Is This What a Democracy Looks Like?

The man who was just praised as the hero for the Palestinians and for the Israelis, the huge victor in the peace deal,  and as a major player, has now been dubbed the new Pharaoh and is even being likened to Hitler. 

What a difference a day can make. This past week, Mohammad Morsi, Egypt's President and central figure in the recent truce between Hamas and Israel, issued a declaration banning challenges to his decrees, laws and decisions granting him unchecked power. This extremely controversial move has been met with widespread protests in Egypt's major cities. The headlines have quickly changed and now Morsi is not being heralded as a hero but being painted as a dictator. His international 15-minutes of fame have quickly faded and he is losing credibility where it counts the most - Egypt. 

The actions of the Arab Spring demonstrated that Egyptians will not be silenced by an authoritarian leader. Morsi was democratically elected and meant to represent a departure form his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak. Knowing that Mubarak's downfall was the result of his authoritarian, one-sided, top-down measures, how on earth did Morsi think this was a good idea to grant himself unilateral veto powers? Following the events of the Arab Spring, Morsi's task in office couldn't have been clearer - not to go the same route of his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak's rule was an abusive totalitarian state that gripped power for 30 years. The Egyptian people fought for change and democratically elected Morsi but are now surprised by the recent turn of events that make it hard to distinguish the two. Protesters in Tahrir Square were shouting "Wake up, Morsi, it’s your last day,” "Morsi is Mubarak," and “The people want the fall of the regime!” Suddenly, Morsi has transformed into a dictator.

Are Egyptians jumping to conclusions? In Morsi's eyes, he is still acting as the champion of the Arab Spring who is working to protect the revolution and serve as the guardian of political, economic and social stability, albeit in the most sketchy and sneaky manner possible. He argues that this move is an effort to prevent the courts from disbanding the constitutional assembly for a second time as they work on writing the country's new constitution. This action is also ridding the legal system of remaining Mubarak sympathizers in a decision made precisely to respond to the demands of the Tahrir demonstrators. In short, Morsi is arguing that this undemocratic motion is precisely what is needed to make sure the transition to democracy does not get stalled or derailed. No matter how much I want to believe that delusion - I just can't.

Morsi's actions trigger interesting questions.  Was it intentional or merely coincidental that Morsi made such an important decision on the heels of an even more important triumph on the world scene? Did he feel suddenly bolstered by world leaders after earning his stripes in the deal that was brokered? Timing is certainly everything in matters like this and Morsi was definitely coming off a huge victory after mediating the truce between Israel and Gaza. Further securing his feeling of invincibility with a decree cementing uncontested powers is a good way to celebrate, but certianly not for the egyptian masses who took to the streets in protest.

Is Morsi truly interested in promoting democracy or is there a fear that he will take this power and never look back, taking a familiar post-revolutionary turn that ends up resembling the former authoritarian regime? I pray that it isn't the latter. Sure, democracy can't be born overnight - or even in a short year - but such an authoritarian move certainly doesn't accelerate the process, or give much hope for what this democracy will look like. While Morsi has done little to make one question his commitment to democratic change in Egypt, this move certainly sows uncomfortable insecurities that Egypt cannot afford to bear. One thing is for certain, he has lost the trust of the Egyptian people, so hopeful in this democratic experiment, and that is very difficult to regain.

Only Morsi knows what his next move will be,  the real reasons behind it, and what the next headlines will read. Egyptians hope that he will not abandon his democratic mission and relapse into a Mubarak-esque opportunist who will work independently without the consent of Egyptian people. Whatever it is, Mr. Morsi, neither you nor Egypt can afford to prolong this instability and uncertainty if democracy is the true goal. The Arab Spring sought transparency and accountability, and whatever reason Morsi has for making this decree, he must be upfront and forthcoming with it or be responsible for Egypt's democratic regression. 

The Devil You Know

-Helen-Margaret Nasser

Obama's campaigning is not over. He may have charmed America, but it will be tougher to win over Egyptians who are disenchanted by his first term performance. 

For Egyptians, President Obama's visit to Cairo in June 2009 was a promising harbinger of change for American relations with the Arab and Islamic worlds. Obama's campaign message of hope and change resonated with Egyptians. A New York Times article from 2009 assessed his performance:

“Again and again, Muslim listeners said they were struck by how skillfully Mr. Obama appropriated religious, cultural and historical references in ways other American presidents had not. He included four quotations from the Koran and used Arabic greetings. He took note of longstanding historical grievances like the stain of colonialism, American support for the Iranian coup of 1953 and the displacement of the Palestinian people. His speech was also embraced for what it did not do: use the word terrorism, broadly seen here as shorthand for an attack on Islam.”

