The only solution: Back in Time

       

    The ideal state, statehood, citizenship, democracy and governance have been themes studied and debated by famous political thinkers, starting from Socrates, to Hobbes to Duverger. Civilizations, both based on philosophical grounds and religious doctrines (and more recently civic and judicial foundations) have all tried to come up with the supreme state-model, a blueprint for a happy and well-functioning society, an ideal type of governance and relations between citizens, nations and political class. Achieving a euphoric state is not a logical objective, but the quest is. Nations make sure that they constantly reform, modify, update, analyse and test their policies and governance strategies, all with the objective of enhancing the quality of the state and statehood in question. As modern as this may sound, this activity has been actually long practiced, starting as early as the fifth century BC Greece.

     

    Plato believed that a good man must be a good citizen who in return could not exist without a good state. He believed that no law is more powerful than knowledge, rejecting laws and customs that people accept at face value and without a critical eye. Aristotle believed that reason cannot be separated from a good state that is incarnated in both law and customs of the community that is being governed. Moral ideals, supremacy of the law, liberty and equality of all citizens and law-based governments have all been the supreme ends of any state. The pleasure seeking Epicureans for their part believed that a state is found with the sole objective of achieving security, protecting men from other men’s egoistic interests. They lectured that considering that all men are selfish and seek personal happiness and joy, and that men would do anything to achieve such happiness, men in communities agreed to form ab agreement that protects them from harm caused by one another. Men, therefore, adopt a plan to respect the rights of others with the objective of having their own rights protected. Antisthenes and his school of Cynicism  preached liberal thoughts of refusing society, laws, traditions and prejudices,  focusing on the inner merits of individuals; rich men, poor men, Greeks, barbarians, citizens and foreigners booth free and slaves, nobles and villainous are all equal  and should all be reduced to a common level of indifference. With the expansion of the Greek empire after Alexander the great, the Greek philosophy also became more universally oriented, where the concepts of universal state and universal citizenship became clearer. The Romans inherited the philosophies of their Greek neighbours and new philosophers, such as Cicero, began preaching the universal natural rights, universal states governed under the law of God and the equality of all men under this eternal celestial law. He strongly believed that only bad habits and false opinions impede men from being equal. Seneca (the Roman Stoic philosopher) then emphasized the importance of benevolence, tolerance, morals and equality of men, a set of thoughts that spread in the Roman Empire and inspired the Christian thought. From there, and since Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire in 380 AD and Islam came to preach abut equality of human kind and that races, no matter how much they differ in color, language, and conditions, are all equal before a benevolent God. Empires then followed and the ideals kept on developing. Good. So what happened later? How could this string of intellectual progression of human political thought get destroyed by political leaders and fanatical ideological ideals? How could it be that a community in Roman and Greek empires preached and believed in equality of citizens, reason and subjection to a common law that would protect their interests, while now, in the 21^st century, we are rebelling against, law, common sense, and humanity itself?

     

    A quick review of last week’s Middle East’s headlines read as follows: Iraq: Al Qaeda aims at suffocating Sunni Cities; Dozens dead in a series of blasts in different Sunni cities; Two car bombs kill 17 Shiites in south Baghdad during Karbala religious ceremony; Muslim Brothers students in Egypt’s convert universities to conflict zones with security forces; MB to boycott referendum on constitution; Jihadists chop head of three Alawi men in Adra next to Damascus. What is not being broadcast but is somehow general knowledge is that Jordanians frown upon Palestinian presence in Jordan; Palestinians are oppressed by Israelis; Israeli Jews discriminate against anyone who does not carry pure Jewish blood; Iranians want to annihilate the Zionist nation; Iraqi Shias sympathize with Iran's quest to spread Shiism; Lebanese Shias agree and feel oppressed by Sunni co-citizens; Sunnis want to join hand with anyone against Iran; Christians and Muslims doubt each other’s intentions; Kurds still deprived of full autonomous rights in Syria, Turkey and to a certain extent Iraq; Alawis are not Muslims nor are the Druuz say fundamentalists…and the list goes on. We seem to be living in a conflict zone, a moral, intellectual and religious conflict zone. Respect to human rights, freedom and dignity has evaporated, and pure fundamentalism is taking their place instead. Tolerance is no longer acceptable and is in fact considered a sign of weakness. Any comprise or deal made without bloodshed, without compensation, without wars and trials and destruction would be considered a humiliating defeat. We ridicule leaders who sit down with enemies and listen, we judge citizens who try to picture the other point of view, and we disapprove of any deviation of the accepted political/religious/social doctrine. We are living under the slogan of vengeance, when the history of our region, whether political, intellectual or religious has demonstrated elsewise throughout history.

    

   I lamentably believe that the calls for virtue, thought, subjection of laws to human intelligence, tolerance, patience and intellectual activity are being attracted by a number of actors with political agendas. What the Pythagorean cult believed in “harmony as a basic principle in music, medicine and politics” is ridiculed by our modern actors who champion rigid compliance to a sole doctrine. What Socrates believed in respect of virtue as being a learned and taught knowledge is now considered as blasphemy and a challenge to religious laws. Any intention to find a way for harmonic existence is being fought and won by such fundamentalists. Against the backdrop of mutual suspicion against anyone who does not belong to the exact school of thought, religion, set of beliefs, political orientation and affiliation and of course racial roots, and the failure to find any solution, I have a suggestion. I say we divide the region into small patches of land, each governed by a family. Black sheep can find their own patch. This way we can go back to prehistoric times – as we are on the way there by the way – and each family finds a settlement that calls it home. From there, let’s start anew. Let us start to learn how to think, live and progress. Let's learn how to develop our morals and respect for diversity and co-existence. Let us learn how to forgive and tolerate. Let us erase all the ugliness we have seen in our modern days and go back to a more developed past.

