Tag: Egypt
Worsening
On Wednesday, Human Rights First hosted ‘How to Navigate Egypt’s Enduring Human Rights Crisis: Blueprint for U.S. Government Policy.’ Neil Hicks, Director of Human Rights Promotion at Human Rights First, moderated. Panelists included Brian Dooley, Director of the Human Rights Defenders Program at Human Rights First, Amy Hawthorne, Deputy Director for Research at the Project on Middle East Democracy, and Nancy Okail, Executive Director at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.
Dooley explained how difficult it is for human rights activists to operate in Egypt. He gave specific examples on human rights violations in the past few weeks. Arrests have spiked. Anyone related to activists, or who has the potential to become an activist, is suspicious to the Egyptian government. The crackdown on the media worsens, and Egypt now has the second highest rate of journalist imprisonment.
Focusing on the deterioration of human rights since the Arab Spring, Okail said the Egyptian government’s response has always been quick, cosmetic fixes, rather than long-term solutions. The government is addressing symptoms, rather than causes, leading to no real positive impact in the long run. The unrest in Egypt happens because of the problems that were not properly addressed. These problems existed prior to the Arab Spring, which did not cause them
Okail also said the current regime uses control instead of power: control happens in the absence of power, and violence occurs as a result. When a leader has real power, s/he does not have to force constituents to act accordingly. Using intelligence agencies, heightening security, implementing force, and controlling the media are all approaches the current government employs in order to maintain its authority.
Hawthorne said the scale of violence by the state is troubling and tears at the social fabric. Today’s rate of disappearances did not happen under Mubarak, who targeted Islamist groups. This government targets anyone viewed as a threat to security and stability. Over 5,000 apartments were searched near Tahrir Square. Why is the government cracking down so hard on potential activists? Hawthorne suggested people within the regime are worried about what dissent will do to stability. President Sisi bears most of the responsibility for what is happening, even if he does not have complete control over the whole government.
Addressing the American role, Hawthorne said US influence in Egypt is at a low point, limiting Washington’s credibility, political capital and ability to affect change. Relationships with the Egyptian government are difficult. Relationships with human rights activists is are complicated. The root of the challenging relationships is the distrust of the US. The United States does not embrace Sisi, but still gives aid to Egypt. Hawthorne recommended that the US should investigate where its aid ends up, but this is difficult to do, as the Egyptian government is not transparent.
The U.S. should focus on four things moving forward:
- Listening to Egyptian partners. What these people prioritize, the US should also prioritize. These priorities may change, and the US should observe why they change.
- Paying attention to human rights defenders and civil society organizations. They are trying to hold the Egyptian government accountable for human rights abuses.
- Consistency when speaking on Egyptian human rights issues. Inconsistency breeds to skepticism.
- Honestly assessing government officials. A normal relationship should not be maintained as long as human rights violations are occurring.
Overall, the human rights situation in Egypt seems to be worsening. Verbal condemnation of human rights abuses simply is not enough. Perhaps taking away a significant amount of aid would be a way to put real pressure on the Egyptian government to change its approach towards journalists and activists.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks January 25-29
Government closing today, but still lots of good events later in the week:
- U.S.-Russia Cooperation in Syria | Wednesday, January 27th | 9:00-10:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | After a year that has seen increased turmoil in the Middle East, there is growing attention in the region from outside powers. A distinguished Russian delegation, led by Vitaliy Naumkin, will present their views on the geopolitical challenges in the region. In particular, they will discuss Russia’s role in resolving the Syrian crisis, and outline opportunities for collaboration with the United States. Vitaly Naumkin is the head of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Other speakers include Vassily A. Kuznetsov, head of the Centre for Political Systems and Cultures at Moscow State University, and Irina Zvyagelskaya, professor at Moscow State University.
