Good work mate, good work. [edited slightly to correct some errors, add a thought or two]

Realistic acheivable goals, not messianic transformational rubbish.

Or don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Had the idiots with the CPA understood half of this, they might have done a less fucked up job. Stupid "women's empowerment" seminars and other claptrap when they did not even control the roads.

Bloody feel good nonsense for the Lefty dreamers and Right Bolshy transformationalists.

For anyone who wants to see real change, you have to have realistic benchmarks (and you rightly point out the Lefty human rights twits and Right Bolshy transformationalists forget that many of their benchmarks are new to the West, never mind the restof the World). An irony I may add I find among the Right Bolshies and among the Righ Islamophobes generally is they often select standards that they'd never go for in their own society.

Ah yes, I forgot to add that for strange reason I have developed a desire to try to sleep with Mona. This despite my Egyptophobia.

You know, I was just going to ask Matthew if he wanted to have sex with Mona. How many times has he cited her in the last three weeks?

Men are amusingly transparent at times.

Hmm, she's got a big nose...

So reassuring I find, following a long and profound post, to cut to the chase. Precis of reaction to date, 'Good job, I probably would sleep with Mona.. Do YOU want to sleep with Mona?...Hmm she's fat'

dear m,

the question is "what is your goal?" is "democracy" a value in itself? or is it part of a larger ideal?

i personally am all for participatory democracy, and thus agree with your post on that account, but i am also weary of a "dictatorship of the majority".

you seem to stand for cultural relativism - as you wrote "democracy means that that fellow citizen's own values -- yes even the bad ones (misogyny, sectarian supremacism) -- will have a fighting chance to win in a non-corrupt playing field". i don't. i think that participatory democracy is only desirable if it also comes with protection of civil (incl. minority) rights.

and i don't want to have sex with mona.

--raf*

#1: The Mona Issue

" I was just going to ask Matthew if he wanted to have sex with Mona. How many times has he cited her in the last three weeks?"

Oh, how rude! I am shocked, shocked I tell you that there could be a libido going on in this establishment. Actually, textual intercourse sounds proper and respectable.

And at least (cough, cough) I have posted something in the last three weeks (cough, cough, ahem, ahem). I am looking at some people here.:-)

However, not even for sex with TWO lovely journalists AND a midget would I write a post this long (plus I have a wife who wields a very sharp knife to consider), you see: I have very very high, almost religious, standards of indolence and inertia, and especially I would not write such a piece that's rather intermittently critical of the alleged target of my libido.

Alas, this column comes from the heart and not the romantic heart.

(Mona does have a nice picture and nose I must say in her defense, you rude people. As do Eerie and Eva by the way. And the L, if he is indeed Pierce Brosnan, but I am not into the wild side.)

"Men are amusingly transparent at times."

"At times"!? Please, we are constantly obvious.

#2: The Serious Issues

On more serious things: I am not a cultural relativist -- just a cultural realist. Being a "libertarian" I think alot of things are outrages even when done by relatively liberal democracies. But I am not going to get drug legalization, the end of eminent domain, legalized gambling and prostitution, the end of tariffs and protectionism, the end of excessive taxation, the separation of health care from state overnight or for a long while, if at all. In fact, many or most of you would vote against my efforts, you fiends! But that's democracy, accepting that, at least as a practical reality.

Yes, democracies should be liberal, (ie protect individual freedom, I value that more than democracy actually, and liberal democracies allow undemocratic judiciaries to protect the liberal values). But you need to get the prevailing social contract to approve that whole system. Just getting that process going is enough of a start where societies haven't imbibed the core values. It isn't even easy where those values are widely accepted.

If you can get it all at the start, dropped from the messiah and heaven, or accepted by a pre-developed educated populace, do it. But it's not likely right away (that doesnt mean give up). At least, if one sticks to a strategically wise and morally superior point like democracy (and that's not relativistic), and holds to it, the social system will start to imbibe specifically liberal and pluralist values, a point I made down in the essay well after most readers dozed off.

Right or wrong, the absolute values of political freedom (and are they the most absolute, and do we agree on all? Another philosphical question for another day (and another Mona link:-)), but let's stipulate for now they are the top political values as I really do think so) -- those absolute values require a social contract to make it work. Democracy, and I would add, probably more importantly, economic freedom are the steps to get there.

In a war against deeply-entrenched tyranny, one doesn't get a victory up front.

PS -- "I was just going to ask Matthew if he wanted to have sex with Mona."

A little outrage: Mona works in Egypt where human rights abuses are prevalent, especially now and for critics. Do you think I am so low as to want to subject her to additional unspeakable horrors?