+ 3 GMT

   Jordanian local newspapers have all published heated articles complaining about the government’s decision regarding winter time (maintaining GMT+3 instead of GMT+2). They also rejoiced the great public's victory of obliging the government to reverse its decision and go back to winter time on December 19^th. The Prime Minister Abdalla Al Nsur said in the parliament’s opening session on Wednesday that the government received the parliament’s request regarding this issue adding that he was impressed with the parliamentarians’ civilized attitude and approach, which, as he said, was exactly the democratic way of doing things.  There will be great costs resulting from this decision he explained, but since the government is committed to respecting the opinion of its citizens, it will shoulder the expenses*. What a victory, what a social movement, what a potent parliament, what a strong voice, and what an ability to cause drastic changes in policies as per the public’s request and vision. What is surprising however is that in the parliamentary session on Sunday December 1^st, members of the this robust  parliament decided to walk out without giving their vote of confidence on the cabinet as was expected, deciding to postpone this minor issue after the 2014 budget is passed (thanks to a petition signed by 57 members). So far there has been little feedback from major news portals on the passiveness of the parliament and the motives behind this decision, but it does not really matter, we Jordanians are still in the festive mood after getting our way on the winter time war. The public’s demand is not being ridiculed (forgiveness if it does sound otherwise), as all of us Jordanians understand the dire economic conditions in which many fellow citizens live in, and what an extra hour of sunshine in the morning would mean in respect to availability of morning hot water and tolerable weather conditions as children walk to school. When a European country decides to change into winter time, children don’t have to worry about waking up in an igloo-like house, washing up in cold water, or walking in pitch darkness down unsafe roads. The extra hour of sunlight would be used for recreational purposes, visiting parks and enjoying a somehow warmer/sunnier afternoon. Sadly, the situation in Jordan is not so, and hence the demands to reverse the government’s decision. Nonetheless, this rejoice may perhaps be  an indication of underlying anger, one related to a sense of helplessness and complete lack of public control over public policies. When are Jordanians consulted on anything? When was the last referendum held on any issue? How are economic, social and political concerns taken into account? How effective is the parliament in its duty in representing the people’s will? What is the extent of the control it exerts on executive decisions? Did it ever control any of these decisions? Can we safely judge that this jolliness of parliamentarians and the public is somehow linked to a sense of “finally, our voice is heard on something…anything”? That the parliament did in fact practice its role as a legislator and a speaker for the people?

   Someone once said that “Cynicism is humour in ill health”.  Accurate description of Jordanian politics. Fixating on minor issues while ignoring bigger causes and the root of problems will never help us (Jordanians) acheive political development and enhance the concept of democracy, public participation and accountability. To highlight the victory of time change and ignore the issue of confidence vote is a betrayal to all attempts in developing our political system and the sacrifice made by activists and partisans throughout history. When our Constitution was drafted in 1952 and included an article (53) on the confidence vote,  parties, activists and political figures in the country who fought for this change since the 1920s (through national conferences, demostractions and demands on modifications of the 1947 constitution) felt a sense of relief and acheivment. The parliament actually exercised this right as early as the 1950s and had enough integrity to face the storm and accept to have the parliament dissolved because of its defiance to the government and its loyalty to its public responsibility (example: the third parliament elected in 1951 was dissolved on June 22^nd 1954 prior to the voting session as premier Tawfiq Abu Al Huda learned that some members were planning to block the confidence vote). They pushed for amendments and managed to even get the vote of confidence blocked by a majority of the parliamente (1954 modification) instead of two thirds (original version of 1952), an achievement that may sound minimal at the moment but had a great impact on the flow of events back in the fifties and the sixties. Nowadays, when this right is granted, and when the government is fully under the legislative’s control, it is being marginalized and somehow belittled. Our parliament (or part of it) is feeding the public false victories on minor issues while giving away its right of policy control, the right we all entrusted in these members. To conclude, we should thank our parliament for our not-so-cold-or-dark mornings, although we sadly do remain in the dark.

*Please note that the government will shoulder expenses via the treasury, not the piggy bank of any official.

Diplomacy

    We have all heard the many jokes about George Bush Jr.’s low IQ and non-existent wits, how his poor knowledge on world affairs cost thousands of Americans lives and billions of dollars and how anyone – including the commentator - could have made a better decision on the Iraqi and Afghani files. Funny were the jokes I admit, but perhaps not quite accurate. The same comic approach is being used to describe Obama’s administration and persona, where not only is the president depicted as being lost and weak, but also as unwitty and not so shrewd when it comes to international affairs. Perhaps analysts and political observers have their right to such an argument, but as an average Arab citizen with some interest in political issues, I concluded that this argument does not hold.

    My observation was strengthened after the announcement of the deal struck between the Axis of Evil and Satan himself on the nuclear file, but of course, name-calling was dropped on the happy occasion. Leaving Israel livid at the break through and the world split between those happy for the victorious Iran and those ashamed with American - and UN- weak diplomacy, the agreement can be considered one of the most significant achievements of Obama’s administration. Iran and the P-5+1 agreed on November 23^rd in the third round of talks in Geneva that Iran would cap further enrichment at 5%; not increase its stockpile of 5% uranium; not increase its centrifuge capacity to enrich uranium; stop nuclear-related advances on the Arak facility and allow IAEA inspectors enhanced access to nuclear facilities, uranium mines, and centrifuge manufacturing sites. In return, the P-5+1 agreed to suspend sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical exports, trade in gold and precious metals, auto industry, and civilian aviation; not impose new UNSC sanctions or EU nuclear-related sanctions; the U.S. Administration to refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions; and facilitate humanitarian trade using Iran’s frozen oil revenue held abroad.

      Whilst Israel warned that fundamentalist, anti-semitic and straight from hell Iran cannot be trusted and Gulf States deciding how to break up with Washington, the UNSC and USA in particular hailed the agreement as an important step towards resolving the controversial nuclear file and neutralizing the crisis for some time. Was it a wise decision? Did Iran come out victorious? Did Tehran outwit everybody’ else? Was Obama lost and a bit, well, dumb? Well not really.

   Observing statements that have been made by either sides for the last month or two, one can note a change in tone in both US and Iranian officials. For instance, it was no coincidence that Tehran’s temporary Friday preacher stressed during his sermon late October that using nuclear weapons was Haram, that one week earlier to that Rohani in a national speech said that he hoped the new Swiss ambassador to Iran would reveal Iran’s good intentions to Washington and that the infamous opposition figures Meer Husein Musawi and Mahdi Karroubi, under house arrest since 2011 (after leading the green revolution that questioned the 2009 elections) were to be subjected to less severe control procedures in a decision made around the same time. On the international realm, it was also no coincidence that in late October Britain decided to resume its diplomatic representation in Iran, deciding to reopen its embassy in Tehran and in fact appointing a non-resident charge d'affaires to Iran later in November (after two years after Iran’s ambassador was expelled from the UK following the storming of the British embassy in Tehran in 2011). The timing of the the leader of EU parliament's socialist group and the two socialist representatives' visit to Tehran in October in an attempt to break the ice was no mere coincidence either. On the last note, Khameni's calls for friendly relations with all nations, including the USA in a speech made in late October was not a slip of a tongue. All were preparatory steps towards mending bridges.