- Local Responses to Libya’s Instability | Wednesday, January 27th | 2:30-4:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Since its 2011 revolts and the overthrow of former ruler Muammar Qaddafi, Libya has experienced a series of weak governments, internal fighting factions, and extremist violence. In the attempts to resolve Libya’s complex political and security challenges, the voices of Libyan citizens often go unheard. Please join the Atlantic Council for a discussion with Jeffrey Vanness and Jakob Wichmann. Wichmann will present his findings from a nationwide survey conducted in Libya in August and September 2015, and Vanness will respond to the survey’s results from a US government perspective. The survey includes representative samples for Tripoli, Misrata, and Benghazi, allowing for a comparison of perceptions and demonstrating differences in attitudes in Libya. The survey, conducted through phone interviews with 2,507 Libyan respondents, was commissioned by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Topics explored include political efficacy and engagement, preferences for the future constitution, gender issues, perceptions of local and national actors, evaluation of public services, perceptions of armed groups, and responses to insecurity. Jeffrey Vanness serves as Democracy and Governance Field Advisor with the Elections and Political Transitions Division of USAID’s Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance. Jakob Wichmann is a consultant for Social Impact and a partner at JMW Consulting. Karim Mezran focuses on the politics of North Africa at the Atlantic Council, where he is the lead expert on Libya.
- Saudi Arabia’s Regional Role and the Future of U.S.-Saudi Relations | Wednesday, January 27th | 2:30-4:00 | Project on Middle East Democracy | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Saudi Arabia has long been one of the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East, among the largest recipients of U.S. arms sales globally, and perceived as a crucial partner in the war on terrorism. Nonetheless, there have always been serious questions regarding the costs of the U.S.-Saudi military relationship, which have become more pronounced over the past year. The Saudi military intervention in Yemen has resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, and recent executions in the Kingdom, including of nonviolent dissidents, have renewed longstanding concerns about the state of human rights in the Kingdom. In addition, concerns remain about Saudi support for extremist networks in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, as well as the impact of Saudi militarism on divisions throughout the region. How has Saudi Arabia’s role in the region changed in recent years, and what has driven these changes? What relationships have various factions in Saudi Arabia had with extremist movements throughout the Middle East and North Africa? What impact does U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia have on the Kingdom’s role in the region, as well as on human rights concerns within the country? How have recent events, such as the ongoing conflict in Yemen, Saudi’s role in the Syrian conflict, and mass executions within Saudi Arabia, affected the U.S.-Saudi relationship? And what might we expect for the future of bilateral relations? The panel includes Nadia Oweidat, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, Andrea Prasow, Deputy Washington Director of Human Rights Watch, and Stephen Seche, Executive Vice President of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.
- The Impact of Low Oil Prices on the Middle East | Thursday, January 28th | 9:00-10:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center on Thursday, January 28 from 9:00 am – 10:30 am for a panel discussion on the impact of low oil prices in the Middle East. The collapse in crude oil prices since mid-2014 has shaken the foundation of global energy markets, with sweeping economic and political implications for the Middle East. Amidst falling oil revenues, governments from the Gulf to Iraq and beyond face fiscal crises, market upheaval, disruption of traditional ways of doing business, challenges to longstanding fuel subsidy programs, and slumping economic growth. In the midst of this volatile landscape, energy producers in the region face an uncertain future that will have ramifications in the years to come. The discussion will touch on the following questions and more: How are low prices impacting the economic health of and internal political dynamics in Saudi Arabia? What is the future of Saudi Aramco? How are other major producing countries across the GCC, Iraq, Iran, and North Africa adapting and faring in today’s price environment? Are fiscal constraints inducing major changes in government policies and/or driving macroeconomic and energy policy trends across the Middle East? To what degree are low oil prices driving geopolitical calculations in the region? Panelists include Denise Natali, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Jean-Francois Seznec, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Global Energy Center, and Jamie Webster, Senior Director of HIS Energy Downstream Research. Annie Megdalia, Deputy Director of the Global Energy Center, will moderate.
