On the future of the global system
A predictable outlook on International Relations
Predictable, since there is no empirical evidence to support it, only an inclusive analysis of the global system as it is today, and how it will probably look like in the future, if it stays on the course that is currently in motion. The motion, or the driving mechanism I speak of, is globalization. It has bestowed its rules indiscriminately on all countries, making competitiveness the absolute priority. One must question, the future that such a system mainly characterized by competitiveness, has to offer, to the international relations of countries around the globe. I once pondered on the novelty of that word "competitiveness", when I said "It would be ignorant to not see that barriers are being torn down constantly, yet it would be the pinnacle of ignorance to not see the system of blocs that is being created to replace them in order to alleviate competitiveness, that replaces those torn down barriers with ever larger and sturdier walls. What will happen fifty years along the road of globalization? Will it force small countries to unite in order to compete? Is the complete unification of the European continent, Latin America, the remaining relatively small Asian tigers, and the Arab World a given, or will they wither away?"
If necessity is indeed the mother of all invention, then the meshing of certain small states into one entity is inevitable. Small individual countries, no matter how robust their economic performance and their decent standards of living, will mostly strive for more, history serving as a precedent, with a few exceptions acknowledged. The pressure exerted on countries to produce and reform is often overwhelming, even after applying all necessary reforms, the sheer magnitude of their economies will obviously be a crucial element contributing to just how much they can offer their people. Therefore the countries that find themselves in a position to unite with other similar countries (ethnically or ideologically), in order to expand and enrich their economies will inevitably do so, out of economic needs, if not desirable ideological dreams. Here, a dummy system has been created, to experiment with the notion of one of the predicted blocs that would stem directly from the effects of globalization in the future, (In this case, the Arab world)
The idea behind introducing a truly unique democratic model tailored to cater the Arab world is simple. It is first and foremost, about Arab competitiveness in the global system. Implemented with validity by way of the ballot box, this system will put into consideration the freedom of man to be, and to choose his own destiny. If man is to be presumed free by nature, then any constraints on his freedom is unjust, as long as he is leading a life that does not harm others around him in his society. The idea behind it is to insure maximum flexibility for tranquil, economically and socially sustainable, prosperous provinces (Currently sovereign independent Arab countries), so that the citizens of that United Arab World can excel, no longer awaiting concessions from large powers in order to promote fair globalization. Instead, the urge to take matters into their own hands, due to the discontent of being the underdog in such a system, will overwhelm them. A well publicized example of unfair trade in recent years has been the developed worlds' insistence (Mainly European countries), on keeping mainly their farm subsidies in place, therefore leading to a decline in the developing worlds' agricultural exports.
The core concept is integrating the two predominant forces on both the social and political fields in the Arab World today, they are the religious/conservative and the liberal/secular. In my opinion there are certain, in fact numerous limits to individual liberty. I am equally certain however, that it is our duty to extend and expand them as much as humanly possible, in order to receive the true consent needed from man to bind him. Therefore guaranteeing both sides an equal voice regarding how they wish to be ruled is in my opinion by no means tresspassing the limits set upon individual liberty, yet still, such a goal in the current system remains unattainable at best.
-Tamer Elsahy
I think you might want to rewrite these lines. Right now I understand that you want to extend and expand the limits and not individual liberty. I find it also akward that you use the phrase "to bind him" as if the goal you had in mind was an utopia where human freedom does not matter any more. (Comment this)
You fail to note the most obvious and influential of humans trends here - stupidity. Most people will take the word of whoemever is willing to think for them and has a big stick.
Democracy demands people who'd rather die on their feet than live on their knees - and a religion of submission seems kind of detrimental to this notion by definition.
In other words, I do not believe that hardcore Islam and hardcore liberalism are capable of reconciliation. And it's a bit difficult to be NOT hardcore in either of them.
(Comment this)
I honestly would like to have a better understanding of why Palestine continually looks like such a s***hole. Or am I just seeing selectively impoverished areas in the news because that is where the news happens? (Comment this)
After I finished my service in Nacha"l Rangers - we have finally left Lebanon, and good riddance! - I was transferred to the Jericho Joint Patrol. Not sure whether you have heard of it, but it was a fairly common practice back in the days of the hudna; IDF and PA police patrolling PA-controlled turf together. In Jericho, it mostly included driving around in Jeeps a bit and then having coffee and houmus under an old tree for a few hours.