     Based on the above, the rapprochement between the West and Iran was no sudden move and no hidden affair; the USA therefore was only acting as per a strategy to accommodate the Persian giant into a friendly zone where it seems that history is turning its page on the mutual accusations, mistrust and animosity between. Whether it was based on the objective of avoiding a new costly war, an attempt to neutralize Tehran on the Syrian file, or an actual and genuine attempt to slow down the nuclear program, the strategy did in fact work. No blood was shed, no loss of lives, no financial burdens, no unnecessary regional spill overs or a great deal of meaningless and empty rhetoric. The West, and Iran, got what they wanted at the least costs paid.

      The shrewd Henri Kissinger said that Diplomacy: the art of restraining power. It is not if you are not with us you are against us, it is not deadlines and threats, it is not falsification of reports, not group punishment or religious wars …it is as Kissinger exactly said: restraining oneself from use of power when possible. The Obama administration came out victorious in the end: a halted nuclear program, a rapprochement with Tehran that may be a first step to understandings on other files, a removed threat from Israel and a demonstration to the entire world that Iran could, and did, compromise, even to Satan himself. Bravo Obama, bravo diplomacy and bravo intellect. To conclude, accusations regarding Obama's passiveness and lack of action are inaccurate and perhaps too haste...he achieved all that he promised with absolute elegance and calculation... a true diplomat and an intelligent one as well. 

Reinvent the Wheel

      Revolutions, counter revolutions, toppling autocratic regimes, restoring old regimes, military coups and political Islam revivalism have all been taking place in the Middle East for the past three years. Arab nations are calling for introducing democracy as a political system, a system that must be enforced, by any means or price. The ticket to freedom from tyranny, poverty, exploitation, backwardness, political repression and every ailment that has struck the region since the Islamic days of glory should be the one and only “rule of the people”. Democracy: the magical potion.

    

      The beautiful thing about political thought is that it has been a developing science, growing and changing and taking on new ideals and beliefs in order to justify political practice and systems. Ever since the early Hellenistic civilization, followed by the Romans and the emergence of “modern” religious based empires, toppled by secular regimes and revolutions, political thinkers, scientists and philosophers have introduced in their books and their research the ideals of political organization. Who should rule? Why? How? How can money be distributed amongst citizens? What about communism? What to do with freedoms? All these questions have been asked and answered and criticized and doubted and asked again...this cycle of theory development ever stops, and all politically conscious and responsible countries and their political thinkers never stop wondering “how can we make it better”.

     

     What is interesting about this is intellectual activity is that it proved itself correct. Trial and error, experimentation, accurate and scientific observation and constant evaluation of political systems in the western world have all lead to the establishment of regimes that have proven to be efficient. Not to go deep into criteria of efficiency, but one must take quick look on economic performance, quality of life, life expectancy, level of satisfaction, environmental considerations and gender equality to realize that yes, the western world has actually learned about the correct formula to apply in order to achieve its goal of social, political and economic fulfilment. This part of the world did not ignore political thinkers, did not shy away from discarding political ideals that were revered by many but judged inappropriate, did not contend to the status quo and did not stop trying to link in the ground reality with the equivalent political origination and manifestation. I don’t believe the Arab world did, nor will do.

     Receiving a manual on “101 in political organization” to ensure democratic practice is the solution that many political activists have been indirectly campaigning for. “We want to democracy”, “let the people rule”, “decision of the majority”, “separation of powers”, “secularization of institutions” etc., are all admirable ideals… they did after all prove effective in many parts of the world. But are Arabs like the rest of the world? Do we have the same set of beliefs? Do we aspire to the same things that Europeans aspire for in terms of social and political issues? Is our social make u the same? Are our educational interests close to those of Americans? Are we as culturally prepared to take on radical leaps towards a Scandinavian governance system? Did Jean-Jacques Rousseau include us in his political studies?

     I believe that what Arabs need at the moment is a period of patience, contemplation and scientific investigation. We need to learn about the best political formula that would accommodate our social, religious, cultural and economic realities. We cannot expect to import an ideal and implement as it is, and then get frustrated when it did not work on the ground. What we need is a modest recognition of our limitations and an attempt to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes the wheel does need to be reinvented; especially when a certain vehicle has helped a nation to reach its destination in ease has led to chaos and disaster in others. Take Egypt as an example; political idealism of majority rule led to the election of political figures that have failed in all aspects of governmental reform.

   At this stage in our history, I suggest that we go back to the basics, delve into political thoughts since its beginning and come up with our own formula.  Socrates believed for his part that virtue is a field of knowledge that can be learned and taught. Perhaps we should approach virtue and its political manifestation as a serious field of study rather than a de facto issue…learn what virtue means for us as Arabs and how we can mould it into a system of life. His student, Plato, in his priceless book “The Republic” said that there is no hope for a state unless power is found in the hands of those who know, who know what state responsibilities and duties are and what education is deeded for citizens in order for them to carry out these tasks. Laws not based on tradition and customs, but those based on rational analysis and education…nothing should be written down on stone. Perhaps the words of this philosopher ring ever so true in our Arab reality…perhaps our laws are flawed and we need to restudy them. Then again, is that not what thousands have lost their lives for? 

Just as Orwell Said

        George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.

     Iran’s proposed plan offered to the P5+1 included two phases, both of which did not touch on its right to enrich uranium, but where open to concessions regarding quantity and levels of enrichment. Moreover, Iran also accepted to have its nuclear sites and facilities inspected by IAEA inspectors in any sudden visit, confirming with that that its nuclear goals are but peaceful. Its offer is being studied but has so far drawn applause and acceptance, at least from the media.  Catherine Ashton for her part described the diplomatic approach that Iran is treading as useful, Britain and France seem to be warming up to their Persian not-quite-the- adversary, and the Obama administration ignored both Israeli and gulf worries about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and political influence in the region and seems keen on going forward in talks with Iran and its new leader. The nuclear concessions offered by Iran will – if not already have – be met with political concessions from the US which are basically a given recognition of the role of Iran in all of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Palestine and the possibility of including Iran - rather than gulf countries - in the negotiating table with Syria. Whilst the western world refused at the beginning to include political issues in nuclear negotiations with Iran, they are now more inclined to embrace that only available option. The loyal and victimized allies in the Arab gulf now seem to be left out, and accommodating the villain of all villains seems to be the salvation.

