Egyptians protesting across the country

[Zaune]

BBC News also showed the opposition protesters operating their checkpoints with pat-downs, presumably to avert the kind of agent provocateur stunt I was worried about the other night.

[Eframepilot]

It looks like today was a total victory for the anti-Mubarak protesters. Demonstrations in Tahrir Square and elsewhere were even bigger than on Tuesday, and the regime's thugs' attacks were minimized by the anti side's coordination and interventions by the army. The regime seems to have backed off its attempt to crush the protests by force, at least for now.

On the other hand, Mubarak is still in power and only the army can dislodge him, with Suleiman being his almost certain replacement. Also, both the pro-regime forces and the army have been cracking down on foreign journalists.

[fgalkin]

I was originally sympathetic to the protesters, but then I found out that Egypt has a 95% rate of Female Genital Mutilation. Mubarak tried to ban the practice repeatedly, but no one listened, and 9 out of 10 Egyptian women are still clitoris-free.

So, fuck them. They get democracy when they stop being bronze age savages. Until then, a dictator is all they deserve.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Samuel]

I was originally sympathetic to the protesters, but then I found out that Egypt has a 95% rate of Female Genital Mutilation. Mubarak tried to ban the practice repeatedly, but no one listened, and 9 out of 10 Egyptian women are still clitoris-free.

So, fuck them. They get democracy when they stop being bronze age savages. Until then, a dictator is all they deserve.

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean it is okay to hurt them. It is only acceptable to do so when it makes things better. In this case it doesn't because people don't "deserve" governments. Regressive attitudes like this exist because they live in a closed and traditional society. When that gets destroyed, than people will improve.

Otherwise, it is a bit like arguing the USSR deserved Stalin because Russian men beat their wives.

[fgalkin]

How will this change in a democracy? There were laws and court rulings banning the practice, and no one listened. Do you think this will change once the people who cut off clitorises are the ones running things? It will get worse, not better.

Democracy doesn't change societies. If anything, it makes the entrenched values stronger. Look at the Bible Belt if you want a US example.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[K. A. Pital]

How will this change in a democracy?

Most of the protestors are young people who are educated, but are out of job. Are young people in Egypt supporting genital mutilation en masse, or is it a problem with the older people? The fall of a gerontocracy would be beneficial in any case.

Moreover, dictatorship does not change the practice of genital mutilation unless it is in the dictator's interest (and it won't be, it's not a key issue and alienating folks for no reason is not sound - so dictatorship is no panacea). Even an islamist society (which is not a 100% probable outcome) is not guaranteed to support FGM (Iran and Iraq, for one, have low rates of FGM, however surprisingly the Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey are among the main perpetrators of FGM).

There were laws and court rulings banning the practice, and no one listened. Do you think this will change once the people who cut off clitorises are the ones running things? It will get worse, not better.

It can't get much worse if the rate is over 90%. This has nothing to do with democracy. The bans originated from the fact that FGM has led to several deaths, not to Mubarak's benevolence.

[Darth Raptor]

You solve these problems by opening societies and closing wealth gaps. Access to education, transparency and accountability in a government which protects speech fosters the exposure of non-retarded ideas like "hey maybe no genital mutilation". Gotta love the endemic hostility to democracy on the Smartest Board on the Internet. But no, keep treating the Egyptians like Dark Age peasants until they stop acting like them.

[K. A. Pital]

See, it's easier to claim that people who live on $2 per day deserve "only dictatorship" because they're so fucking dumb; never connecting the dots between "$2 per day", "an oligarchy that keeps Egypt backwards and poor" and "stupidity of the people". In essence, mistaking the symptom of poverty for the cause, and then saying perpetrating dictatorial shitholeness is the best course of action.

Those who know me good enough know that I'm not the first to defend democracy when faced with some examples of its obvious failures, and sometimes indeed a dictatorship can usher greater progress than a democracy - for a variety of reasons. However, it is truly deplorable when said dictatorship is being defended NOT because it ushered any progress; no, just because the "backwards people" deserve to be opressed. Ow.

[fgalkin]

See, it's easier to claim that people who live on $2 per day deserve "only dictatorship" because they're so fucking dumb; never connecting the dots between "$2 per day", "an oligarchy that keeps Egypt backwards and poor" and "stupidity of the people". In essence, mistaking the symptom of poverty for the cause, and then saying perpetrating dictatorial shitholeness is the best course of action.