- Women and Extremism: A Tale of Two Experiences | Thursday, January 28th | 3:30-4:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Women are often the victims of terrorism and extremism by states and international actors. At times, they are also the perpetuators of violence and terrorism. This discussion will focus on the intersection between women and extremism at a time of increasing volatility in the Middle East and around the world. Join us as we explore how women are recruited and used by terrorist organizations, and how women become trapped in cycles of violence and conflict. Our panel of experts will look at ways to address the problem and how to engage women and girls in conflict prevention and resolution. Speakers include Farah Pandisth, Adjunct Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Timothy B. Curry, Deputy Director of Counterterrorism for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Co-founder and Executive Director of the International Civil Society Action Network, Fatima Sadiqi, Fellow at the Wilson Center, and Tara Sonenshine, Distinguished Fellow at George Washington University. Join the conversationon Twitter by following @WPSProject.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A bad way to start the new year
2015 was a disastrous year for the Middle East. Uncivil war in Syria raged on, with Russia pitching in on behalf of the Assad regime. Yemen also descended into full-fledged war, with Saudi Arabia pitching in on behalf of President (or former President, depending whose side you are on) Hadi. Libya’s UN-brokered peace agreement seems far from implementation, with two parliaments, two governments and many militias, as well as a growing Islamic State presence. The Islamic State lost territory in Syria (to Kurds) and in Iraq (to Kurds Yezidis, Shia militias and Iraqi government forces), but it would be hard to claim the tide of war has changed direction. Egypt continues to crack down on not only the Muslim Brotherhood and more extremist Islamist threats but also on moderate secularists. Israel and the Palestinians are at an impasse, one in which deadly violence on both sides is escalating.
Can it get worse?
The weekend’s events answer that question: yes. Friday Saudi Arabia, current chair of the UN Human Rights Council, executed 47 people, one of whom was a Shia cleric whose commitment to nonviolence seems uncontested, even if he was no friend of the (Sunni) monarchy. Yesterday Iranians responded by sacking part of the Saudi Embassy, a move that will remind the world of how little the Islamic Republic can be relied upon to protect diplomatic facilities. Today the Saudis claimed that Iran executed hundreds last year with little legal basis. The Iranians are promising that God will punish the Saudi monarchy.
We are clearly in the midst of a downward spiral that could well end in more sectarian bloodletting. Iran can pump more weapons and fighters (both Hizbollah and its own Revolutionary Guards) into Syria. Saudi Arabia can beef up support for insurgents there and escalate its attacks on the Houthis in Yemen. The more regional conflict and chaos, the stronger the Islamic State and Al Qaeda grow in Syria, Yemen, Libya and Afghanistan, even if they are losing territory in Iraq and northern Syria. Instability breeds instability.
President Obama wants to keep the United States out of the fray, except to attack those who directly threaten the homeland. That means the Islamic State as well as Al Qaeda and its affiliates. His astoundingly disciplined refusal to engage otherwise leaves a vacuum that militants expand to fill. Those who think the President indecisive or irresolute have misunderstood. He is determined not to get drawn back in to the Middle East. Watching the Iranians and Saudis go at it should be enough to make many Americans sympathize.
But not doing things is just as much a policy as doing them. It has consequences. The downward spiral is unlikely to stop of its own accord. The Middle East is a high wire act without a net. There is no regional security framework or even a loose association like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to help de-escalate. The Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation is far too weak a reed. The Gulf Cooperation Council is an adversary of Iran, not a neutral. Neither Europe nor the U.S. has had much success in getting the Islamic Republic and the Kingdom to temper their conflict.
It is difficult to see how this ends well. It may well be we are heading for a conflagration with much more catastrophic consequences than we have seen so far. Only when the Saudis and Iranians see that happening are they likely to stop. And then it may be too late.
We haven’t seen much yet of 2016. Just enough to know it is a bad way to start a new year.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end is nigh, once again
Two years ago I published a post with this title. Remarkably little has changed since then in many conflicts:
- South Sudan is suffering even more bloodletting.
- The Central African Republic is still imploding.
