Organizing Democracy after a Revolution تنظيم الديمقراطية بعد الثورة

تنظيم الديمقراطية بعد الثورة

Organizing Democracy after Revolution

هذه ليست نظرية ولكن الخطوات الفعلية التي نجحت ثورة كدولة ديمقراطية.

The seven-point scheme below is not a theory but actual nodes of an octave as it would be if completed. Deviations can occur at any step, and the process stopped.

1. ceasefire

2. release of prisoners

3. talk, and an agreement to talk more

4. a shared study of principles held in common, laws

5. changes in laws, some immediately

6. evolution of party platforms

7. elections

This is what it looks like when the octave completes itself. A diverging group of political actors agree to cooperate to make a new kind of government. That's why a ceasefire is the first required step -  it all comes out of that imposed local peace. The Arab revolutions  are impacting on seven levels all at once. Here is the octave of societal man:

do – the relation I have with myself

re – what happens between two people

mi – three people – the family or firm

First INTERVAL – no semitone between mi and fa

fa – the village

so – town

la – regions, counties, provinces

si – nation

Second INTERVAL – no semitone

do – (of the 2^nd octave) all nations, world unity

Any historical event, like a revolution, impacts, occurs, on each of the above levels all at once, or in sequence.. The key is to see how the big vibrations effect and affect each level. At the moment, world leaders are gathering around Israel's gross disregard for basic norms. Even if the Jews, armed with the bible and American money, succeed in driving the Arabs out of the West Bank of Palestine, the land will always remain stolen property. And thus fuel terror and the build-up to catastrophic nuclear war, an exchange of missiles by Iran and Israel.

We've also written about the rasher of political players, including the new ones from the Arab street. Americans think they have influenced the Muslim Arab people, but this is incorrect. The Arabs are no stranger to representative democracy. Bedouin chiefs are generally elected, and the tent of the sheikh is always open, even to the poorest of petitioners.  I have attended meetings where people ending in a show-of-hands. Then there is Islam, strongly equalitarian

This time the fundamentalist clergy will not get away with it without cost. Jewish, Christian, Muslim faiths cannot be corrupted, as they are, by loud, political clerics. Gaza, Israel, Iran show what happens when the clergy control politicians and the masses. America, too, uses biblical images and narratives to define themselves, to carry their hopes after death, to make discriminations between other peoples, including your own society. The past five presidents believe in the Apocalypse, and some were tempted to become a part of it.

 Let us list the players, the groups arguing their platforms: ( in North Africa, Yemen, Syria.)  They range from from kids on the street, high school students, most with cell phones; local Muslim mullahs and imams, of some nine different stripes; businessmen, on all levels; women as family members and as political associations; banks and holding companies;  educators, teachers professors, scientists; lawyers; labor unions and professional associations; national Muslim leaders; former government employees; pensioners; Muslim media groups, some competing; minority representatives; women organizations, incl, profession associations; older established parties, like the socialists and conservative political associations; expatriates returning; the government ministries and departments, the police, the army and intelligence services; former political prisoners; the dispossessed, the destitute;  and the grieving; the disabled, – the sick and wounded, the lame; big farmers and small farmers; transportation companies, big and small; the unemployed; university students; housewives and homemakers.

So you see it is a big field of players, each with their interests, but generally overlapping. They all share the same dream of freedom and prosperity. Can so many different constituencies  agree on a form of government? That's the questions the people in the Region ask themselves. They talk and get to know each other, each other's arguments and priorities. The process requires referencing a common moral and legal traditions, written and unwritten. The groups find common ground in basic humane principles: how to care for the sick and wounded; how to get food and fuel in; finding jobs for returning emigres – many professionals, and much more.

The Arab revolutions of 2011-2012 have had no one leader, or any leaders, which is a very good sign for two reasons. Are leaders really necessary to a society where most everyone is highly alert, proactive and responsible?

