The freedom of the pike is death to the minnows

In philosophy, freedom is usually examined as a property of the will. It is as an ethical ideal or normative principle, perhaps as the most vital such principle. In its simplest sense, freedom means to do as one wishes or act as one chooses. As John Locke defined it, it is the freedom to life, freedom, and property.

Only anarchists, who reject all forms of political authority as unnecessary and undesirable, are prepared to endorse unlimited freedom. A license is agreed as a necessary vice. The question remains is regarding which freedoms are we willing to approve, and which ones are we justified in curtailing.

John Stuart Mill departed from utilitarianism and recognized individuality, proposing a clear distinction between ‘self-regarding’ actions and ‘other regarding’ actions. When harm is involved, then a license is necessary. Which begs the question: what is harm? Physical or moral?

It is argued that governments should similarly be restricted to a ‘minimal’ role, amounting in practice to little more than the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. This vision is shared by many liberals and neoliberals, in what is known as negative liberty. For this reason, advocates of negative freedom have usually supported the minimal state.

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin referred to negative liberty and positive liberty. The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something, whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something. Negative freedom is freedom of choice: the freedom of the consumer to choose what to buy, the freedom of the worker to choose a job or profession, the freedom of a producer to choose what to make and who to employ. Positive freedom however polices restrictions to impediments to freedom. It helps citizens help themselves to be free.

In light of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, can the question of negative and positive liberty be used as an excused that justified Kremlin’s invasion of its neighbour? Can the rhetoric of freeing a nation that is denied political and jurisdictional rapprochement with its soviet predecessor, and freeing its people from neo-liberal abuse and modern enslavement be employed as philosophical notions of a nation that reminisces about a glorious past?

The contested concept of freedom lies at the heart of the issue. Whichever band one decides to side, neither is fully observing the core of freedom: people’s choice. The moment that freedom was delegated to a higher power, its strength has been muzzled and blended into different shades of freedom. At present, negative or positive, Ukrainians are suffering the exploitation of “freedom”: freedom to join the free world, or freedom to join the free nation. Ironically, they are not offered the freedom to explore any other option.

Fourth Face of Power

 

Politics is power. Quite simply, power is politics, politics is power. As Ball notes, `power is arguably the single most important organising concept in social and political theory'.

The concept of power links it to the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes referred to as power to. The concept of power has long been studied by political thinkers: For Machiavelli, power is an end in itself, and whatever means are necessary for a prince to acquire and maintain political power are justified. Thomas Hobbes however saw that competition for goods of life becomes a struggle for power because without power one cannot retain what one has acquired. One cannot retain power without acquiring more power. German sociologist Max Webber linked power of authority and rules, and focused on structures and bureaucracy. Robert Dahl continues Weber’s approach, both in the definition of power and in the attribution of it to a concrete human factor.  In “The Concept of Power” (1957), Dahl developed a formal definition of power, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. Dahl treated power as the ability to influence the decision-making process, an approach he believed to be both objective and quantifiable.

Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed a model as a response to Dahl—the two faces of power (way decisions are made, and ways that they are not made). For example, on what basis can ‘key’ decisions, which are studied, be distinguished from ‘routine’ ones, which are ignored. Bachrach and Baratz described non-decision-making as the ‘second face of power. Although Bachrach and Baratz accepted that power is reflected in the decision-making process, they insisted that ‘to the extent that a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power’

In the 1970s, Steven Lukes (1974) developed Bachrach and Baratz’s approach further. His devised the three dimension of power. In the first face, the decision making process, A’s power over B is manifested to the extent that A can make B do something which B would not have done had it not been for A. In the second face, agenda setting, certain subjects or participants are excluded from the process. In addition to the resources of the first dimension, the people with power mobilize game rules which work in their favor, at others’ expense. Decision-making may be prevented by the exertion of force, the threat of sanctions, or the mobilization of bias which creates a negative approach to the subject.

The third, latent dimension that of the true interests, explains that B does things that he would not have done had it not been for A because A influences, determines and shapes B’s will. Media, advertisement, political campaigns, education, mass action and others are but example of the subtle influence of public opinion.

Nowadays, we see a fourth face of power: the ability to embrace ambivalence and accept shallow truths. A headline is enough of information; a quick YouTube animated video can provide a sound justification for a policy; beautifully worded accusations masked with humanitarian values are adopted; and complete ambivalence to events - whether near or far – are perfectly acceptable.

Political power currently rests on that four face – a dangerous, lonely, and self-destructive facade.

Pick your meal

President Joe Biden succeeded in overthrowing Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in an American democratic manner and through a no-confidence vote against his government. Two determining votes sealed the deal. The opposition bloc led by Shahbaz Sharif, the older brother of Nawaz Sharif, who was convicted of corruption and money laundering, and was released due to his deteriorating health conditions, saw this as a golden opportunity.