- North Korea is no longer risking internal strife but continues its belligerence on the international stage.
- China is still challenging its neighbors in the East and South China Seas.
- Syria is even more chaotic, with catastrophic consequences for its population and strains for its neighbors.
- Egypt continues its repression of the Muslim Brotherhood and secular human rights advocates.
- Israel and Palestine are no closer to agreement on a two-state solution.
- Afghanistan has a new president but the Taliban are stronger in the countryside and the Islamic State is gaining adherents; money and people are still expatriating.
- Al Qaeda is less potent in many places, but that is little comfort since the Islamic State has risen to take the leading role in Salafist jihadism.
- Ukraine has lost control of Crimea, which has been annexed by Russia, and risks losing control of much of the southeastern Donbas region.
The only issue I listed then that is palpably improved is the Iranian nuclear question, which is now the subject of a deal that should postpone Tehran’s access to the nuclear materials required to build a bomb for 10 to 15 years.
Danielle Pletka of AEI topped off the gloom this year with a piece suggesting there are reasons to fear Putin’s recklessness could trigger World War III.
Without going that far, it is easy to add to the doom and gloom list:
- Europe is suffering a bout of right-wing xenophobia (the US has a milder case), triggered by migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.
- Mali and Nigeria are suffering serious extremist challenges.
- The Houthi takeover in Yemen, and intervention there by a Saudi-led coalition, is causing vast suffering in one of the world’s poorest countries and allowing Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to expand its operations.
- Civil war in Libya is far from resolution, despite some signatures on a UN-sponsored agreement to end it.
- Turkey has re-initiated a war against Kurdish forces that had been in abeyance.
- Even Brazil, once a rising power, is suffering scandals that may bring down its president, even as its economy tanks.
I’m still not ready to throw in the towel. Some successes of two years ago continue and others have begun: Colombia‘s civil war is nearing its end, Burma/Myanmar continues its transition in a more open direction (even though it has failed to settle conflicts with several important minorities), Kenya is still improving, ditto Liberia, which along with Sierra Leone and maybe Guinea seems to have beaten the Ebola epidemic, and much of the Balkans, even if Kosovo and Bosnia are going through rough patches.
I still think, as I said two years ago:
If there is a continuous thread running through the challenges we face it is this: getting other people to govern themselves in ways that meet the needs of their own populations (including minorities) and don’t threaten others. That was what we did in Europe with the Marshall Plan. It is also what we contributed to in East Asia, as democracy established itself in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and elsewhere. We have also had considerable success in recent decades in Latin America and Africa, where democracy and economic development have grown roots in Brazil, Argentina, Ghana, South Africa, and other important countries. I may not like the people South Africans have elected, but I find it hard to complain about the way they have organized themselves to do it.
This is what we have failed to do in the Middle East: American military support for autocracies there has stunted democratic evolution, even as our emphasis on economic reform has encouraged crony capitalism that generates resentment and support for Islamist alternatives. Mubarak, Asad, Saleh, Qaddafi, and Ben Ali were not the most oppressive dictators the world has ever known, even though they murdered and imprisoned thousands, then raised those numbers by an order of magnitude as they tried to meet the challenge of revolution with brute force. But their departures have left the countries they led with little means of governing themselves. The states they claim to have built have proven a mirage in the desert.