     Political alliances and geopolitical considerations are meant to change over time according to countries’ interests and conditions. Should US interests and those of the EU lie in building bridges with Iran at the expense of Arab interests and Israeli fears, then this change of policy and approach would be perfectly fine. Nothing is engraved in stone. What is not fine however is the manipulation of public opinion with strong and blind convictions that give people every reason to fear an imaginary bogeyman. Depicting Iran as an evil nation with plans to annihilate Israel, destroy Arab states, enforce fundamental shiism, launch wars of terror on western nations and succumb the world to tyranny -quoting Bush Jr. – and then suddenly considering it as an option for a regional partner to restore peace in the Middle East (just like what happened in Iraq) and pacifying its nuclear ambitions, is not OK. Satan cannot repent and change course in a matter of 5 years’ time…unless of course he was not Satan from the very beginning…just a word stolen and altered to suit US interests at the time, just as Orwell said.

All You Need to Know Book

   

   

      At the ophthalmologist’s waiting room I was impatiently checking my watch, hoping it would strike 18:00 in defiance of the laws of nature controlling time passage. Masking my impatience with observing people’s attitudes at the grey large room, I was surprised to be actually entertained with an observation based on fellow patients. Men, women and children of different ages were resting comfortably on washed out green sofas, each defying time with his or her own entertaining gadget: a magazine, a book, a laptop, a phone and an interactive video game.  The only two (three if myself were included) exceptions to the case were the man sitting next to me and the man sitting two sofas ahead of me. Not accurately described as being old, the older men were about 65 -70 years old. Far from having a blank look in their eyes, these two men were staring into everything and nothing at the same time, their minds seemingly engaged with the elements present in the existing room whilst at the same time perhaps shifting into a virtual world of worries, ideas and chores. In all cases, what was on their mind exactly was of no interest to me, but what was – and consequently led to this article – was the fact of their “non-aided engagement” with their own thoughts.

      
     According to Michael Oakeshott, rationalism has been a growing trend since the 17^th century, being applied in all aspects of life (science, politics, religion etc.). Tradition, experience and facts accepted for face-value are all rejected by rationalists, where reason, and only reason, should be followed to reach conclusions about any given subject. Cleansing our minds from prejudices, we – rational learners – start a long journey of learning that requires acquiring two sets of types of knowledge:  technical and practical. In Oakeshott’s words, the process also involves “bringing all social, political, legal and institutional inheritance of our societies before the tribunal of our intellect”. He stresses the superiority of ideology over tradition, an ideology derived from a technique of thinking, investigating and interpreting….confirming that no knowledge is real knowledge unless it is technical knowledge, anything else is pure ignorance. As the philosopher Francis Bacon explained, all works of comprehension starts anew and take their own path, being guided in every step of the way…a comprehension that is an art of interpretation and investigation that complements the weakness of our natural reasoning. However, this rosy and logical picture painted by many philosophers and championed by Oakeshett seems to be spoiled by our modern ways. Oakeshott complains that this rationalist approach has been changing slowly, where we are moving further away from the true sources of inspiration and where the rationalist character has become more vulgar and rude…what used to be the art of thinking has become a manual of how to use your head at a fraction of habitual cost and what used to be the art of living has become the technique of success in life. Everything we need to know nowadays is written down eloquently and directly and we are spared the long dire process of thinking.

      Back to the waiting room, my observation was the following: nowadays, with the spread of books (paper and digital), vast variety of publications and communication tools we have turned into a “deluded information sponge”. We take everything- absolutely everything- in, with few questions asked.  We seem to be waiting for somebody else’s idea about a given topic, which would be taken for face value and stored at the back of our minds without any intention to doubt, question or analyse that thought. We are eager to know anything and congratulate ourselves for using the precious time – that could have been wasted - at the waiting room to flip through magazines and websites and take more info in….any info. What I am not sure about is how dangerous is that to our rational being? Are we really learning how to think? Are we clearing our heads of prejudices and receiving and storing others’ prejudices? Is Oakeshott right to complain that we misinterpreted rationalism and tend to convert the techniques of thinking, reasoning and reaching conclusions into a manual that is followed blindly?

     I am sure that some of us do. Most evident is that reality in politics, where the practicality of political engagement liberated many activists from the duty of political learning and the preference to acquire the magical politics technique that liberates the disadvantaged from political ignorance. His salvation can be found in an “all you need to know book” or a discourse that she can by heart and can apply directly and mechanically. How many journalists, bloggers (myself being one), reporters and programme presenters have brainwashed us and given us a false notion of being politically updated…themselves of course being brainwashed by others? How few are rational thinkers who can read an article published in a prestigious newspaper and written by someone with three titles preceding his name and rationally analyse it and value its essence? How impatient are we as readers and learners to take the fast track and get an honorary degree in knowledge? Are all of these patients – minus two – waiting at the ophthalmologist’s clinic members of the mpatient, passive and not-really-rational group? In all cases, it just struck me as a coincidence that such and observation was made while waiting for my eyes to be checked…although my argument may seem solid after this epiphany, I should stress that my arguments as based on 10 pages of Oakeshott’s book, read in 2 hours and written down in 1. So yes, I am a fellow member.

Nymphos vs. Jihadists*

     The news today read that the Polish experimentalist Ania Lisewska, who is on a mission to engage in sexual intercourse with one thousand men from around the world, was banned from entering Lebanon. She was also denied a visa to enter Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia and Yemen amongst other Arab countries. Despite the fact that the decision to ban her entry breaches every right and freedom that most of these countries repeatedly claim to protect, the irony of the decision within the current circumstances the Arab world is absolutely ridiculous.

  

    Hundreds of thousands of infiltrators have smuggled their way into Middle Eastern countries, whether to take part in the Godly war against imperialism and infidelity; whether to help fellow warriors by sending conjugal services performed by female mujaaheeden; or whether to assist fellow Arabs and believers by smuggling weapons, money and drugs and use such resources for extortion and black mailing. These border breaching phenomenon is not limited to the Arab world, as only last week did the Spanish authorities reveal the large number of expats living in Spain who left the European continent for good to fight the Syrian war. This is not to mention the thousands of mujahidden that infiltrated into Syria from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the question remains: how did these fighters get in? Did they devise a new transportation strategy where they can disappear into thin area, cross borders in their transparent form, and then find themselves in these countries? Do they mask their true identity behind secular outfits and attitudes and arrive as rich tourists or concerned journalists? Have Arab countries and their border-control officials not yet honed their vigilance skills and are still unable to control and protect their frontiers? The Polish case proves otherwise though, with every border control official on high alert for this honour and chastity number one danger and the threats she poses on the general well-being of Arab citizens. What about Tunisian women who were sent to Syria to help “release some tension” from the mujahideen; did they pose no threat? Why did not anyone stop them from coming in?