The Arab revolutions were very broad-based revolts, based on common grievances and shared expectations. Only Libya has seen a complete destruction of a regime. But the people were morally out-raged at their core, largely at police behavior by states. It started first amongst the Sahrawis in southwest Algeria in the summer of 2010 – a continual protest against Morocco's failure to hold a referendum of independence in the Southern (or Western or Spanish) Sahara; then the autumn 2010's protests in Algeria itself, in the cities along the coast, and in the Kabyle mountains to the east; the Algerian immolations spread to Tunisia, and, most importantly, the Algerian protesters realized they could disobey the authorities, the police and army and al mukhabarat. All the other revolts were triggered by the realization of this simple fact - that crowds can stare down the police, go up against the army. So I commend the brave protesters, many women, outside Algiers, in late December 2010 who stared down the police after taking casualties from their fire.

Tunisia and Egypt and Libya revolutions followed, completing the above process/octave: an elected gov., with one ultimately responsible, an elected PM with enough executive power as to cut through the bureaucracies and the chaos to make things happen.

But the revolution itself was not a rational process, thought out and planned, but a spontaneous emotional self-liberation, as protesters grew to realize that they could use civil disobedience to take control of their countries.

No intel group has any complete accurate record of all the conversations in places like Algiers and Cairo. Except for Lib ya, former regime officials are still in control, not just army, intel and police, but businessmen who were providing definite key services: food, fuel, water, housing, information and telecommunications, medicine.

The election of moderate Muslim associations is legit because these groups also, provide necessary services for poor populations which the state cannot provide.

The above octave of political organization is useful for examining the dynamically tragic situation in Syria. Just a few weeks ago we said the situation was all locked up, frozen. The Syrian regime of Al Asad deployed whole divisions of tanks against small towns and suburbs – indiscriminate killing, and many raids by the secret police.

On the 2^rd of October, the Arab League offered to broker a truce. On the 3^rd, the Al Asad regime said it agreed to stand down and hold talks. On the 4^th, today, Friday, the so-called liberal opposition in Syria refused to heed any such talks or standing down. Readers know we predicted this.

This refusal by the opposition to talk peace with the authorities is a product of all the blood and suffering, and the refusal of the Syrian army and secret police units, to just back off. A systematic round-up (and execution) of protest leaders is continuing, with some 20 killed in and around Homs on Thursday, and another 180 seriously injured all unarmed protesters, or men resisting arrest.

Why is it so difficult to just proceed peacefully to new elections? Because that requires talking face to face with a hideous machine which eats people arbitrarily. Many thought Bashar al Asad was a reformer, opening up Syria to big business and private banking. But ten years of this led to a widening disparity of incomes. Well-connected families in Damascus and Aleppo did very well, while many, many educated people, ready to work, were frozen out and impoverished, as commodity prices kept rising.

There is a certain raw pride in revolutionaries, a confidence and belief necessary for unarmed people to go up against a heavily-armed state apparatus. This is how and why many die in these things. It also precludes or makes difficult, any negotiations and local discussion of the immediate needs of the population. Even a simple ceasefire is rendered void, because the regime sees the refusal-to-talk on behalf of the popular opposition, as a sign that more war is the only course. For the regime is fighting for its survival.

But events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have un-nerved the Syrian regime. Bashar can see his probable fate all too well. There will be not relenting, no let up in the state's prosecution of its war against 'armed terrorists' and 'foreign-led extremists.'

The opposition has put together a National Council, committed to democracy. Half its members are in Turkey (and other countries) and half in Syria. This integration of revolutionary committees across Syria is a story in itself. Given government control of the roads, how could delegates meet and work out a governm,ent-in-waiting?

One reason is that the paid informers long used by the regime, have been rolled up. There is still traffic on the roads: people can get around, but not everywhere, and not all the time. The regime has no choice but to deploy low-level Syrian army units to man roadblocks, and these are usually Sunni recruits, draftees. Hence they let the opposition to move around.

The Arab League is lock-on to Syria, and will not relent in proffering peace talks. But just getting a ceasefire is proving impossible. That is unfortunate, as a simple ceasefire requires no effort, no expense, except a little dialogue between the parties.

The regime's story of how it hanged tough in the face of defecting soldiers and secret police, executing many who refused to shoot dead unarmed fellow citizens., is a poignant epic, full of heroism and rank evil.

The opposition story is even more amazing: unarmed people going up against tanks. This incredible bravery was seen in Libya, in the sieges of Mishrata, Zawiye and Tripoli, where the people went up against terrible odds.