If there is reason for doom and gloom, it is our failure to meet this governance challenge cleverly and effectively. We continue to favor our military instruments, even though they are inappropriate to dealing with most of the problems we face (the important exceptions being Iran and China). We have allowed our civilian instruments of foreign policy to atrophy, even as we ask them to meet enormous challenges. What I wish for the new year is recognition–in the Congress, in the Administration and in the country–that we need still to help enable others to govern themselves. Investment in the capacity to do it will return dividends for many decades into the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks November 9-13
- War or Peace? the Gulf States and Russia’s Intervention in Syria | Monday, November 9th | 12:00-1:30 | Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The war in Syria, now in its fourth year, has killed more than a quarter of a million people, contributed to the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, and become a breeding ground for ISIL and other extremist groups that threaten not only the region but much of the rest of the world. In September, Russia began carrying out airstrikes in Syria as part of a coordinated counterattack with Iran and Hezbollah against rebel groups supported by Gulf Arab states, Turkey, and in some cases the U.S.What does Russia hope to accomplish by its intervention in Syria? How have the Arab Gulf states responded, and how is this affecting recently improved GCC-Russian relations? What role are Iran and Hezbollah playing on the ground and likely to play at the negotiating table? Is the Obama administration seriously considering a substantive expansion of American military involvement in Syria, or will it focus primarily on diplomacy? Are the Vienna talks laying the groundwork for serious negotiations and a political settlement? And how does ISIL factor into the Syrian conflict, the trajectory of its development, and its impact on the region?This AGSIW panel will look at all these questions and more arising from Russia’s intervention in Syria and the response of the Gulf Arab states. Speakers include Fahad Nazer, non-resident fellow at AGSIW; Mark Katz, professor of government and politics at George Washington University; and Bessma Momani, senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. The discussion will be moderated by Hussein Ibish, senior resident fellow at AGSIW.
- Demonizing Dissidents: How INTERPOL is being abused by Dictatorships | Monday, November 9th | 4:00-7:00 | Fair Trials & Georgetown Law’s Human Rights Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In recent years, the use of INTERPOL’s “wanted person” alerts has expanded vastly with over 120,000 now circulating across the globe. Unfortunately, as it has become easier for countries to obtain INTERPOL Red Notices, some have been used as an instrument for silencing dissent and exporting repression with devastating consequences. Join us to discuss how INTERPOL is starting to address this problem which has been undermining its reputation as the global “good guys” in the fight against crime, and hear from people whose lives have been turned upside down by Red Notices, including: Sherif Mansour, an Egyptian-American democracy and human rights activist working for the Committee to Protect Journalists; Benny Wenda, a West Papuan tribal leader who leads an international campaign for the people of West Papua; Lutfullo Shamsutdinov, a human rights activist and witness of the Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan; and Patricia Poleo, an award-winning anti-corruption journalist and vocal critic of Hugo Chavez, subject to a Red Notice from Venezuela.
- Our Walls Bear Witness: Iraqi Minorities in Peril | Monday, November 9th | 6:30-8:00 | US Holocaust Memorial Museum | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join the Museum for a discussion with experts on the plight of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq who have been targeted by the self-proclaimed Islamic State and are now displaced, not knowing when—or if—they will be able to return home. The discussion will take place on the opening night of FotoWeek DC (November 9–12), for which the Museum will project onto its exterior walls photographs from a recent trip to Iraq.Speakers include Naomi Kikoler, deputy director of the Museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, who recently returned from northern Iraq; Dakhil Shammo, a Yezidi human rights activist from the region; and Knox Thames, special advisor for religious minorities in the Near East and South and Central Asia at the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom.You can submit questions for the panelists on Twitter using the hashtags #IraqCrisis and #WallsBearWitness.
- Turkey with the brakes off: What does Erdoğan’s victory mean? | Wednesday, November 11th | 5:00-7:00 | Central Asia-Caucasus Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Turkey’s ruling AKP restored its majority in parliament on Nov 1. But the election was held after President Erdogan refused to accept the June 7 election’s results, sabotaged efforts to form a coalition government, relaunched war in the country’s southeast -– and after a massive suicide bombing in Ankara.Will this election stabilize Turkey? What does this election mean for Turkey’s regional posture, and what kind of partner will it be for the U.S.?Speakers at this forum will draw from Turkey Transformed, a recently published study in which CACI scholars partnered with the Bipartisan Policy Center to investigate Turkey’s transformation under Erdogan. Speakers include: Eric S. Edelman, Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; Svante E. Cornell, Director, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute; Blaise Misztal, Director of Foreign Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center; Alan Makovsky, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; and John Hannah, Senior Advisor, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The discussion will be moderated by Mamuka Tsereteli, Research Director, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.
