le seul indice signalé par Achy qui peut jouer un rôle déterminant est la mémoire de la guerre civile. Bien que d'autres pays aient subi de terrorisme et des atrocités, comme le massacre de Hama en Syrie, une guerre civile dépasse même les tactiques les plus répressives d'un dictateur. Ayant vu la population s'en prend aux autres, le risque de faire reproduire la sitaution pèse lourd.