The biggest sin committed by Imran Khan in the eyes of the United States, and President Biden is his support for Taliban's resistance against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, his close political and economic relations with China, and his refusal to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Pakistan's refusal to normalise relations with Israel added another layer of dismay. 

Similar to most countries in the region, Pakistan has re-considered its alliances. It has strengthened its relations with the "axis of resistance" led by Iran, and rejected a request to send forces to participate in the Yemen war under the banner of the Saudi-Emirati coalition. 

By leading the “Instance” movement and raising the slogan of change and the founding of the new Pakistan, Khan and his allies were able to win the majority in the 2018 elections and form a coalition government. The American war on President Imran Khan began in the last years of the administration of President Donald Trump, because he refused to “use” Pakistan’s military and security capabilities to fight the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, and to save the American “NATO” from defeat. The first punitive retaliatory step began by stopping aid. The second step came in inciting the Pakistani separatist movements and supporting their military activities: the Baluchi movement and the Pakistani Pashtun Taliban, and above all, the “Islamic State” organization “ISIS” in Pakistan.

Proxy wars have taken on a new dimension following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Former President George W. Bush has few quotes that merit citing; however, one rings ever so true: You are either with us, or against us. There is no room for partiality or Swiss chocolate neutrality: it is either Russian Vodka, or a barbequed cheese burger. 

That ship has sailed

 

"Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society". Michel Foucault

An Iranian ship carrying fuel reached Lebanon a few days ago after passing through Syrian territorial waters and unloading on Syrian lands. Parades of gasoline-filled trucks entered Lebanon amidst an ambiance of delight and relief. Hezbollah emerged ever-so-defiant and victorious, and a sigh of relief could be heard across the tiny nation.

The arrival of Iranian fuel shipments to Lebanon coincides with the US congressional statement that the US sought to resolve the Lebanese fuel crisis, whilst reiterating the importance of its “no Iranian oil” policy.  Months of economic downturn and fuel shortages have left the country at a brisk of complete collapse. Beirut has been struggling to survive an economic crisis that has seen prices skyrocket and the local currency devalue over 10 times in two years. The Lebanese have lost count of the reasons responsible for their economic hardship. International forces have issued a series of recommendations and action points that would help the Lebanese people resolve the economic and political crises, all of which falling short of an actual, imminent, tangible, and realistic solution. Hezbollah has certainly pointed this out, and has worked on securing Iranian oil to salvage the Lebanese economy, albeit  Washington’s concerns.

The U.S. did not stand arm-folded, and pushed its Iraqi and Egyptian partners to export oil and gas to crisis-ridden-Lebanon. The U.S. message is crystal clear: we can control the oil intake, if you listen to us. Hezbollah’s message was louder and clearer: we need not listen. We have our allies.   

This political backlash involves a number of countries that already suffer from their own internal problems: a sanctions-crippled Iran; a torn Syrian nation; an impoverished Egyptian economy; and a perpetually sectarian Iraqi scene. The political dynamics and proxy confrontations masked by the oil-rescue do not mean a single thing to Lebanese people: that ship has literally sailed – pun intended.

The overland delivery through neighbouring Syria violates U.S. sanctions imposed on Tehran, and the U.S. was livid. However, futile are the US calls to ban imports from Iran, and equally void are the Lebanese premier’s complaints about Hezbollah’s aggression on "national sovereignty". The Lebanese people need their oil, even if it were offered by the devil himself. The proxy wars have become boring, and predictable. Nothing worse can be inflicted on the Lebanese nation and its weak government. Hezbollah’s move came as no surprise to anyone: it has already taken over Lebanese foreign policy and defence policy, it plays a role in banking, controls the port and airport, and has just marked its place in regional trade and the internal market.

Washington is left in an awkward position following this stunt. Owing to the seriousness of Lebanon’s humanitarian and energy disaster, the U.S. may choose to overlook the fuel imports, irrespective whether the ships docked in Lebanon, Syria, or the moon. This option risks making the U.S. seem inconsistent and in violation of its own rules of imposing sanctions on countries that deal with Iran – but leaves a better taste in people’s mouths. Alternatively, the U.S. can impose sanctions on Lebanon, which would only embolden Hezbollah and its regional allies, and stir public opinion against a cold-hearted U.S policy. The U.S. will have to bite its tongue this time, and see how long Iran can afford such generosity.