Would a democracy improve their lot, though? Would they be open and Western? Take a look at the history of democracy in any African country, or, hell, even Russia or Ukraine and tell me that it would be an improvement over the current state. And that's not even counting what would happen if the Islamists take power (which they probably will- they're the only organized opposition in the whole country).

Those who know me good enough know that I'm not the first to defend democracy when faced with some examples of its obvious failures, and sometimes indeed a dictatorship can usher greater progress than a democracy - for a variety of reasons. However, it is truly deplorable when said dictatorship is being defended NOT because it ushered any progress; no, just because the "backwards people" deserve to be opressed. Ow.

It was an emotional statement, and you know it. The point is, however, that I am not convinced that Mubarak's corrupt and oppressive, but also secular and pro-Western regime is worse than the alternative. Even assuming that the Islamists don't take power, would the lot of the people really be improved under democracy, or will the new government will be formed of corrupt Mubarak's flunkies and ineffectual dissidents?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Samuel]

Would a democracy improve their lot, though?

Yes. Free and fair democracies tend to be better at dealing with corruption. Plus democracies have the obvious benefit that you don't have to have massive distruptions to change regimes.

Would they be open and Western?

Yes. To deal with unemployment they have to open up. Given the visceral reaction people have to genital mutilation it might start to rub off on them. After all part of the reason they do it is because they don't see that it is wrong. Get them to leave the country and see that western nations aren't dens of hedonism and interact with people who find it abhorant and they will change.

Take a look at the history of democracy in any African country, or, hell, even Russia or Ukraine and tell me that it would be an improvement over the current state.

Yes, lets us compare it to former colonies that were controlled by people ruthless enough to lead rebel armies or nations that were founded by oligarchs.

Democracy doesn't change societies. If anything, it makes the entrenched values stronger. Look at the Bible Belt if you want a US example.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-A ... iages.aspx

Interracial marriage had 4% support in 1958. It was legalized when it had about 20%. Now it has over 70%. Change happens, even in the Bible Belt.

[K. A. Pital]

Would a democracy improve their lot, though?

You can't be sure, but certainly the female mutilation argument doesn't hold any water here - the rates were sky-high during Mubarak's three decades of rule. Now seriously... That's a problem, but let's not get behind someone who did jack and shit to remedy it. Now, if Mubarak actually enforced a ban on that or banned it as soon as he came to power and these 30 years would signify a rise of secular culture in Egypt, you'd have a good point for letting him stay.

The point is, however, that I am not convinced that Mubarak's corrupt and oppressive, but also secular and pro-Western regime is worse than the alternative. Even assuming that the Islamists don't take power, would the lot of the people really be improved under democracy, or will the new government will be formed of corrupt Mubarak's flunkies and ineffectual dissidents?

Me neither. However, perpetuating Mubarak's regime doesn't change anything for the better. Unlike Iraq, where the American invasion that deposed Hussein came with bombs and killings and everything Dark Age that the war carries with it, the Tunisia and Egypt protests so far had been a very calm revolution, if one might compare it to other similar events.

I hope for the best for Egypt's socialists - Nasseries, the CPE, etc. because I know they'd be secular and educated. Part of the problem they could never rise to power when there's Mubarak on top. If they fail, that would be a deplorable failure (in Tunisia, as I found out, a secular government with socialists and progressives in charge of education and culture policies had been formed after Ben Ali fled, I can only hope Egypt does the same).

[Zixinus]

I'm sorry, but while I find female genitalia mutilation horrific, isn't this a side issue and an unworthy distraction?

Yes, the Egyptians should get rid of this bad practice. But wouldn't it be easier to get rid of it in a democracy, with the sincere arguments and wills to do so, rather than the half-assed attempt by a dictator that may or may not care?

[Seggybop]

I'm sorry, but while I find female genitalia mutilation horrific, isn't this a side issue and an unworthy distraction?

Yes, the Egyptians should get rid of this bad practice. But wouldn't it be easier to get rid of it in a democracy, with the sincere arguments and wills to do so, rather than the half-assed attempt by a dictator that may or may not care?