As an attractive human rights activist said to me a few years ago when I suggested a liaison: "No, not even if it would help stop waterboarding."

And at least (cough, cough) I have posted something in the last three weeks (cough, cough, ahem, ahem). I am looking at some people here.:-)

Frantically checked the date of my last posting and am now resting on my laurels. (Cough, cough) think he was referring to someone else, but tried to mollify said person by saying she(or he)had a lovely nose.

On a serious note, I do agree with the statement that 'meanwhile, a Sunni Islamist movement taking shape in relatively pluralist somewhat Francophile North Africa might have been better than one nurtured in the basements of Saudi Arabia and the caves of Afghanistan. They also might have learned the humility and compromise that comes with power and led others to it.'

Although Sudan's loosely Islamist government was initiated by a military coup and employed Islam for propaganda purposes rather than due to ideological conviction, the Islamic nature and hardline stance has been tempered over the years by the realities of power and the temptation of unsanctioned economy hard currency.

For all the attempts to mollify holders of noses, sheesh, don't you people think site maintenance counts for anything?

"...don't you people think site maintenance counts for anything?"

Mere housework? In the post-feminist era? Come on.-- M. "Oink" H.

And at least (cough, cough) I have posted something in the last three weeks (cough, cough, ahem, ahem). I am looking at some people here.:-)

Fine! Fine! Tonight.

Mere housework? In the post-feminist era?

In my personal version of feminism, it's all about choice - whether that choice is "mere" housework or particle physics, the important part is that the woman chooses it for herself.

(Besides, some of us actually like "women's work" of various sorts - I happen to be a pretty good cook, dammit.)

I agree. In order for democracy to flourish, people are going to have to (potentially) make their own mistakes. And who knows, perhaps an Islamist government that everyone thinks will be a bad idea would actually be tempered by the process of democracy, and the concerns of re-election. Of course, new democracies are always rife with abuse and problems, as are even old ones.

You could argue that there's a trade-off with civil rights due to cultural differences, but there are trade-offs in civil rights in a dictatorship as well, obviously. In a militant dictatorship there is the problem that there is no recourse to correct those problems, save violent opposition. A democratic process would at least allow the people to change things according to how they actually want it, over time. In a hypothetically democratic MENA, if several Islamist governments are elected, and they turn out badly, then a democratic process will eventually allow the voters to realize that, and move for change. Without that empowerment of the people, however, if someone tries to make that judgement call for them, the process fails, and nothing changes.

Of course, there are some serious problems related to the limitations of democratic discourse. How well do democracies do in countries that do not have a homogenous culutural make-up? How much actual debate and change can there be if ethnic and religious divisions dominate poltics, divisions that hardly see any defectors and converts? If people stick to tribal/religious/ethnic loyalties, and see those as the only real issue in representation, then we basically get a deadlock, an unchanging government, only affected by birth and death rates. What has to happen is people in countries with such divisions is the people have to let go of those loyalties to a certain extent and try to consider what is best for the entire country as a whole, what can benefit everyone, so that the issues become more universal, and more easily accomodated by a democratic system. In other words, general social issues. It doesn't mean abandoning your culture or beliefs, but instead being secure about them (in so much as they don't violate civil rights, which would become an issue), and starting to discuss the more general and useful responsibilities of a good government. That, however, is not going to be easy, and will take time if it does happen.

I am too whacked to give a proper response, to the intellectual arguments, but in re sleeping with Mona, her picture is enticing enough to merit the reflexion.

Second, for my poor rejected collegue. Well, sorry mate. Perhaps if you had gone for the expat scum angle. Everyone seems to find that attractive. Well, almost. Or maybe women travelling are more sporting.

Third, re that pic, let me note for the record that our dear editor in chief put that up to amuse herself. I actually did not notice for weeks (or months perhaps), but I also found it amusing, su did not ask for it to come down. Should have a disclaimer of course. My ego is quite large, but using Pierce as a stand in is not something I would do.

In any case, select people here know what I really look like, having seen me in my natural habitat (being expat scum), so can opine or not. I care not.

Meanwhile, these new narcotics are really quite fun. I like the new dosage. I think, however, this docy I have to edit for the Titanic is going to come out utterly fucked. Ah fuck em.

Also, gotta ring Boston. Have to see what angle to take on the Boston Boys, maybe the opp is live.

ah yes, democracy sucks eggs. Opportunity counts.

I should come up with a pithy Lounsbury Doctrine on that.

OK, not to sound too hostile, but what really differs your position from that of Reuel Marc Gerecht or the neocon transformationalists of the AEI swamps? Other than you don't want the U.S. to go about invading people?