Even if Iran’s shipment comes at an incredibly high price for a sanctioned and weakened Tehran, the political message was heard. The solution is temporary, mainly because the core of the problem is not the lack of fuel, but the lack of currency to buy it; but it is still a solution. And what the Lebanese citizen will remember this night is that they can switch on the light when it gets dark, thanks to Iran. They will have enough dark nights to listen to as many speeches about the tunnel’s lighted end.

But You Love Me

 

The great German sociologist and political economist Max Weber defined three types of legitimate authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. Whether any form exists in its purest form is questionable, as each of the types can rely on the other two for support and further legitimisation.

Such types were identified by Weber at the turn of the century, with the rapid changes that happened in the industrial and economic spheres that impacted the political scene. Questions about authority, legitimacy, and efficiency accompanied the developments that Europe was witnessing, conciliating with them the forms of governments populating across the continent and its vicinity.

In the 21 century, it is hard to believe that charismatic rule – as a source of legitimate authority – is still considered a valid source. A sole valid source. Most leaders in the Middle East beg to differ.

One example is that of the Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who announced in July 2021 that he – in his persona - will boycott Iraq’s parliamentary elections scheduled for October 2021. al-Sadr, who has millions of followers, decided unilaterally to jeopardise the stability of an unstable country by questioning the legitimacy of the future house and government.

The political stunt is not new: decrying corruption and boycotting elections were meant to make political gains, and distract the public from deeply rooted corruption that he himself has been involved in, whether directly or indirectly through the political bloc - Sayroon coalition that holds 54 of 329 seats in the parliament (the largest bloc if I may add).

Whilst it is easy to deflect blame and warn Iraqis about “..being hostage to injustice and tragedy...where Iraq’s fate may fall victim to local, regional and international policies,”, rational observers can map the ineffective and corrupt policies followed by the Sadrists themselves. A fire spread through a coronavirus ward at a hospital in the southern town of Nasiriyah due to a lack of safety measures, which resulted in about 100 deaths. Ibn al-Khatib Hospital in Baghdad also witnessed a similar incident about two months ago, resulting in more than 100 casualties. Ministries where Sadrists or their allies hold power account for between one-third and one-half of Iraq’s USD 90 billion draft budget for 2021. Electricity shortages are common, whereas over the last few weeks the southern provinces have witnessed up to 90% of electricity shortages. Why did this resignation and indignation happen at the time? Who is he blaming for the mismanagement? And how can a decision of boycotting an election solve the problem?

Sentimentalism is a dangerous business, let alone if politicised, and if politicised in a place like the Middle East. Many are the region’s leaders who exploit their public appeal and charisma as a fully-acceptable source of legitimacy and power. In this specific case, al-Sadr was a young cleric in his late 20s after the country was invaded by the U.S. in 2003. He inherited his father’s reputation and made it a point to live up to the charisma his father enjoyed – a routinisation of charismatic authority into a traditional one.  Instead of translating this charisma and popular acceptance into a political movement that is truly responsible before the people, that is efficient enough to rebuild the country, the ambitions fell short of becoming a popularity contest among an ethnically and religiously divided country.

The early elections called by Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi were one of the main demands of the anti-government protest movement that swept Iraq in October 2019. Adel Abdul Mahdi, the former Premier, resigned under pressure from tens of thousands of protesters fed up with the political establishment and Iranian influence in Iraq’s government. These elections were a chance to form a democratically elected government that responded to demands. al-Sadr decided otherwise, and made a dramatic theatrical statement that encouraged hundreds of Sadrists to gather in various cities in southern Iraq and burn their electoral cards.

There is a chance the elections could be postponed if al-Sadr does not participate, due to the small number of participants and the potential boycotting of political movements affiliated with the protesters. What that means and what it would achieve is not clear  - but at least some will sleep in a dark dark night, dreaming about dreamy al-Sadr.

Till Peace Do Us Part

 

President George Bush was famously quoted for a phrase he did not coin but one that summed up his presidency style: 'You are either with us or against us'. This logic applies in international relations, and is evident in the Middle East, were there is no place for neutrality.

Since 2014, Hamas and Israel have been building new regional alliances in an effort to balance the unbalanced. Hamas turned to wealthy Qatar for funds, Iran for weapons, and Turkey for political support. Meanwhile, and under the auspices of Donald Trump, Israel found new allies in the Arab world by signing the Abraham Accords with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. You either support Hamas, or Israel, not both. Unless you are Egypt.

Egypt was the first country in the Arab world to sign a peace deal with Israel. Its economic ties with Israel cannot be denied, and the agreement on several files that affect the interests of both countries have brought the two neighbors closer. At the same time, Egypt maintained a relationship with Hamas, allowing it some jail-free time, passage of contraband, and brokering deals when international powers decided to remain silent. Both Hamas and Israel benefit from the common friend.