I agree that it's rather pointless to discuss this now, but I suspect that it's easier to ban things that have the support of 90% of the population if you're a dictator rather than if you need majority support first.

[MKSheppard]

See, it's easier to claim that people who live on $2 per day deserve "only dictatorship" because they're so fucking dumb; never connecting the dots between "$2 per day"

In the Philippines, it seems the average job pays $6 a day; while about 33% of the population is below the poverty line of $1 a day; yet the place is a remarkably well adjusted place; except for the you know, death squads that are a result of the islamic conflicts on some islands and the result of random crooked politicans.

It's not a shining beacon of humanity, but it's not the absolute shithole that a lot of islamic countries are.

[Dark Hellion]

I'm sorry, but while I find female genitalia mutilation horrific, isn't this a side issue and an unworthy distraction?

Yes, the Egyptians should get rid of this bad practice. But wouldn't it be easier to get rid of it in a democracy, with the sincere arguments and wills to do so, rather than the half-assed attempt by a dictator that may or may not care?

I agree that it's rather pointless to discuss this now, but I suspect that it's easier to ban things that have the support of 90% of the population if you're a dictator rather than if you need majority support first.

Yup. Things like freedom of religion, freedom of press or freedom of expression. Have an ethnic minority you don't like and economic problems? Well, just scapegoat them and you can even have a nice friendly genocide ethnic cleansing (changed to be legalistically correct ). See, everything's easier with a dictatorship.

It would be nice to go one day without seeing N&P polluted by some stupid bastard making smug proclamations about other countries. But that's apparently asking a lot.

[K. A. Pital]

See, it's easier to claim that people who live on $2 per day deserve "only dictatorship" because they're so fucking dumb; never connecting the dots between "$2 per day"

In the Philippines, it seems the average job pays $6 a day; while about 33% of the population is below the poverty line of $1 a day; yet the place is a remarkably well adjusted place; except for the you know, death squads that are a result of the islamic conflicts on some islands and the result of random crooked politicans. It's not a shining beacon of humanity, but it's not the absolute shithole that a lot of islamic countries are.

How are Philippines vastly superior to any of the shitholes in the Middle East? For God's sake, Egypt was a very popular tourist destination. It's the non-tourist places which show the true face of a nation.

[Zixinus]

I agree that it's rather pointless to discuss this now, but I suspect that it's easier to ban things that have the support of 90% of the population if you're a dictator rather than if you need majority support first.

You are aware that dictators love to make international shows ("look at me and how hip I am!"), such as making laws and then not giving a shit to actually enforce them? Or that people only grudgingly abide a law set by a person they hate rather than a law set by a government they elected?
And even if a dictator gets it done (which is unlikely, unless the dictator genuinely gives a shit, which is even more unlikely) what are the odds that the population will get back to its old dirty habit and show even greater resistance at an suppression attempt due to how it is linked to a hated dictator?

Some things are easier to do from a position of a dictator. Not everything is.

[Zixinus]

You are aware that dictators love to make international shows ("look at me and how hip I am!"), such as making laws and then not giving a shit to actually enforce them? Or that people only grudgingly abide a law set by a person they hate rather than a law set by a government they elected?
And even if a dictator gets it done (which is unlikely, unless the dictator genuinely gives a shit, which is even more unlikely) what are the odds that the population will get back to its old dirty habit and show even greater resistance at an suppression attempt due to how it is linked to a hated dictator?

Some things are easier to do from a position of a dictator. Not everything is.

Actually, scratch all that: tell me, is it worthwhile to leave a hated and otherwise unproductive dictator in power just for the sake stopping of one (if very bad) tradition? That the right of the people to form their own government should be denied for only one reprehensible aspect of their culture?

[Simon_Jester]

I think some people here are overestimating what a dictator can really do to change a national culture. Especially when they have good reason to worry about their own ability to remain in power, not just about remaking the civilization in their own image.

I mean, how many examples are there in recorded history of something like this really changing that way- of some benevolent tyrant sitting down and forcing everyone to stop doing something horrible? Can we come up with example of customs that went down like that, without widespread popular disapproval of the custom, or without a long, multi-generational process by which people got tired of it?