    

     I say let her in. Let this investigator with a clear mission achieve her goal of sexual experimentation and result dissemination. We may benefit from what she has to share. After all, one is free to take on her offer or not and read her findings or not. Perhaps our ministries of interior and border control departments should focus instead on protecting their citizens from terrorists cells and proxy warriors who have so far brought nothing but division, destruction, instability, injustice, backwardness, hatred, loss of faith and every worldly excuse to label the Arab region as the center of all irrational behaviour. Let her instead...some sex won’t hurt.

*In every reference to jihaad or mujahideen, what is meant is the proxy warriors who mask their true interests, ideologies and objectives with slogans of religious affiliation and liberation of oppression. It is no way a reference to the true conviction of a small minority of religious duty.

The Syrian War

     The current civil war in Syria is in no doubt fuelled by many factors and has its roots dug deep in the history of the troubled region. The long established regime of Al Assad clan and the authoritarian iron grip of power has enjoyed less and less fans from national, regional and international stakeholders. Yes, stakeholders. One cannot deny that what happens at one's backyard will have an immediate effect on one's own home, especially given the state of globalization and interconnection of the world. A troubled Syria does cause problems for its immediate neighbours (mainly Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey) and its neighbours located further away such as Russia, and those located furthest away such as the USA and China. We are all connected, and we should therefore all be concerned. Going back to the reasons behind the conflict, some factors can be mentioned:

• Dire economic conditions suffered by the Syrian people as a result of the international financial crisis and accentuated by the sanctions placed on the country by the USA.
• The wave of democratization and revolution that spread across the Arab world, which motivated and empowered the Syrians to rise against their authorities.
• The growing impatience of the USA and Isreal over Syria's relations with a nuclear Iran, with a growing Hezbollah and popular Hamas.
• The Russian-American struggle over hegemony in the region.
• Pipeline politics, where Syria refused to sign an agreement in 2009 with Qatar that would run a pipeline from Qatar, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets as it would negatively effect Russia's supply of natural gas to Europe. The following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed by in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo.

These factors all came together beautifully 2 years ago when the uprising commenced in Syria. What started as a peaceful national movement demanding political change and reform, soon transformed into a trans-national crisis with international actors playing a part in the conflict each for their own interest. It is no longer a question of democratic reform, a chemical weapon abuse against civilians, a matter of human and civil rights: it is purely a mixture of economic interests and international political leadership calculations. It is no secret that the US, and some European allies such as Britain and France, have intended to destablize the country for the very same reasons mentioned above, and an excuse to intervene – the chemical gas red line – militarly is but another step taken towards reshaping the country's political make-up and molding the region's regimes according to the interests of economic and political leaders in the USA, Europe, Russia, China, Iran and the oil-rich gulf. To make matters worse, the slafist appeal to the younger Arab and Muslim generation, Al Qaeda's growth, the Shiite militia's excellent organisation under the tutelage of Iran and the christian-muslim, shiite-sunni division are also playing a role in deepening the crisis, and again, each acting to serve one's proper interests.

Bashar Al Assad has been the scapegoat, so was Sadam Hussein, and both were/are evil men who gave the world an excuse to turn a blind eye to the hypocrites, imperialism and double standards of the international community. The only victim in this power play is the Syrian people...especially when many got to the point where the choice between “the evil of the lesser evil” became a real and only choice.

Morlino's Lesson

   

         Long has it been established that history repeats itself, and that countries tend to tread the same path chosen by nations before (whether for their own good or destruction). The European experience throughout the past centuries, supported by the countless studies that have been conducted to investigate Europe's history and political development, are of utmost importance to understand the current crisis through which some Arab states are passing. Examining the current state of affairs in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt reveals extreme tension on all levels as well as the need to disseminate political and intellectual consciousness so as to prevent the transformation of this current crisis into a state of constant and permanent instability. In this context, Leonardo Morlino's reference in his book “Democracies and Democratization”, published in 2009, in which he referred to the phases of transformation from democratic regimes to authoritarian regimes (citing the German experience in the 1930s in particular) sheds a light on the transformations happening in Arab regimes. Should the theoretical aspect of Morlino's transformation steps be compared with the current Egyptian scenario, where the democratically elected government was out thrown and a new interim government took control, then the “history repeats itself” notion would be proven fatefully accurate. 

    The crisis in democratic regimes begins, according to Morlino, with the emergence of a state of political competition between parties, political elites and social activists, followed by an increase in polarization, divisions and fragmentation, whether in the party, in political participation or in the standing government. Polarization in this sense means the deviation in political positions between parties and elites on either pole, whilst radicalization follows polarization and involves a growing distance between these polar forces, either in the parliament or in the street. Amidst such radicalization, division and instability, the government finds itself drawing inefficient policies, leading to the general perception of the regime's illegitimacy and a deepening of political conflict. In this phase, should the rival political elite reach a compromise/ agreement, then the crisis could be overcome; otherwise, the crisis would move to the next phase that leads to the fall of the regime, increase in violence and the politicization of the neutral powers, deeming any agreement or compromise impossible. 

      A transitory phase follows, described as involving two opposing political coalitions as the regime is being gradually transformed from a democratic regime to an authoritarian regime. The new regime would then transform and alter the standing structures and norms as it sees fit. The differences between the old and new regimes are wider when there is a state of chaos and violence which assist in the appearance of new leaders with reactionary policies against the old regime, noting that the new regime would be institutionalized much easier and faster if elements in the older regime – such as the army – were an accomplice in overthrowing the government. This new regime would do all that is possible to protect itself, its guardians and its economic and political interests, confiscating at the same time all coercive powers. Gradually, this new authoritarian regime will establish itself in all domains of public life, and its removal would not be an easy task.

     The point behind Morlino's study is two folded: for one part, it is a reminder of how easy a regime can be transformed from a democratic model to an authoritarian one. The Weimar Republic's experience, albeit short standing, serves as an excellent example. On the other hand, it reveals how necessary it is to spread political culture amongst citizens, who are both the protagonists and victims of political rivalries and national, regional and international forces. For us, as activists and concerned citizens, we must learn that every demonstration, every act of violence and every blind acceptance of the decisions and actions that undermine the essence of democracy -no matter how appealing they may seem or how convenient they are to our political orientations – would have dire consequences. And yes, history proved so.