However, this friendship has its own self-driven purposes. First, Egypt capitalizes on catastrophes to cement friendships. Egypt stepped in as a hero in 2014 to broker the truce that ended the Gaza war. Relations with Hamas improved in 2017, only after the Islamist group broke its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt rose to the occasion again after it managed to broker a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in the May 2021 clashes. Cairo makes sure that its role becomes ever so crucial when there is trouble in the house, jumping in as a counsellor, sometimes fair, and sometimes obviously taking sides. In the last intervention, it went a step beyond its coy role and had its Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strongly worded statement condemning Israeli authorities after they stormed Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque and attacked locals and worshipers. The statement also called on Israel to stop any practices that violate the sanctity of the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Islamic and Christian identity of Jerusalem. Rarely does one see a relevant, development oriented role that was not crisis-resolving-related.

Second, Egypt is well aware of the importance of maintaining its diplomatic weight in the region, and the Israeli-Hamas card is the best card to play. The regional map is constantly shifting, and the latest development of the reconciliation of the Gulf house, the wave of normalization agreements between Israel and other Arab states, and a hostile south that is pressing on with controversial water projects. In order to ensure that its role remain relevant and its voice heard by international powers, it needs to keep an upper hand in the Palestinian – Israeli saga. The May 2021 example by brokering a truce in the Gaza Strip has thrust it into the diplomatic spotlight, overshadowing all other regional attempt of mediation.

Egypt will remain pivotal in the region as long as the two sides remain at war. This way it will ensure that it will preserve its diplomatic strength that serve its interests. Israel and Hamas are grateful to share Egypt. It has indeed befriended both, but is a friend of neither.

People and Nations, Nations and People

 

Joseph Ernest Renan: L’essence d’une nation est une plebiscite de tous le jours

People and nations, are we talking about the same thing? The use of the two terms is at times interchangeable, sometimes inadvertently, but mostly purposefully.

“People”, as a group, refers to the political totality of a group individuals living together and share a political destiny. The term encloses all the members of a given political community. The diversity and homogeneity is not a determining factor: the political aims are. The transformation of feudally-controlled regions into a consolidated state between the 16^th and 17^th century was accompanied by the crystallization of a common political identity of the individuals residing in the centralized, modern state, irrespective of the cultural, linguistic, or geographical differences.

A nation however transcends the political and economic boundaries of a state and the people. People convert into a nation because they are made conscious of their own and specific cultural identity and want to confirm their existence as an independent and concrete unit. People become a nation after an act of consciousness, and not in an irrational and casual manner.

Indeed, nationalism is an artificial rather than natural phenomenon that surfaced in the 18^th century. Nationalism was accepted as a central and indispensable component on the modern state. Countries across Europe started unifying on the basis of nation, such as Germany and Italy. The "nation state" was a model adopted in post-Ottoman regions, many of which attempted to unite under the national rational, but failed amidst imperialist arrangements.

It is clear that a nation is not the state. The nation is a group of people who, owing to common grounds such as culture and history, form a common sociological identity that aims (in general) at being a specific political unit. The moment that this specific sociological unit becomes a political unit, a nation states emerges.

The world as we see it today is composed of state-less nations, and multi-national states. States preceded nations, and nations preceded states. People have the right to identify themselves with a given nation or not. And they also have the right for self-determination and self-governance. 

The arguments centered on nationalism are commonly used against both Palestinians and Israelis in their right to establish their own nation-state. The arguments either refuse such claims or support these rights, albeit on false grounds. It does not matter whether Jewish tribes inhabited the lands west River Jordan thousands of years ago, or that religious texts bound Jews with that land, or that a long history of persecution was enough to earn the Jewsih people a safe plot they call their own. These people who identify themselves as a separate nation have now existed in the land known as Israel for a considerable period of time. Regardless of the grounds, they have every right to identify themselves as a separate nation, and to form a nation-state. Balfour Declaration or not, they have a right not to be part of a larger, all encompassing, multi-national government. The same logic must apply to Palestinians. Palestinians must not feel obliged to identify with an Arab nation that falsely transforms all Arab countries into their potential homeland. Palestinians, like Israelis, identify themselves as  a separate nation that shares history, culture, religion, language, and strife. They are equally free to establish their own separate nation-state, and not to be part of a larger, all-encompassing government.

People are free to become a nation, and to stop being one. No limits should be placed on what people decide as criteria to transform into a nation. As dangerous as this lesser evil is on stability, prosperity, development, tolerance, and international convergence, its denial has been proven much more perilous.  Thus, for the Israeli and Palestinian nations, the two states solution (a fair one) is the only solution available, until people from either side decide to redefine their national identity and just be people.