How can such bravery be transferred to constitutional government at peace? Revolutions may succeed in overthrowing a regime, but fail to evolve just government. The answer is in everyone talking and figuring out what to do. A coup d'etat involves just a few actors, but a real revolution involves many thousands of people. In the Arab revolutions of 2010-12, just about everybody is affected in one way or another. Such a broad based call for justice and fair food and fuel prices means that an even more broadly based government will evolve, develop.

The fourth node in the above octave (organizing democracy) refers to orienting one's thinking to existing legal traditions, written and unwritten. In Libya, for example, the new interim government pledges to base their law on the Shari'a and fiqh. Tremors ran through the stock market and American security buffs. One big reason why the Shari'a is mentioned is that Islam is the glue that holds the Libyan tribes together. Qaddafi had tried to destroy or usurp both civil and sectarian jurisprudence, and even the courts themselves. For four decades the people had no independent judiciary: justice was mocked. The citizenry were not encouraged or rewarded for thinking that fairness and human rights was natural. Indeed, it was a crime to think that way.

Many Muslim fundamentalists have solemnly proclaimed that Islam is not compatible

with democracy. How can they say that? The first four caliphs were elected. In fact, most Bedouin elect their chiefs. Muhammad supported elections not just because they were fair and efficient, able to adapt, but mostly because he always accentuated personal responsibility.

Democracy assumes individual responsibility. People are asked to think for themselves, and be a part of choosing the ruler. In complex modern societies, the voting citizen is assumed to have investigated the critical issues facing the nation. He or she must know the world at large, as well as their own societies. Of course this rarely happens. But it is critical that complex societies find the correct solutions, for without right thinking, these societies go down quickly. It is the norm not the exception that leaders get these complex issues right. History shows that dynasties, nations, empires succumb to mistakes made in high places. But most muddle through. Almost always, the poor and the middle suffer.

In the USA, for example, most people still believe that banks lend money for growing businesses or to invent new things and further innovation. Traditionally, their profits were made on loans and mortgages. But that ended a decade ago. Since then, banks make their money not by investing, but by ripping off its poorer customers using fees: overdraft charges, higher interest rates for loans, and debit and credit card fees.

The issue is pertinent because the social equity protest movement, following the Arab protests, has become a global phenomena, spontaneous, and without leaders. The economic costs of these revolutions has been extraordinarily high. All those in Cairo and Sana'a living on $2 a day now live on $1 a day, or less. Supplies may arrive, but paying for them is made problematic due to the soaring food and commodity prices, and the need to set up a new distribution system.

Ultimately, the way poorer countries can access credit on the market is determined by the ratio of imports over exports. The Americans put that system in place at the Bretton Woods hotel, New Hampshire, in July 1944. It happened over the protests of the other delegations. The proper rule was to base credit on per-capita exports. Such a policy, put in place in 1944, would have created a different kind of world, one much more favorable to free enterprise than the present system.

Businessmen and women are flocking to the capitals, hoping to be part of the erection of the new societies. Investors outside might intervene, but only if the rule of law is enforced. Law and legislation are potent tools in re-building a society. All Muslim countries have secular traditions: civil and criminal law traditions, usually taken in pieces from Europe.

Americans are right in criticizing Islam for letting terrorists and stupid mullahs usurp the religion. Stoning and the cutting off of hands, the persecution of non-Muslims, the repression of women, terrorism – these are not part of the original Shari'a. We even know how they crept into these Muslim legal traditions (of which there are at least five).

The blackening of the Shari'a in Europe and America is unfortunate. Americans know only the five bad implants, but nothing as to the 40-odd spheres of human experience which the Shari'a addresses with admirable justice.

The main principle in Islamic law is ijtihad and fiqh. Both infer struggle – a hard struggle to decide correctly. It is just this effort, this competence, which is required in building a new country. People put aside well-established grievances and stereotypes, to work together to solve real problems.

It's pilgrimage time, and Saudi Arabia's top cleric, Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al Sheikh, call for peace: negotiations, not blood. A delegation of several thousand Syrians traveled to Mecca, praying for Syrian unity. "Let us stand shouldert to shoulder."

The Arab League was upset that the Al Asad regime is using lethal force after it agreed to seek a ceasefire. But the Syrian National Council chief Burhan Galioun, wants no talks with the regime. Why not set the regime on a course to divest itself of power? Why the war?

-John Paul Maynard