Parties' Reinvention

Political parties in Western Europe have been developing throughout the past two centuries, reinventing themselves and reorganizing their structures to reflect socio-economic changes in their societies. Elitist parties that dominated European politics had to expand their support-base and include members from other social classes following the introduction of universal suffrage. The expanded parties – known as mass parties – were actively recruiting members and gaining supporters at the beginning of the 20^th century, adhering strictly at the same time to their ideological agendas and party doctrines. With the organizational modernization of contemporary politics following the Second World War and the birth of pressure groups and strong political bureaucracies, in addition to the expansion of public participation, technological advances and intense competition between parties and political opponents, mass parties transformed themselves to catch-all parties. These parties intended to appeal to a larger sect of the society and electorate, therefore modifying their agendas, focusing on specific issues at hand, softening their ideological approach and working on galvanizing support from different political cleavages. Finally, in the 21^st century, political parties took the form of cartel or catch-all-plus parties, acting as professional agencies and networks of political agents, dominating public institutions, which, rather than competing in order to win support from wherever it can be found, are content to ensure their access to the state by sharing power with others.

Examining the European experience against the Arab experience has been a rejected notion, considering the vast differences between the history, society, economy, culture and ideological orientations between Arab and European countries. What is however meant from the exposition of party development is highlighting the importance of western parties' adaptation to changes and developments occurring in their societies. A 21^st century party cannot follow the same line of actions, calls, aspirations and strategies applied 50 years ago. European and western communities and their political leaders customized their party systems, organization and structures to accommodate such changes and alterations in the general political culture.

Parties in the Arab world on the other hand have followed a different route and have passed through different periods that restricted their performance and - sometimes – their continuance and existence. Nonetheless, the Arab Spring served as an opportunity for party reorganization and reinvention, with the Arab populace eager to re-engage in political participation via elections and party affiliation. Parties, in this sense, must act as change-motors and adapt themselves to the new realities on the ground. Employing decades-old mentalities and reminiscing about past glories and political achievements is a romantic disconnection from reality that would lead to further social and political disorientation. Egypt's current political and social turmoil may be an excellent example of weak party development occurring in many Arab states. The country's social confusion may be attributed to the disconnection between parties and political elites on one side, and the public on the other. The polarization between public opinion (with right-left and confessional-secular cleavages) and the political organization (both parties and political establishments) have led to general chaos on Egyptian streets. This unfortunate reality is being fed by further regional and international intervention, leaving the Egyptian public to feel like a victim of a western-designed conspiracy or theological authoritarian ambitions. Millions have taken to the street to protest against an Islamic government, and millions have also taken to the street to protest its ousting. Millions are supporting democratically elected governments, and millions are supporting the preservation of security and freedom even if democracy were to be compromised. Finger pointing and exchange of accusations are common, and many – lamentably – seem to favour bullets to ballots. Both sides view state organization differently, and parties and establishments (military in particular) hold an entirely different view. This lack of a minimum consensus has a series of reasons and justifications behind it, but failing to address this issue is in itself a contributing factor to the growing schism between citizens, government and parties.

In the end, democracy has always needed parties to defend it and preserve it, acting as its loyal gatekeeper. Most importantly parties have always been the product of the societies from which they emerged. Unless parties learn how to reorganize, reinvent themselves, modify their approach, soften their ideological ideals, accommodate different orientations and interests of their societies with all its colours, and spread political education and culture, only two options would be available for the Egyptian (and other) political systems: democratic chaos or authoritarian stability.

Nationality and Arabs

   Nationality, patriotism, panarabism, regionalism....terms designed to define individuals residing certain geographic areas and thier feelings towards their patria. Long have I – as an Arab – heard the praise of Arab glories...the readiness to die for this stretch of land, ideals and history...the supremacy of the nation's historic and heroic figures and the injustice the imperialist world has served it in our modern days. Examining the history of Arabs, the problems emerge from the very beginning of this quest. Who are Arabs? Are they defined by their language? History? Religion? Culture? Does a Yemeni beduin have much in common with a Morrocan citizen? Is the arguement of some Lebanese intellectuals of pertaining to a generic meditteranean race of phonecian history rather than the Arab race accurate? Are caucasian residents in Jordan, Syria and Palestine considered Arabs? What about Kurds? They speak Arabic afterall, and are Muslims and Christians – the two main faiths in the Arab world. 

     Considering the history of Arab countries, basically after the birth of Islam in the 7th century and the rise and fall of Islamic Empires that stretched throughout history and geography, culminating in the Ottoman Empire, it is evident that the notion of statehood was one mixed of nationhood : a community of citizens identifying themselves as muslims, and not as citizens of certain regions. This identification with religion did not rule out the sense of “belonging” to a certain region, but the Asabiye – the prejudice and blinded identification with a closed group of  people (whether a clan, tribe or family) and the segmentation of societies based on race was prohibited – at least in theory. The Ottomans clearly did not respect this heritage, and the racist policies practiced by the Osmalis, coupled with the spread of nationalist sentiments in the XVIII and XIX centuries led to “Arab Nationalism or Panarabism”. The dismantling of the Empire and the division of Arab lands between colonial powers accentuated the identification of citizens with their bordered lands, and gradually – with the liquidation of nationalist parties and activists – the borders of these countries deepened and nationality laws started being promulgated. When a 15th century Arab identified himself as pertaining to a Muslim nation irrespective of the race/ethnicity of the ruling class, a 20th century Arab strongly identifies with the fellow citizens within the land space occupied by a given regime. The term “Arab” has therefore been blurred: if there is no actual Arab nation, and individuals are to be content with their identification as citizens of sub-nation states, then no Arab can logically and truthfully say that he or she is an Arab. History, language, culture and religion may be binding, but the diverse makeup of modern societies these days, thier orientation, cultural beliefs, norms and even linguistic expression have all loosened the once tightly sealed definition of Arabism. The state, with its rule, regulations, political system and the passport color shape who you are, and what you are entitled to. 

  This lengthy introduction is meant to address the issue of the Bahraini government's recent threat of withdrawing nationalities from Bahrani opposition activists. Apart from the fact that the right of nationality is a fundamental right granted by article 15 of the World Declaration of Human Rights, how can a government decide to use the “natural right of belonging” against any citizen who dares to cross it? How can a nationality become so awfully cheap and easily played with by officials when convinient? How can one's entire existence, self identification and pertinence be subject to arbitrary decisions? How can an entire nation be toyed with throughout history...leaving elites and imperlialists deciding on how one should feel and identify himself/herself? When were Arabs given a chance to decide on who they want to be and how they want to label themselves?

   

     The authoritarian regime in Bahrain is no stranger than that in many Arab countries, and the decision to withdraw nationalities is also not an innovative Al Khalifa coercion formula. Nonetheless, the fact that it is being used in the 21st century, third year into the Arab Spring, and amongst heated debated and studies on “what went wrong with democracy and human rights in the Arab world” is a shame. Moreover, this coercive instrument is being used whilst the slogans mentioned at the very beginning of the article are also employed passionately by the very same regimes...and that, dear readers, is simply a nifty disgrace.