[The Grim Squeaker]

You are aware that dictators love to make international shows ("look at me and how hip I am!"), such as making laws and then not giving a shit to actually enforce them? Or that people only grudgingly abide a law set by a person they hate rather than a law set by a government they elected?
And even if a dictator gets it done (which is unlikely, unless the dictator genuinely gives a shit, which is even more unlikely) what are the odds that the population will get back to its old dirty habit and show even greater resistance at an suppression attempt due to how it is linked to a hated dictator?

Some things are easier to do from a position of a dictator. Not everything is.

Actually, scratch all that: tell me, is it worthwhile to leave a hated and otherwise unproductive dictator in power just for the sake stopping of one (if very bad) tradition? That the right of the people to form their own government should be denied for only one reprehensible aspect of their culture?

The question is moot, since we're not talking about just one reprehensible tradition.

[Broomstick]

How will this change in a democracy? There were laws and court rulings banning the practice, and no one listened. Do you think this will change once the people who cut off clitorises are the ones running things? It will get worse, not better.

Given that most of the time female circumcision is performed it's a woman doing the surgery, and women have little to no power in such countries as Egypt, arguably it's NOT the people in charge doing this and are unlikely to be in charge any time soon. Maybe if they were in charge they'd be too preoccupied with other matters to be butchering young girls.

There is evidence (such as clitoris-free mummies) that this has been going on in Egypt for thousands of years, it certainly pre-dates Islam, and there's a reason the most extreme form of FGM is called a "pharonic" circumcision. While I in no way approve of FGM, waiting for it to go away before getting a better form of governance for the country and improving the other ills of that society just condemns more generations to misery. Prosperity, education, and more options for people will do more to drive down the rate of this horrific practice than will leaving a dictatorship in place.

[Zixinus]

The question is moot, since we're not talking about just one reprehensible tradition.

So you are in the position to judge who can get democracy and who doesn't now?

How does it follow that a culture has a reprehensible practices (or practices), they do not "deserve" democracy?

Because here was I, thinking that people MAKE democracy, not "given" it. Egyptians, with or without their abhorrent cultural baggage, are human beings, not a nation of primitive children-men who must be beaten into proper behavior.

Besides, we can look at a lot of pre-industrialized in history that had pretty nasty traditions and ideas yet still were acknowledged their government as capable of working under democracy. Interestingly, they tended to mostly get rid of those practices with time and development of the country.

[fgalkin]

Would a democracy improve their lot, though?

Yes. Free and fair democracies tend to be better at dealing with corruption. Plus democracies have the obvious benefit that you don't have to have massive distruptions to change regimes.

That's assuming they're free and fair, a hell of an assumption to make. Look at the most recent corruption perception index, most of the really corrupt countries are nominal democracies.

Hell, that's assuming Egypt does not turn into a fundamentalist shithole in the first place.

Would they be open and Western?

Yes. To deal with unemployment they have to open up. Given the visceral reaction people have to genital mutilation it might start to rub off on them. After all part of the reason they do it is because they don't see that it is wrong. Get them to leave the country and see that western nations aren't dens of hedonism and interact with people who find it abhorant and they will change.

"Open up"? Considering Egypt's primary source of income is tourism, and considering they're one of the more pro-Western Middle Eastern nations, I'd say that the lack of interaction is not the problem.

And "get them to leave the country"? Are you for real? People who make $2 a day don't go on foreign vacations and if they emigrate (not an easy process), they won't actually be in the country anymore, would they?

Take a look at the history of democracy in any African country, or, hell, even Russia or Ukraine and tell me that it would be an improvement over the current state.

Yes, lets us compare it to former colonies that were controlled by people ruthless enough to lead rebel armies or nations that were founded by oligarchs.

What else should we compare it to? It IS a former colony that was controlled by oligarchs. It's not going to magically turn into France the second Mubarak steps down.

Democracy doesn't change societies. If anything, it makes the entrenched values stronger. Look at the Bible Belt if you want a US example.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-A ... iages.aspx

Interracial marriage had 4% support in 1958. It was legalized when it had about 20%. Now it has over 70%. Change happens, even in the Bible Belt.

You mean that same South that when left to its own devices continued to oppress blacks for a century after the Civil War. That same South that required students to be escorted to school by the 101st Airborne? One that required a massive campaign from Northern activists, who were brutally suppressed and even murdered? That South?

Thank you for providing an excellent example of what an "undemocratic" outside force can do to promote positive change at the expense of democracy. I could not have done a better job myself (well, actually I could have, but that's not the point).