Well, Jericho of these days was a splendid place. The casino was bringing in the big bucks, the city had more restaurants and gift shops than population, agriculture was booming, the streets were clean... Really a good place to live in, save for the godsdamn heat. Oh, sure, we had our share of unpleasantness - petty crime, the Jericho psycho that got the kicks out of raping young boys (we got him in the end), the daily heart attacks among the tourists in the casino... but it was nothing major. The biggest thing we had there during that period was the time when the Islamic Jihad, IIRC, threw a Molotov cocktail into a passing car and burned alive an Israeli woman and her 2-year-old girl. But, as I said, it was the exception rather than the rule.
But there was this feeling in the air... a feeling of foreboding, you know? Eveybody knew it was a hudna and not a real peace. Khaled, the big chief of our Palestinian counterparts, smiled secretively when he remembered his good old days in the first Intifada (he was crazier than a loon, but that is normal for a paramilitary commander). The Force 17 fucks gave us all dirty, knowing looks... but most of all, there was the feeling in the air. Like a gathering storm you cannot see.
And boy, did it break. Old Yasser - the Rayiss - pushed the button that started the new intifada. And within the span of a single day, everything changed. The guys we had coffee with on a daily basis suddenly started shooting at us. Khaled stopped being nice and let his inner beast surface. The casino was occupied by gunmen that constantly fired on us. The old tree under which we drank coffee was blown up. Shops were looted by militias. Restaurants closed. Hothouses were shattered. The streets filled with gunfire and rubble.
Our base was burned down and riddled with bullets - where once we had only plaster walls, now stands reinforced concrete. The casino was shelled to get rid of the snipers. The local population descended back into violence and poverty.
And this, my friends, is the sad tale of what briefly was the most successful town in PA. It might have many morals, or it might have none at all. Me - well, I take it simply: there is no point in buiding that which be destroyed by stupidity and bloodlust. There is no point in paying the Hamas when they could have easily resurrected the prosperity of Jericho... had they only wanted.
I mourn for Jericho. Sorry for rambling.
(Comment this)
Now, if I ever need to make the same point again, at least I'll have this anecdotal evidence to support it.
Thanks again. (Comment this)
An amusing point - Palestinians means "invaders" in Hebrew :) (Comment this)
Gadfly, I was doing a documentary about the Gaza economy after the withdrawal (and I did a terrible job, but some points were valid enough). It was a perfect time to reform the economy and bring in real benefits for their people, the Israeli's were giving consessions (permiting the relative flow of trade, ect..), and the Palestinian Authority needed only to prove that it was capable. It was not however, and my understanding was that Islamic Jihad was primarily the main obstacle, since it continued its rocket frenzy against Israel, forcing them to retaliate by eliminating most of their offered consessions. Then of course the story goes on. Hamas comes into power, evidently leaving no hope for the Palestinian economy to recover. I personally think they are to blame. Yes they are the choice of the people, yet once in government they should have conceeded some of their cards, yet, old habits die hard, and Hamas is no exception.
Other than that, thanks for sharing your personal account with us Raccoon, im liking this whole blogging thing more each day.
My Word spell check isnt working, just in case anyone plans to make fun of my spelling :p
(Comment this)
I think they need to take a line from my mother. Whenever something gets blown up or otherwise destroyed, put up a sign that says "this is why we can't have nice things!" (Comment this)
On the other hand, the people who are making the laws are not "the people" - these are individuals, usually chosen by people chosen by people chosen by people chosen by the public. That's the way it is in a modern democracy, anyway. These people do not, usually, understand the full ramifications of their actions (except for as these apply to to the lawmakers, and even then partially).
And since modern nation-states tend to be on the large side, they have incredibly complex societies and sub-societies, each with different notions of right/wrong, different desires and different ethics. This is further exacerbated by the extreme polarity of Islam and liberalism - they simply appear to be incompatible, as one demands total control of all the aspects of life and the other demands as much freedom in these as possible.
In conclusion - I do not see the Arabic world uniting in any coherent fashion, or embracing liberalism, as long as Islam is in control of the Arabs. Since competitiveness under such conditions is obviously impossible, I see two possible futures for the Arab world: secularization (with the freedoms it entails) or descent into poverty and obscurity (when the oil wealth runs out).
Currently I predict the latter, with a nice world war thrown in for good measure.
(Comment this)
The most important thing to remember when designing a system of democracy (or a republic) is that politics attracts crooks. Most politicians are in it for money and/or power. Human nature is the same everywhere, regardless of what religion people follow.
The US constitution was designed on the assumption that most politicians are bad, and especially the ones who claim to be deeply religious. It has stood up well against all the attempts of politicians and lawyers to undermine it over the past two centuries.
Copying it closely would be a good starting point for a democracy for any Muslim country.
Note that it is _not_ in any way based on Christianity - quite the reverse. (Comment this)
(Comment this)