Modelo de Evaluación, Aprendizaje y Mejora

   

    La evaluación del desempeño y funcionamiento de las instituciones publicas y los programas   y políticas se han convertido en una actividad integral y clave en el trabajo de la administración pública moderna. Tal evaluación, sea ejecutada por la institución misma en cuestión (autoevaluación) o por una agencia exterior evaluadora, ayuda en mejorar la calidad de las políticas y programas diseñados, en incrementar la transparencia y rendición de cuenta, y en mejorar la capacidad de los gestores, políticos y empleados públicos en modificar sus procesos de formar políticas que responden a las necesidades de los ciudadanos. Además, la evaluación es un bloque de construcción de la estrategia de regulación inteligente, que establece los planes de las administraciones para mejorar aún más la calidad de la regulación. Según la Comisión Europea, la evaluación ayuda en asegurar la mejor calidad posible de la legislación e identificar oportunidades para la simplificación y la reducción de la carga administrativa.

        La evaluación no es un proceso nuevo, como tuvo sus comienzos en los EE.UU en los años 60 cuando fue entendiendo como una medición y cuantificación de los resultados de la gestión pública, y en los años 70 la evaluación fue utilizada para describir los programas, mientras que a partir de los años 80, la evaluación fue considerada como el método de investigación de programas y políticas. Los países europeos fueron influidos por la experiencia de los EE.UU e incorporaron la evaluación desde los años 60, en principio en programas nacionales de auditoría y de control hasta que cubre hoy en día todas las políticas y programas públicos. España, tal como los otros países europeas empezó a priorizar la evaluación y orientar al trabajo publico hacia la calidad. El Real Decreto 951/2005 tiene por objeto establecer el marco general para la mejora de la calidad en la Administración General del Estado y regular los aspectos básicos de los programas que lo integran. El Decreto incluyó el marco general para la mejora de la calidad en la Administración General del Estado los siguientes programas:

1. Programa de análisis de la demanda y de evaluación de la satisfacción de los usuarios de los servicios.
2. Programa de cartas de servicios.
3. Programa de quejas y sugerencias.
4. Programa de evaluación de la calidad de las organizaciones.
5. Programa de reconocimiento.
6. Programa del Observatorio de la Calidad de los Servicios Públicos.

     Esta atención y enfoque al aspecto de mejorar la calidad allanó el camino para la resolución de 6 de febrero de 2006 de la Secretaría General para la Administración Pública, que aprobó directrices para el desarrollo de los programas del marco general para la mejora de la calidad establecido en el Real Decreto mencionada. Los modelos de gestión de calidad reconocidos, incluyen el Modelo EFQM de Excelencia», el «Marco Común de Evaluación» y el Modelo de Evaluación, Aprendizaje y Mejora (EVAM) diseñado por el Ministerio de Administraciones Públicas.

Modelo de Evaluación, Aprendizaje y Mejora EVAM

    EVAM “representa una metodología sencilla y asequible que permite conocer el nivel de calidad en la gestión y resultados de las organizaciones, realizar, a modo de una autoevaluación asistida, un primer análisis de la madurez organizacional y del nivel de prestación de los servicios y orientar el camino a seguir, poniendo a disposición de las organizaciones, herramientas para la mejora de su rendimiento”. Este modelo de autoevaluación tiene 5 ejes principales de política, planificación y estrategia a través del liderazgo; procesos principales; alianzas y recursos; papel de las personas y políticas de los recursos humanos y los resultados, todos de que tiene el mismo pes. Al lado de los ejes, el modelo tiene 16 aspectos y 34 cuestiones. El proceso seguido en esta evaluación es al principio comprobar a través de modelo de aproximación al cuestionario si las ejes mencionadas arribas sí cumplen y evidencian para cada uno de los 16 ejes los aspectos de la evaluación, y en el caso contrario, una recomendación – en la forma de un documento de marco de actuación y manuales de actuación – se manda al departamento en cuestión. El cuestionario de evaluación por su parte con sus 34 preguntas intenta convertir la información cuantitativa a cualitativa a través de una puntuación de 100, con una guía para determinar el grado para otorgar.

    De alto interés es el eje de resultado, que enfoque a los resultados en clientes o ciudadanos que benefician de los servicios, los resultados en las personas o otros resultados claves. Las cuestiones sobre la percepción de los ciudadanos de los servicios presentados, la satisfacción de los usuarios, la percepción de las personas de los empleados de la organizaciones, los indicadores internos en relación con el rendimiento y participación y desarrollo de capacidades, los indicadores del rendimiento económicos y financiero y no económicos, todos ayudan a evaluar – con un cierto nivel de neutralidad - el trabajo de la organización. El factor humano es de alta importancia y solo este factor puede dar sentido a este proceso de evaluación. Por una parte, cuando los clientes/usuarios de los servicios están contentos con la calidad del servicio y su prestación, al lado de que son informados sobre los aspectos relacionados con este servicio (coste, gestión etc.) y que pueden expresar sugerencias y quejas en este sentido es un factor clave para el éxito de cualquier política, programa o incluso servicio. Medir la satisfacción de los empleados por otro lado por el desempeño de la organización, por su desarrollo profesional y por el crecimiento de habilidades y calidad de tareas también es un indicador clave para evaluar el funcionamiento general de la organización. Aún los indicadores del rendimiento económico y no económico (como prestigio general de la organización, participación en proyectos internacionales etc.) pueden indicar el rendimiento general de la organización, evaluar con precisión y con integralidad el funcionamiento de la organización en cuestión debe tomar el factor humano en cuestión.

EVAM: Buena Práctica para otras Instituciones Públicas?

      El Ministerio de Planificación y Cooperación Internacional de Jordania estableció en el año 2010 un departamento de evaluación y valoración de impacto que tiene el objetivo de evaluar los programas de desarrollo en el país. Siendo que el Ministerio es el coordinador de todos los programas y proyectos, al lado de los fondos internacionales, su papel de asegurar la buena coordinación de los proyectos la complementaridad, el respeto al plan de desarrollo pluri-anual y el cumplimiento con las normativas internacionales relacionadas con los fondos de ayuda para el desarrollo, el departamento nuevo jugará un papel clave en ayudar la administración jordana en mejorar su diseño de políticas y programas y en evaluar el desempeño y rendimiento general de las instituciones.

