The topic is the popular uprising in Egypt, going on its seventh day.
Egypt is not a monarchy (like Saudi Arabia, where incidentally women have no voting rights). Egypt is a –sort of- democracy: a perverse system that has kept the same government in power since 1981 (in the US we’ve had 5 presidents since!). How to fake an election? 1- Ban opposition parties (such as the Muslim Brothers),* 2- and rig results, which invariably -and overwhelmingly- end up supporting President Mubarak's Party. 3- Use "terror" as a weapon of dissuasion and conformity. Mubarak has used the terror card of Muslim fundamentalism as a political weapon to rule out opposition. The formula reads: "If I'm not in charge, there will be terror" (in fact, many governments balk at the possibility that Egypt’s crisis could descend into a sort of theocracy like Iran's).
Yet, the democratic argument is that sovereign people should build their own political future at the polls (meaning that voting is free and anonymous, something that does not happen in many cases).
Revolutions are great moments in history, but they're also highly unstable. So the question for many is, will this Egyptian revolution bring greater democracy to its people or would it replace Mubarak's dictatorship with a different kind of despotism?
What do you think? Go ahead!
__________
*A part of the ideology of the Muslim Brothers is establishing an Islamic State based on Shari'a law and the rejection of Western influence. In this case, religion and the State are inseparable, as is the case in Iran. Recently, the organization has taken steps to incorporate greater pluralism, but many people are still skeptical of the true intentions of the organization.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
A former senior Swiss bank executive said on Monday that he had given the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, details of more than 2,000 prominent individuals and companies that he contends engaged in tax evasion and other possible criminal activity
This piece of news in the New York Times:
Rudolf M. Elmer, who ran the Caribbean operations of the Swiss bank Julius Baer for eight years until he was dismissed in 2002, refused to identify any of the individuals or companies, but he told reporters at a news conference that about 40 politicians and “pillars of society” were among them.According to the article, "those named in the documents come from 'the U.S., Britain, Germany, Austria and Asia — from all over,' and include 'business people, politicians, people who have made their living in the arts and multinational conglomerates — from both sides of the Atlantic.'" 1
How should one react to this new development? Obviously, 1) Rudolf Elmer has committed the gravest of sins: to violate Switzerland's strict banking secrecy laws. 2) Wikileaks has gotten more oxygen: compromising data. Should we be interested? Well, Tax evasion is 3) an illegal practice and that those caught evading taxes are generally subject to criminal charges and substantial penalties.
Many people in the right of the political spectrum are bothered by Wikileaks constant noise. Advice: They should stick to their libertarian instincts and praise an organization that actually exposes government and corporate wrongdoing. A mature democracy depends on having an educated and informed electorate. There should be consensus that the actions of government and the state, as well as the competing political interests to exercise political power, should be underpinned by critical scrutiny and informed debate facilitated by the media.
Wikileaks is part of a new phenomenon that has to do with the disappearance of the traditional press as we know it. 2 However, that should not and will not contradict the basic assumption that there is no true democracy without a free press.
Since 2007, Wikileaks has made public an impressive series of classified documents: the so-called Afghan War Diary, a controversial video of an American Helicopter strike on Reuters journalists, the Iraq War Logs and Cablegate last November. The sheer amount of information and the manner in which it has been obtained has exceeded expectations.
Take note: something must be going on when Muammar Gaddafi, a dictator of Lybia for 40 years, calls Wikileaks "an evil organization." 3
What I'm talking about can be put in terms of a balance between liberal economy and morals. If democracy is, in the words of Lincoln in his Gettysburg address, "of the people, by the people, for the people," one can make a reasonable argument that it is in the best interest of the people to know when that covenant is broken, or put into risk.
Transparency and accountability are essential for the functioning of democracy.