- The ISIS Scorecard: Assessing the State of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy | Thursday, November 12th | 9:30-12:30 | American Foreign Policy Council | RSVP: events@afpc.org | The Honorable Newt Gingrich will give a keynote address. Speakers at this Capitol Hill conference include: Amb. Alberto Fernandez, Vice President of Middle East Media Research Institute and Former State Department Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications; Sebastian Gorka, Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory, Marine Corps University; Celina Realuyo, Professor of Practice, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, National Defense University; and James S. Robbins, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs, American Foreign Policy Council.
- The Transatlantic Forum on Russia | Thursday, November 12th | 8:30-2:30 | Center for Strategic and International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join us for the fourth joint conference of CSIS and the Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding (CPRDU). Since 2012 CSIS and CPRDU have partnered to examine the impact of Polish-Russian reconciliation and its wider regional and transatlantic implications. Significant structural cracks in Europe’s security architecture – crafted at the end of the Second World War and refined by the Helsinki Final Act – have appeared since Russia’s March 2014 annexation of Crimea and its incursions into eastern Ukraine. As a result, the principal challenge to the transatlantic community is to formulate a new foreign policy approach towards Russia. Our expert panelists will discuss the nature and scope of this new policy while considering historical relations between Russia and the West. See here for the full agenda and the featured experts.
- Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence | Thursday, November 12th | 2:00-3:30 | Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In his new book, Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks examines the recent phenomenon of violent extremism by exploring the origins of violence and its relationship to religion. Rabbi Sacks challenges the assertion that religion is an intrinsic source of violence and describes how theology can be central to combating religious violence and extremism. Through analysis of biblical texts tied to the three Abrahamic faiths, Rabbi Sacks illustrates how religiously-inspired violence stems from a critical misreading of these texts. Governance Studies at Brookings will host a discussion addressing Rabbi Sacks’ book and other important issues related to the roots of religious violence. This event is part of the long-running Governing Ideas book series, which is hosted by William A. Galston. E.J. Dionne, Jr. will also join the discussion.After the discussion, panelists will take audience questions. Books will be available for sale before and after the event.
- Migration, Asylum, and the Role of the State: Defining Borders, Redefining Boundaries | Thursday, November 12th | 4:00-5:30 | The Kluge Center at the Library of Congress | No registration necessary | Issues around immigration, migration, and asylum are pressing political, social and cultural concerns in the United States and Europe today. Three Fellows at the Kluge Center will discuss the role of the state in establishing geographic, technological and bureaucratic controls over the flow of peoples, cultures and beliefs across borders, and examine how the notions of national borders and state boundaries have evolved over the 20th and 21st century and how migrants and immigrants continue to challenge state-defined categories. Speakers include: Iván Chaar-López, researching databases, computers, and drones as instruments of border and migration control along the southern border (Digital Studies Fellow, University of Michigan); Katherine Luongo, researching witchcraft and spiritual beliefs among African asylum-seekers in Europe, Canada and Australia (Kluge Fellow, Northeastern University); and Julia Young, researching early 20th century Mexican immigration to the U.S. (Kluge Fellow, Catholic University).
- The Syrian Refugee Crisis & the U.S.: What is our responsibility? | Thursday, November 12th | 7:00-9:00 | Institute for Policy Studies | No registration necessary | Three experts on the Syrian crisis will address the issues faced by refugees, the need for ending the war to end the refugee crisis, the role of the U.S. in creating and its obligations for solving this crisis, and what the U.S. should do to assist and welcome Syrian refugees—and prevent similar crises in the future.Speakers include Pam Bailey, human rights activist and journalist; Phyllis Bennis, IPS fellow and author of numerous books and articles on U.S. policy in the Middle East; and Rafif Jouejati, Syrian activist and director of FREE-Syria. The forum will be moderated by Andy Shallal, activist and owner of Busboys and Poets. The event will be held at Busboys and Poets.