Let us not forget that Iran is far more democratic than Egypt, but Iran also kills a lot more people than Egypt does and is far more aggressive towards its neighbors and in the region as a whole. It's also much more socially conservative.

Let us also not forget that just electing whomever does not necessarily secure democracy but rather can end it rather definitively. "One man, one vote, one time" and all that.

As for Mona: if I wasn't just married, I'd definitely hit that.

Tequila

The fact that Iran is more socially conservative than Egypt says nothing about its validity as a democracy.

Also, the elections in Algeria for example and the fact that they were overturned did not signal a death knell as upon closer examination (due to the type of balloting involved) the results were not comprehensively representative.

Lastly, if you had been married for some time (as opposed to just), would you then 'hit' that?

Matthew

I attribute your failure with said human rights activist to the fact that you did not use such terms as 'hit' as it indicates a much more sensitive, mature and non chauvinist attitude to women in general. All of which females find very attractive.

"OK, not to sound too hostile, but what really differs your position from that of Reuel Marc Gerecht or the neocon transformationalists of the AEI swamps? Other than you don't want the U.S. to go about invading people?"

It doesnt sound hostile, it's a fair question to, um, hit on.

For me, the fact that the US doesn't do it is enough of a distinction to be the whole thing, as that is my home turf.

But the broader distinction is this: they tend to believe that the Middle East is ripe for an instant liberal democratic revolution, like Eastern Europe is alleged to have been, and that that change only needs a spark and a push, this being based on a sort of belief in universal and identical freedom aspirations.

I think there is no critical mass out there for that in MENA, though I do think that most MENA people would probably prefer democracy and a greater measure of liberalism to the extent it required little sustained effort or sacrifice or watching one's despised neighbor prosper in a better system.

Finally, I am more indifferent than not, unlike the neocons who think it is necessary for ultimate virtue and US national security, to whether the Mideast transforms or not in general, with the sincere proviso that as a generally nice person, at least some of the time, who knows people from the region, has been there and likes it and them, I would like to see a better life, and fairer, decent political and social values for all.

Emergent democracies can be more warlike than old dictatorships, but I consciously avoided the foreign affairs risks for another day.

In the end, I think political communities should govern themselves and not be at the mercy of predators and idealists, each of whom tend to devour, but with different levels of awareness of it.

Meph -

With regards to the hittability of Ms. Eltawahy and the length of time married, I'd have to say that was a regrettable entry on my part --- having a newlywed's naive faith, I will say the length of the marriage would NOT matter.

On the Iran vs. Egypt comparison, I did not imply that Iran's social conservatism had anything to do with its democratic legitimacy pro or con. Simply that the democratic process does not necessarily subvert beautifully as Mr. Hogan put it --- increased democracy in Iran with the Revolution led to far greater social constriction and less recognition of the inherent rights of the individual, especially in terms of freedom of thought, expression, etc. most especially for women. An elected Ikhwan government in Egypt would, I posit, lead Egypt down a similar path.

Matthew, I'd agree with you that unfortunately there is no critical mass and that a variety of cultural, economic, and historic factors conspire to ensure that there will not be one for decades to come.

In the end I sort-of agree with your ultimate prescriptions --- that the U.S. and liberals must insist on democratic processes, and try to ensure their spread, etc. I just sincerely don't think it will make all that much of a difference in the long run, and even if a sort of democracy did arrive (as it has in Iran) it would almost certainly be harmful to the U.S., liberalism in the region, and the rights of women.

Um, you guys know that Mona probably reads this, right?

No, never crossed my mind, but it adds to my underlying charm.

Tequil, I have to say I'm baffled by your assertion that democracy would not make a difference in the long run. Quite the opposite, democracy would not make much of a difference in the short run, as all the current problems (eg. women's rights and hating the US) would be going strong and in fact probably be issues to defend at the ballot. If a true, proper democracy were allowed to eventually develop after a long tortuous process (just look at the blatant corruption in US history, as compared to the paltry corruption of the present), then a moderate political movement will be able to emerge after a decade or three that, finally uncoerced or suppressed by a partial "democratic process" as in Iran, would have its voice heard. (They'd have to allow anyone to run, not just council-approved non-reformists.) So really, the long is where we can see potential rewards, it's the short run that's scary.

And yes, a democracy may be short-lived if a coup overturns the results, or if the elected leader is declared dictator. I don't see that as a failure of democracy, though, but rather a failure to defend democracy. But for any country for which a transition to democracy was not a foregone conclusion, a violent transition is the norm.