_____
1 The surprise here is that this case already has a history: It started as a complaint filed in the Northern District of California by Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. (BJB) and its Cayman Islands unit against Wikileaks, its domain Wikileaks.org, and Dynadot, LLC, a domain registrar, claiming that the defendants unlawfully published confidential and counterfeit documents belonging to the bank. The plaintiffs sought the return of the documents in question, allegedly stolen from BJB by a disgruntled former employee, as well as the removal of those documents from defendants' Web sites. Wikileaks contended that the documents revealed illegal financial transactions and tax evasion by the bank, while BJB asserted that they contained confidential information belonging to the bank and its customers and that some of the documents had been altered. What happens next is that federal district court judge Jeffrey White granted the plaintiff relief in the form of a permanent injunction requiring Dynadot, based in San Mateo, California, to lock and disable the Wikileaks.org domain name on February 15, 2008. But the court's order met criticism on several grounds, including constitutional: The permanent injunction was widely condemned as excessive, particularly because the directive to Dynadot blocked an entire Web site on the basis of a dispute relating to a small portion of its content. Critics likened the order to the Pentagon Papers case in which the Supreme Court famously refused a request from the Justice Department to enjoin publication of articles based on documents illegally leaked from the Defense Department. 2Whatever the causes for such crisis, this is how Steve Coll for New America Foundation puts it:
The rate of destruction of professional journalism -and its output of independent reporting on American public institutions and on international affairs- is far outpacing the ability of new institutions to reproduce what is being lost, particularly in its civic functions. Secular and cyclical economic forces have suddenly combined to dismantle the business models that have for decades supported independent, public-minded reporting for large general audiences about local and state government, Congress, the executive branch, and international affairs. According to one organization that tracks newspaper job losses, the industry shed an estimated 15,970 jobs in 2008 and 8,484 through April of this year. The rapid and large-scale loss of independent reporting by many of these professionals, without any prospect of its replacement by new institutions in the foreseeable future, is an urgent matter of public interest.3 By now we should be used to the "evil rhetoric."
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Hyperbole, vitriol and bullets
In light of last night's shooting in Arizona, the issue on the table is freedom of expression. Much freedom is allowed when that it's used to distort and incite the masses. Giffords' shooting caused 6 lives, including Judge John Roll (on a Marchall protection plan) and a 9 year old girl.
We should learn that words and images have consequences:
I'm not saying Palin's "targets" caused Jared Lee to act. I simply point to a correlation between political rhetoric and people's beliefs. The vitriol, the constant use of guns together with the invocation of the Ur-Constitution1, which makes up for something as bizarre as this send-a-warrior-to-congress poster:
Is politics essentially a realm of hyperbole, distortions and vitriol? Predictably, gun rights' inflated language gets mixed with a bombastic and bellicose anti-government rhetoric:
In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill argues that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
There is a "liberal" interpretation of Mill. We should be free to express ourselves. The state should not interfere (in Liberalism the State is the bogeyman). Ideally, we should be educated enough to read between the lines and make up our minds. No one should do it for us. But as we know from the Lee Laughners and McVeighs of this world, there are intolerant and violent individuals who will not be educated and will buy the rhetoric. What then?
What do you do with false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language and dehumanizing metaphors? Are not these ingredients the perfect broth for "hate speech"?
In countries like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands hate speech is prohibited. In our country, in light of the First Amendment, our position remains ambivalent.
How do you reconcile freedom of expression in a world with terrorism and political polarization? Is there a middle way?
________
Update: To illustrate my point. Just after the shooting, members of the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist Church, known for their anti-homosexual propaganda proposed to picket funerals of Arizona victims. They published the following in their Website (appropriately dubbed www.godhatesfags.com):
_____
1By Ur-Constitution, I mean the "original constitution w/o amendments." A constitution that many people in our country keep invoking.
We should learn that words and images have consequences:
I'm not saying Palin's "targets" caused Jared Lee to act. I simply point to a correlation between political rhetoric and people's beliefs. The vitriol, the constant use of guns together with the invocation of the Ur-Constitution1, which makes up for something as bizarre as this send-a-warrior-to-congress poster:
In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill argues that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
There is a "liberal" interpretation of Mill. We should be free to express ourselves. The state should not interfere (in Liberalism the State is the bogeyman). Ideally, we should be educated enough to read between the lines and make up our minds. No one should do it for us. But as we know from the Lee Laughners and McVeighs of this world, there are intolerant and violent individuals who will not be educated and will buy the rhetoric. What then?
What do you do with false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language and dehumanizing metaphors? Are not these ingredients the perfect broth for "hate speech"?
In countries like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands hate speech is prohibited. In our country, in light of the First Amendment, our position remains ambivalent.
How do you reconcile freedom of expression in a world with terrorism and political polarization? Is there a middle way?
________
Update: To illustrate my point. Just after the shooting, members of the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist Church, known for their anti-homosexual propaganda proposed to picket funerals of Arizona victims. They published the following in their Website (appropriately dubbed www.godhatesfags.com):
If these words not incendiary, what is?God sent the shooter!
Your federal judge is dead and your (fag-promoting, baby-killing, proud-sinner) Congresswoman fights for her life. God is avenging Himself on this rebellious house! WBC prays for your destruction--more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner--all. Your doom is upon you!
_____
1By Ur-Constitution, I mean the "original constitution w/o amendments." A constitution that many people in our country keep invoking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)