       De los objetivos del departamento son: institucionalizar el proceso de evaluación en los procedimientos de pedir fondos para financiación; evaluar el impacto de los programas y comparar los objetivos con los resultados; arrojar la luz sobre los indicadores claves en el programa ejecutivo de desarrollo 2011-2013; mejorar las capacidades de los empleados involucrados en el proceso de evaluación en los ministerios; diseñar un programa anual de evaluación; y mandar los informes y recomendaciones a las entidades en cuestión para beneficiar de ellas y modificar sus políticas y estrategias. Observando los objetivos del departamento – tal como fue mencionado en la página web del Ministerio – se nota que hay tres aspectos importantes ausentes:

1. No hay ninguna referencia a un modelo de evaluación para seguir, lo que indica que puede ser el proyecto en sus fases de diseño o que simplemente que no hay un modelo uniforme para que sea utilizado y que “modelos/mecanismos ad hoc” se establecerán. Esto, en mi opinión, resultará en el seguimiento de un proceso no uniforme y uno que sigue los intereses y las directrices de la entidad en cuestión, no uno bien diseñada y planificado para tener resultados verdaderamente útil y reflexivos de la realidad pública-
2. No se especifica como se puede acceder a tales informes de evaluación, que según la página web del Ministerio, se manda a las “entidades relevantes”. La comunicación abierta y transparente es necesaria, sea por parte del publico las agencias no estatales, donde la confiscación de información va a ser countraproducente.
3. Tampoco hay ninguna referencia a la percepción de los empleados públicos o los ciudadanos en relación con los servicios/programas públicos y desempeño de las instituciones.

     El eje de resultados de EVAM en este sentido puede servir como ejemplo al Ministerio, especialmente en lo que está relacionado con el punto numero 3 mencionado arriba. Sea la recomendación del Guía del Modelo EVAM 2009 de elaborar encuestas para identificar las necesidades de los clientes, medir su satisfacción, obtener indicadores y metodología para la gestión de quejas, cumplimiento de estándar de calidad, errores en prestar servicios, o el diseño de encuestas para medir las necesidades o expectativas de los empleados públicos en la organización en cuestión, indice de rotación, participación en actividades de formación, y motivación, todos ayudarán en elevar la calidad del proceso de evaluación y incrementar su transparencia y eficacia.

    Para concluir, el propósito de la evaluación es el análisis regular, por las propias organizaciones, de sus procesos y resultados de gestión para identificar los puntos fuertes y las deficiencias y determinar los oportunos planes de mejora. La evaluación debe acompañar todos los pasos de la formulación de programas y políticas, desde las fases iniciales hasta la terminación del programa. La evaluación del desempeño de la institución debe ser institucionalizada y ejecutada en forma continua, donde la calidad del trabajo y sel servicio tiene que ser el principio rector.

Referencias

Ministerio de Planificación y Cooperación Internacional de Jordania: http://www.mop.gov.jo/arabic/pages.php?menu_id=422&local_type=0&local_id=0&local_details=0&local_details1=0

Agencia de Evaluación y Calidad - Guía de Evaluación Modelo EVAM  http://www.aeval.es/es/difusion_y_comunicacion/publicaciones/Guias/Guias_Marco_General_Mejora_Calidad/evam.html

Leipart's Decision...Egyptian Version

     

       The military coup that just took place in Egypt, ousting the democratically elected leader from his position in the name of democracy and protection of freedoms reminded me of a question raised by one of my professors in a course I was taking. His question went as follows:

At the end of 1932, the German President Von Hindenburg named General Von Schleicher the new Chancellor. At the time, the National Socialist Party of Germany and the German Communist Party represented the majority at the parliament, but the mutual hate and animosity between them both deemed an alliance or coalition impossible. The new Chancellor understood that little time was left to save the constitutional order in the country and decided to meet with Leipart, the Secretary General of socialist syndicates, and ask him to keep the syndicates' militants and organizations inactive for a few days whilst the army arrests Nazi leaders based on pending judicial orders. Both men understood that the attempt to detain Nazi leaders would be resisted with force and would result in blood spilling. The Chancellor was willing to take the risk in order to liquidate the National Socialist party that posed great danger on Germany, and save the democracy. Leipart, a religious and ethical man requested to be given a few days to think the plan over. A few days later, they met again, and Leipart explained that he understood the dangers posed by Hitler, but his conscience would not allow him to engage in an act that would lead to the death of Germans. Von Schleicher tried to convince him that the Nazis only understand one language, and if they get to power, that would be a tragedy for Germany and Europe. Leipart insisted on his position. Weeks later, on the 30^th of January 1933, Hitler became the new Chancellor and in 1934 after the death of President Von Hindenburg, a number of SS members arrived at the house of his enemy Von Schleicher and brutally assasinated him. Today, many debate the “Leipart decision” and whether it was a correct choice not to support the plan of Chancellor Von Schleicher. Was it?

    Impulsively, and in the excitement of engaging in a debate on an issue that was not quite well known or debated, and considering that the main theme of the subject of study was ethics and politics, I first attacked Leipart's passiveness. Thinking about it more and more, I started to defend his decision, and so did many of my colleagues. It goes without saying that Hilter and his party were one of the biggest disasters in modern history, and I am positive that all the colleagues that shared my vision also wish that Hilter never got to power and used it barbarically. Nonetheless, Leipart understood that as appealing as it would have been to take part in the arrest and liquidation of the party, what was being proposed was illegal and against democratic values and the rule of law. People voted for Hitler...people listened to his twisted logic and followed his rationalization of world and national realities and “how to solve the German problem”. They chose him. Millions did. And they kept on supporting him even during that atrocities he made during World War II. Even though a part of the population did not support Hitler and would have appreciated seeing him jailed or dead, Leipart - as well others I am positive - understood that resorting to illegal mechanisms to oust a democratically elected Hilter was not an ethical act, and hence Leipart's refusal to take part in the plot.

      What happened in Germany nearly 80 years ago reflects the current dilemma in Egypt. Morsi has his opponents, who are rightfully upset with his policies and ineffectiveness. But does the military have a right to intervene? Does it have a right to make a decision on the behalf of Egyptian citizens? Will the military have the upper hand in every political decision? Are elections, parties, the parliament and cabinet a facade and the military establishment  the sole actor?

      I strongly beleive that civilization has taught us how to resort to reason and rule-of-law when confronting our problems. Violence and coercion are cousins. As pacific as his ousting appeared, there is no doubt that the army would not have hestitated to use force should Morsi have decided to stand his ground...and a bloody coup could have taken place. We must all think of innovative and intelligent mechanisms to express our discontent and create change. My father always said “Dina, two wrongs never made a right”. Years later, his advice proved to be immaculately accurate and wise. Perhaps we should think ethically and then act politically...it would have avoided us much of the ugliness that happened.