Fast-forward three years and Obama's promises seem much less credible. Egyptians are skeptical and view him as a liar. "Obama lied to the whole Arab world," one Egyptian man explained, "everybody thought he would be on the Muslims' side. But, none of that has happened."

But how much does all this matter? If the Egyptians are disenchanted, frankly, who cares? Certainly, they aren't the only nation to have been misled, slighted, or trampled by the U.S. This matters only because Obama positioned himself to be extraordinary. He was not going to be that same old American president who is your friend only when it is convenient. He was not going to make promises he couldn't keep. He was going to change the "business as usual" tone of American politics.  He really cared. Aw, now isn't that sweet? 
 

Regardless of the empty promises and naivete, what can Egyptians, or any of us, expect now from Obama's second term? The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. We'll see what the next four years will mean for Obama and for the Egyptians, too. 

Middle East Policy - The Main Attraction?

Tonight marks the third and final Presidential debate. Thank goodness.


Tonight's debate will focus on foreign policy - and while it may not be the key issues that will sway undecided voters, it is still important to gauge how each candidate will act as commander in chief and in terms of diplomacy. We can already sketch the stances of both candidates as a result of some snippets in the past debates especially with respect to China, Iran, and the recent unfolding of events in Libya. What more can we expect to be addressed tonight?

1. Israel. Both candidates will reaffirm their commitment to protecting the state of Israel. This will not change. In fact, you may even find candidates competing to prove who loves Israel more and who will truly defend it. Now discussion of Israel's protection can be held without including...

2. Iran. Iran's nuclear development, its intentions, and its denials have posed what some believe to be a threat to Israeli security and for stability in the region. How should the President respond to this increase? Stick to the sanctions or make adopt a more overt approach and threaten for war?

3. China. Romney has made promises that he would "crack down on China." For doing what, exactly? Those generic statements he made in the last debate didn't explain why he would get tough on China. And this wanton "toughness" should be approached carefully, after all, China remains the largest American trading partner and is still a crucial global economic force. 

4. Exactly what happened in Benghazi, Libya? Obama's answers, although more direct and forceful in the last debate, are still not satisfactory. His handling of the affair can prove to be a handicap for re-election and an open-wound for Romney to attack. Whatever events unfolded, whether they were premeditated or spontaneous, must be laid out in the open.  The recent events in the Middle East displayed its enduring fragility. Foreign policy in the Middle East demands skilled diplomacy and the nurturing of relationships. In his first term, President Obama was weak with his diplomatic relations. Whether it is in support of the Arab leaders or the Arab people, the United States must make their position clear.


Now, my personal bias has been revealed here considering three out of the four topics concern the Middle East. Certainly, there are plenty of foreign policy issues worth discussing tonight - I didn't include European Union relations, the global economy, Russia, and North Korea. But then again, neither has Schieffer.

What Matters for Americans?

-Helen-Margaret Nasser

The meetings of the United Nations General Assembly came and went. As per usual, they were nothing more than the expected long speeches made by leaders who wanted to demonstrate their relevance on the world scene. For the most part, everyone played their part well - with one glaring exception. President Obama avoided meeting with world leaders and instead relied on Secretary of State Clinton to do the schmoozing- freeing up his schedule to head back to the campaign.

At a time when Romney has been attacking Obama's foreign policy credentials calling him soft and too apologetic, and at a time when anti-U.S. sentiments are raging across the Middle East, Obama should have seized the opportunity to address these two pressing points and many others. Now, more than ever, Obama must prove his foreign policy prowess by doing exactly what the president does and by handling these "bumps in the road." This is what would benefit both the country and his campaign. What better way to show that he is fit for the job he is seeking for a second term? Instead, he chose to campaign and convince voters in Virginia that he is the better candidate.

I know, I know, this isn't a surprising choice. Most Americans hardly put foreign affairs on their list of priorities when considering a President and this race is certainly not going to be decided by the proverbial 3 AM phone call. At a time when the economy is low, unemployment is growing, and there is a general malaise among the American people, voters are looking for a candidate dedicated to jump starting the economy and giving their morale a much-needed boost. Talking about foreign wars or solving foreign woes is not at all germane to the conversation most Americans are having. It just doesn't serve as poignant a rallying cry as it did back in 2004.

In 2004, the country was entangled in two foreign wars - embarked upon as a result of attacks on American soil. In this way, foreign affairs had to matter to Americans - it was consuming their economy, their military strength, and certainly affecting their budget deficit. These foreign wars were tangible for most Americans and therefore, they mattered in the presidential campaign. Fast-forward to 2012 - Americans are tired. They are aching to have an inward looking President that will address their ills. That's what matters in this election.

At the end of the day, the game of politics is a delicate one. Every decision is carefully made, calculating the pros and cons of any approach and anticipating the counterattack from the opposing camp. Ultimately, Obama chose to address the American people who more directly determine his fate for the next four years. Once reelected, maybe then Obama will pay the traditional second-term lip service to global issues. 