You can't be sure, but certainly the female mutilation argument doesn't hold any water here - the rates were sky-high during Mubarak's three decades of rule. Now seriously... That's a problem, but let's not get behind someone who did jack and shit to remedy it. Now, if Mubarak actually enforced a ban on that or banned it as soon as he came to power and these 30 years would signify a rise of secular culture in Egypt, you'd have a good point for letting him stay.

It's true that he's not doing a hell of a lot, but at least he's doing something, as ineffectual as it may be. Any successive regime, whether it's democratic or Islamist would probably do even less.

Me neither. However, perpetuating Mubarak's regime doesn't change anything for the better. Unlike Iraq, where the American invasion that deposed Hussein came with bombs and killings and everything Dark Age that the war carries with it, the Tunisia and Egypt protests so far had been a very calm revolution, if one might compare it to other similar events.

I hope for the best for Egypt's socialists - Nasseries, the CPE, etc. because I know they'd be secular and educated. Part of the problem they could never rise to power when there's Mubarak on top. If they fail, that would be a deplorable failure (in Tunisia, as I found out, a secular government with socialists and progressives in charge of education and culture policies had been formed after Ben Ali fled, I can only hope Egypt does the same).

One could certainly hope, but a truly progressive government would not last very long when the people are poor and illiterate and don't even understand what the progressives are talking about because it's totally outside their frame of reference. Such a government is a perfect target for populist demagogues who exploit the people's ignorance to gain power, and there is no real defense against it.

I think some people here are overestimating what a dictator can really do to change a national culture. Especially when they have good reason to worry about their own ability to remain in power, not just about remaking the civilization in their own image.

I mean, how many examples are there in recorded history of something like this really changing that way- of some benevolent tyrant sitting down and forcing everyone to stop doing something horrible? Can we come up with example of customs that went down like that, without widespread popular disapproval of the custom, or without a long, multi-generational process by which people got tired of it?

Look at the history of Russian expansion into Central Asia, which was the 19th century's equivalent of sub-Saharan Africa, the complete and utter shithole of the world. Look at the changes they implemented.

Or, hell, look at some of the Communist changes in China and Russia. There are a lot of examples that show that it can happen if there's a will to do it.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Samuel]

You mean that same South that when left to its own devices continued to oppress blacks for a century after the Civil War. That same South that required students to be escorted to school by the 101st Airborne? One that required a massive campaign from Northern activists, who were brutally suppressed and even murdered? That South?

Thank you for providing an excellent example of what an "undemocratic" outside force can do to promote positive change at the expense of democracy. I could not have done a better job myself (well, actually I could have, but that's not the point).

And that is relevant to my point how exactly? People in favor of inter-racial marriage went from 4% to 20% just by exposure to others. The graph shows that the change in attitudes was constant even before legalization. Before Loving the rate of change was 1.6 per year and afterwards it was 1.9 per year.

That's assuming they're free and fair, a hell of an assumption to make. Look at the most recent corruption perception index, most of the really corrupt countries are nominal democracies.

Whoever the new leader is will have to deal with the fact that they can't just rig elections because their Murdack did it and he got kicked out. It is a good first step.

"Open up"? Considering Egypt's primary source of income is tourism, and considering they're one of the more pro-Western Middle Eastern nations, I'd say that the lack of interaction is not the problem.

I'm pretty sure tourists spend most of their time looking at Egyptian ruins. It is less than useful for interacting with people.

And "get them to leave the country"? Are you for real? People who make $2 a day don't go on foreign vacations and if they emigrate (not an easy process), they won't actually be in the country anymore, would they?

I was talking about business. You need Egyptian businesspeople leaving the country to coordinate with foreign firms and seeing what western culture is like, foreign firms who come to the country, student exchange programs, etc.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

Egypt is not an isolated rural shithole. The Wafd party - you know, the guys who actually ARE actively involved in the protests, rather than the Muslim Brotherhood, who conspicuously aren't really? - have campaigned in large part on liberalization.

The Muslim Brotherhood is *kinda* shit from a secularist perspective, but the new Egyptian government would almost certainly look more like Turkey than like the Taliban. Or like Iran, come to that; you may have noticed a distinct lack of religious rhetoric in this revolution.