The Danger of the Danger of Islamism.

There is a fair amount of talk on the internet and on some news channels about the dangers to Israel, and thus to the stability of the Middle East, of an Islamist government in Egypt. People are concerned that if the secular but brutally oppressive regime of the National Democratic Party* is toppled then it will be replaced by a hardline Iran-style Islamist theocracy which will refuse to recognise Israel and bring to bear the considerable might of Egypt's military on the fragile Jewish homeland. This is held up as a reason to prop up Mubarak, or at least to allow a chosen successor to replace him. This fear of the "danger of Islamism" is rooted in a good intention, to protect the closest thing the Middle East has to a democracy and support peace. There's just one minor flaw in the plan; it's complete bollocks.

Point one to note, the protests are not Islamist, sure the people protesting are Muslims, but in the same way that people at protests in America are Christians; almost everybody there is. There is an Islamist party, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), among the opposition, indeed they form the largest part of the previously elected opposition (this year's sham of a parliamentary election saw them banned as a party and the candidates intimidated and threatened when they ran as independents). This protest movement is not led by them, and for the large part it is not really their supporters on the streets. The MB has a support base largely among the middle aged (similar to the Tea Party, I guess at a certain stage of life politicians talking of golden ages and a return to core values begins to appeal), this is not who is out on the streets. The protests are led by young people who have been exposed to (largely western) deals of democracy, freedom and justice through Twitter and Facebook and Blogs; who have seen the cruel injustices of their government highlighted by Amnesty International and HRW and exposed by Wikileaks. Democracy is an infectious disease and it spreads through information. The calls on the streets are not for Islamic righteousness but for democracy and freedom, the popular figurehead is not an aging cleric but a scientist and diplomat who has done great work on behalf of the entire world in the field of nuclear non-proliferation and whose main problem with Israel is their refusal to join the NPT.

It is true that a democratic Egypt could elect an Islamist party, but such a party working within the framework of democracy would not be in a position to threaten Israel all that much, and the reason is accountability. A democratic government must justify its actions to the people; it is hard (as many politicians have found) to win elections when sacrificing the lives of people's husbands, sons, brothers and fathers into a war of aggression. People vote with their pocketbooks to the extent that even maintaining a military stand-off can be fatal to re-election chances, when people pay taxes they want that money pent on roads, schools, hospitals, police and just enough military power to sleep securely at night, dozens of battalions pointing their guns over the border seems like extravagance. A democratic Egypt may not be as willing to support every action of the USA or the UK as is Mubarak, but the people will be free, self-determinism is a concept introduced to the world by America, and it is a dear one to me, a moral "red line" that I do not feel we should cross. I would rather have the conditional support of a free people than the unwavering obedience of a dictator.

Israel also stands to gain from the domino effect that spread protests from Tunisia to Egypt. If a democratic rule took hold in Egypt it could spread still further. Already King Hussein of Jordan has changed his government. If he is serious about his job security he should give the elected parliament the powers to go with it's impressively fair elections, when democracy is spreading, the history of Europe tells us, constitutional monarchs become cherished, absolute monarchs become corpses. Jordan is at least a relatively just country, and one that has worked hard for peace in the region. The real jewel in the crown would be Syria. A democratic Syria would seal peace for the region, surrounded by democracy Hamas and Hezbollah would have few friends for the violent approach to Israel, and a two-democratic-state solution would have a fair chance of success.

Democracy in Egypt is the jumping off point for democracy throughout the Arab Mediterranean. Democracy in the Middle east is the key to peace in the Middle East.


*national, sure, but democratic they ain't and living under them doesn't seem like a party

Great idea, but is it even possible?

The IPPR has published a paper stating that it is time for Britain to stop "punching above its weight".

This is a good idea. It could save us millions, billions if one also includes unilateral nuclear disarmament. On top of that we could bring to an end the statistic that at least one British serviceman has died on active service in every "peacetime" year except one since 1945. Without trying to exercise a global reach that is the legacy of our former empire we could safely scrap all plans for our new aircraft carriers without impacting on operations. Untrammelled by the need to wheel and deal in the world of global alliances we would be free to sort out a society in which liberty and justice are key and the harm principle and utiulity guide our thoughts and actions.

The problem is that I'm not sure it can be done. In the school playground that is international relations might is right. We are one of the bullies and I'm not sure it has ever been done to step down from that group without taking a pasting in war. This is a world where, right or wrong, having nuclear weapons gives one enhanced rights and not having them leaves one vulnerable.

In the more peaceful spheres one judges a nation by its international actions, by its aid, by its relief organisations, by its peacekeeping efforts. I am proud to live in a country that ranks highly in these fields, mostly as a result of our economic status. And there it is, we can only step down from the lead nations if we are ready to take the blow. If we do it, not only does it mean we cannot aggressively pursue oil our own interests around Iraq the world, it would also mean that our ability to pursue the common good around the world would be drastically reduced. Our opinion on Burma's human rights would be so much spit in an ocean. I'm not sure we're ready for this, nor that it would be a good thing.

Power sharing in crisis...

The tragic news today is of an attack on an army base in Northern Ireland, the first in around a decade of hard won peace. All loss of human life is tragic and this is possibly more so for its potential to spiral into a return to the low-grade civil war that ate at British and Irish society for three decades. The thing that has been getting at me all day however is the insistence of leaders on all sides that this will not derail the peace process. The sad truth is that the peace process has been stagnant for several years, and one of the main planks of the process is to blame--Power sharing.

Power sharing is not in itself the problem, indeed it has been an invaluable tool in Northern Ireland and could provide the vital bridge towards progress in Zimbabwe and elsewhere. The problem is that it has become seen as an end-state. Power sharing ought not to be the target end-state for the main reason that it is not democracy. A situation where an election is held and the losing side take up powerful positions within the government is in fact almost the reverse of democracy. True democracy is a position where the minority accept that they are a minority and will be governed by the majority, whilst (and this is important) the majority accept that being in the majority does not give them the right to demonize, terrorize, discriminate against or impose personal morality and religion upon, the minority.

It is this state that must be the target of any peace process, and the events in Northern Ireland are perhaps a sign of what happens when the flow is allowed to stagnate. If the peace process was moving forewards properly, then the extremist dissidents on both sides would not be able so easily to find solid ground and support. We as people on all sides need to redouble our efforts.