- The Search for Stability and Opportunity: The Middle East in 2016 | Friday, November 13th | 9:00-5:00 | The Middle East Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Institute will host its 69th Annual Conference at the Capital Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The event will bring together prominent Middle Eastern and American experts and foreign policy practitioners to delve into the many questions and challenges that face the region during this period of unprecedented change. Experts from across the region and the U.S. will examine Middle Eastern states’ pursuit of security out of the current disorder, the policy imperatives that will confront the next U.S. president, strategies for empowerment, inclusion, and equity in Arab societies, and the trends and channels in which youth are challenging the societal and political order. See here for the full agenda and featured experts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
If only one person votes, is it democratic?
I tweeted yesterday, in regard to turn-out at the first round of the Egyptian parliamentary elections:
If an election is held and 22% vote, is it democratic?
Those who responded were on the “yes” side:
It is a miracle the Elections were even held! Who said they have to have fair. I bet 22% were family votes Politics
Uhhh ya? What’s the threshold for participatory politics?
shall we cancel it and repeat it and assign minimum turnout ratio?
The 2014 Midterms had only 36.4% turnout. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/ … Any different
yes
I assume some of those who retweeted might be implicit “no”s.
So what do I think about this? It was not a rhetorical question.
The answer on the most superficial level does have to be yes. Elections are and should be legally valid even if turnout is low. Some countries do have a threshold for minimum turnout, but in my experience that is not in elections but rather in referenda on important constitutional issues. It would be impractical to have a threshold for an ordinary election. You might end up with no one ever getting elected.
But low turnout still has implications, because elections are a way of conferring legitimacy. If only a single person turned out (which happens occasionally at the local level in the US), surely there would be doubts about the legitimacy of the person elected. Twenty-two per cent is several million more than one in Egypt. But you still have to wonder what the other 78% are thinking.
The question is not so much about the legitimacy of the individuals elected with such a low turnout, but rather about the legitimacy of the political system that manages to attract such a low turnout. That is not only true for Egypt but also for the US, where Josh Klemons is correct to point out the miserable turnout at mid-term polls held two years after the President is elected, usually with much higher turnout.
People vote with their feet. If they fail to turn up, that suggests disillusion, indifference and hostility, not enthusiasm, commitment and engagement. President Sisi certainly has widespread support in Egypt. I observed the constitutional referendum there in January 2014 and saw it with my own eyes. He may have lost some support since then–even the completion of the Suez Canal project does not seem to have roused much enthusiasm–but there are certainly a lot of people who think he is doing well and deserves a parliament that supports him.
The problem is that he has obliterated his opposition. Some but not all the Muslim Brotherhood supporters of 2011/12 have abandoned their cause. Nor have all the civil society activists who sparked the revolution in the first place. They just don’t want to vote because they see no real choices and don’t want to lend legitimacy to a regime that doesn’t offer them. In his understandable zeal to reestablish law and order, Sisi has done more to erase nonviolent dissent than to eliminate criminal violence against the state, which continues to plague the authorities, especially in northern Sinai.
An election can be “democratic” even if the context in which it takes place is autocratic. Slobodan Milosevic held elections often. He won them, often without much cheating at the polls because he had limited dissent to a narrow band of the population. In a democratic system, there has to be a real chance for alternation in power, even if the alternation seldom occurs (remember Japan under the LDK). If the political competition is limited to people and forces that have no chance of winning, or when they win simply switch to side with those already in power, that is not really a democracy.
So yes, the elections in Egypt were “democratic.” The African Union observers found they
…were conducted in a transparent and peaceful manner. The elections provided an opportunity for citizens to freely express their democratic right to vote.
I imagine the procedures at the polling places and in the counting were correct. But the context is not democratic and many Egyptians are therefore not taking advantage of the opportunity. I hope Egypt evolves in a democratic direction, with a vigorous opposition and the real possibility of alternation in power. But for that to happen, President Sisi is going to have to ease up on repression and welcome dissent.
RSS - Posts
