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.