Lessons Learned

Helen-Margaret Nasser

Unless you have not turned on a TV or picked up a newspaper or read the news on your new iPhone 5 within the past week then you must have heard the endless attacks on Mitt Romney for his latest campaign foible. In what he described as "inelegant" remarks, Romney's comments were directed towards the 47% percent of Americans who are dependent on the government, according to his estimations. The audio tape, taken from a fundraiser in a private home in May, is replete with fodder for the Obama campaign as Romney makes gaffe after gaffe.

While I do not at all agree with Romney's comments, I'm not in the least surprised by them. Simply consider his audience. Consider his setting. The event was a dinner that cost $50,000 a plate hosted by and attended by Romney supporters. What would you expect him to say? These types of events are pep rallies, opportunities to solidify the cheerleaders of your team. If you are the star quarterback, you are going make sure you are on your A-game and deliver crowd-pleaser after crowd-pleaser. Mitt merely delivered the play.

Romney's comments have made center stage because their inelegance has been painted as out of touch and offensive. Nevertheless, the parameters of what is considered to be politically correct are blurred on both camps as the election draws nearer. Don't you think Obama would have similar anti-53% comments in a room full of Obama supporters? How else would a politician be expected to rally support and build his base?

In short, this is campaign season - crunch time! Each candidate will say anything at anytime to any specific audience to please and gain their support. Unless you are a novice, these types of comments should not be surprising.

What else is considered a cardinal rule of campaigning? Making sure that these types of comments don't get leaked to ruin your campaign. A perhaps wiser Romney once said in 2007 "Running for president in the Youtube era, you realize you have to be very judicious in what you say...you have to recognize that anytime you're running for the presidency of the United States, you're on."

It might have taken him a few years, but I think Mitt Romney has learned that lesson now.

Wildfire

I am still in awe over the attacks on the embassies in Egypt and Libya - and just today, in Yemen. 
I am not at all justifying the video that was made that negatively portrayed the prophet Mohammad, but at the same time, I am at a loss for words that it has led to such a reaction. An inappropriate reaction, at that.

Why punish a country  for the actions of a few people? The people who produced the film in question are not representatives of the views of all Americans.Understanding the importance of separating a few rogue individuals from the entire country, Secretary of State Clinton was certain to assert that “The U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.”

Furthermore, isn't this the same gaffe the American government made when it began its War on Terror in 2003? Why punish all Arabs or all Muslims for the acts of one group? This type of retaliation is completely misguided and misdirected.

Egypt's President Morsi highlighted the tension of this incident and the reaction: “The Prophet Muhammad taught us to respect human life,” but made it clear that “The Prophet Muhammad and Islamic sanctities are red lines for all of us.”All heads of states have made public apologies for the actions in their respective countries.

Nevertheless, how can this hostile reaction be avoided? Often in history we have had misguided reactions against the people of entire countries for the acts of their governments - think of how the Germans or Russians were treated during WWII and the Cold War and the embarrassment towards the whole freedom fries agenda towards France. 

Just as how the Arab Spring started from one little flame that led to a region-wide conflagration, I only hope that this current wildfire will be put out sooner than later.

Missed Connection?

The Obama campaign of '08 had an unprecedented mastery of social networking and technology that provided them with a comparatively solid connection to the 18-24 demographic. They had found this source of untapped potential - this shortcut that none of the other racers were privy to - in being able to inspire the youth and get them to the ballots, effectively winning him his seat in the Oval Office. 

The use of technology is still a major player in these elections, and Obama still has the upper hand. But how much does this matter? Are the same youngsters who turned out to vote in '08 making the same commitment to do so on November 6th? In speaking with community college students I have been surprised to see a lack of enthusiasm, interest, and even hope, for this election.  Like Beijing after the 2008 Olympics, the fervor that once rocked the city is gone.

Nevertheless, the zeal should still be strong and should extend beyond the occasional Facebook status update and political meme and be enough to get people to the ballots to vote. The same Facebook and Twitter demographic should remain connected because this election still wrestles with issues that matter. The state of the economy, employment numbers, and education are not just topics worth tweeting about, but topics worth showing up to the ballot box for.

Obama is advocating for the youth more fervently than his competitor. His speech at the Democratic National Convention made sure it reserved plans for greater emphasis on education, student loans relief, and college tuition payments, making promises that should matter to current students, and heck, even recent graduates. Wouldn't it be great to enter the workforce without the burden of college loans? Not to mention, wouldn't it be great to enter the workforce after graduation at all? These are issues that Obama continues to work towards. An election, a presidency, that does not speak for the youth of this country will not speak to the future of this country. These are the issues that should rekindle the hype of '08 and make voters get to the polls.