First Thoughts From the Occupation
There is no doubt that what we are witnessing with the #occupy movement is just that, a movement. The media has defined it as a protest but, now into its 2nd month, and with occupations spreading the world over, it is clearly something more and calling it a movement only begins to describe it.
Since the beginning of the #occupy movement here at home, many people not involved but who give general support have asked what this movement hopes to accomplish: “what is the message?” But while I acknowledge people’s desire to understand what is going on, they must also acknowledge that this is the beginning of a movement. It is not an organization that has a bureaucracy or a mission statement – as of yet. Many of these people met each other for the first time in the last few days. And without any defined leaders, and a preference to reject the idea of leaders in general, this movement has been struggling to organize itself and lay its foundations, all the while stating firmly its commitment to direct democracy and anti-oppressive ideology.
This takes time.
And so for those looking to understand, but are yet unable to be or apprehensive to become involved, please have patience while the answers are resolved, thought out, debated, voted upon and eventually expressed; the answers will come in good time.
In the meantime, the #occupywallstreet movement, who have been at it for 4 weeks, have previously released a declaration from their own occupation of New York City. I believe that their statement adequately reflects many of the reasons the occupation has spread to other cities around the world, and thus I will repost it here for you to read.
Above and beyond that I encourage you to get involved, and attend the occupations yourselves – as it is the best way of discovering the message. After all, the People’s Mic is the medium used in the occupation, and the medium is definitely the message. Aside from that, you can of course observe using the livestreams that are used to broadcast from the occupations. To access the Toronto occupation go to: http://occupyto.org/livestream/
Below is a reposting of the “First ‘official’ statement from the Occupy Wall Street movement”:
This was unanimously voted on by all members of Occupy Wall Street last night, around 8pm, Sept 29. It is our first official document for release. We have three more underway, that will likely be released in the upcoming days: 1) A declaration of demands. 2) Principles of Solidarity 3) Documentation on how to form your own Direct Democracy Occupation Group. This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com.
Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*
To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.
No Illusions
“If Voting Changed Anything, They’d Make It Illegal” – Emma Goldman
Let’s not fool ourselves. It never mattered who won this election. At the end of this months long electoral spectacle we were always going to come out with a government that supported the disaster that is international neoliberal capitalism. There was no alternative presented by any national party that would have ended this tyrannical economic policy. Instead, only slight differences in how the effects could be mitigated upon the population and the environment were presented – we were given no real choice at all.
Yet, as the Harper Government secured its long coveted majority, Canadian’s were told we were witnessing a major shift in our political landscape. And it’s true, we were. But it’s not the simple changing of the guard, or the switch of left leaning parties that the corporate media is peddling – it’s not even a massive blow to separatism. No, what Canadians are witnessing is a political shift in the way the constituency is dealing with a failed social contract and the increasing hardship Canadians are bearing for this failure. Up until now, the left had been willing to forgive, to buy into the illusion that somehow the morally liberal free market governance of the past would continue to allow for our prosperity; a prospect the political right had long ago given up on. But the continued corporate dominance over our government, our media, and our economic policy (to name but a few instances) has proven that illusion to be false, and we cannot forgive this anymore; for we are paying for it with our lives.
Prof. David Hulchanski, of the Center for Urban & Community Studies at the University of Toronto, presented three maps in his 2010 report The Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization Among Toronto’s Neighborhoods, 1970-2005, which point to the growing gap between the have’s and the have-nots in contemporary Torontonian society.
In the first map from 1970, we see a Toronto mostly made up of middle-income neighborhoods, making up 66% of the city:
In the second map, from 2005, the size of this middle-income area decreased to just 29% of the city, while the lower-income bracket increased by 22% (defined as 20% below the average income), and the lowest-income bracket increased by 13% (40% below). At the same time, those making the very top income (40% above) increased there by 8%.
The maps don’t indicate a smaller middle class because it is calculated by mean average (in fact, regardless of income category income increased). But while the average income of the lowest income earner increased by 32%, the average income of the wealthiest increased by 90%. More worrisome is the the demographic movement from middle-income earners to lower-income earners. For anyone who moved down this ladder, they likely didn’t see much in the way of increased income at all. The poor might not be getting poorer (yet), but the rich are definitely getting richer, and less and less people are participating in this growing wealth.
But Hulchanski’s map only tells part of the story, because it’s only looking at our private incomes, and not our shared wealth. In her lecture given at 2010’s Walter Gordon Massey Symposium entitled Income Inequality and the Pursuit of Prosperity, economist Armine Yalnizyan, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, writes:
This past decade saw the lion’s share of wage gains go to Canadians at the top, and the public policy priority of the decade was tax cuts, which also primarily accrued to people at the top. Instead of using a steady portion of a rapidly expanding economy to invest in the things that define the good life for a society, we shrank governments and, not surprisingly, we found ourselves having trouble finding the money to keep existing public assets in good repair, or even keeping the pools and rinks and libraries open for our kids to use.
This rush to privatization has been peddled as the best way to improve cost and efficiency, but the social cost is further inequality, as it eats into after-tax incomes, further burdening those that are already facing soaring food and energy prices. Yalnizyan says we have “privatized the very notion of prosperity. We consider vast excess at the top to be normal, and have grown accustomed to hearing that access to the basics – basics like housing, education, savings for retirement or a rainy day – is increasingly difficult to attain for many, and not just the poorest.” While the top income earners can absorb these costs rather easily, everyone else are made even poorer because they no longer have the benefit of these commons.
This growing segment of the developed world, including many Canadians, are now searching for a new deal because the liberal class’s acceptance of neoliberal capitalism has failed to keep their side of the bargain. It is the simplest explanation for why one would care to give up their basic human freedoms; these rights have not protected the hard workers of this country regardless of whether we still believe in their importance – or not. The demise of the Liberal Party, and the Bloc Quebecios can be explained (always partly) in this sense – both parties espouse a status quo that is no longer working for its supporters. Equally so, the shift to the more polar forms of representation of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party can also be seen in this light – in this case they are the hope being peddled (real or not) to a citizenry that is desperate for answers.
It is here that we enter an era of instability (needed as it may be), because as people search for answers away from a center that has failed them, voices of extremism will inevitably pull us apart. As Armine Yalnizyan concluded “the middle class is the conveyor belt of ideas, social norms, cultural expectations. The more incomes are polarized, the less social glue we share”. And rather than sit down for honest discussions about how to fix our problems, we are being conned into calling names at each other. “Fascist!” yells one side. “Socialist!” yells the other. Both sides have a right to be angry – we’ve all been failed – but being angered by our differences does not help us overcome the corporate rule we are now subject to.
And here is the awful truth inherent in the new dynamic Canadians are now witnessing. The political shift from Liberal to the NDP, and from PC to the Harper Government, has not, and will not, allow us to loosen the corporate grip that has taken over our country. Our growing income disparity has led to a growing disparity in our political ideology, but, unfortunately, there has been no shift in real power. If anything it has dragged our extreme parties closer to the center, allowing the corporate takeover, as has happened in the states, to eclipse the few alternatives we did have.
The Globe and Mail’s senior political columnist Jeffrey Simpson wrote during the campaign, “amid all the venomous attack ads and excessive rhetoric you can hear the silence of agreement”. Canadian’s, like their counterparts in the US, are falling for the same false hope that “Brand Obama” offered our neighbors. They get us so riled up about defeating our political enemy, that we can’t hear Simpson’s “silence of agreement” at all. Our ideological differences are perverting our ability to accurately direct our rage.
And there is no doubting where this rage must be focused anymore. If the 20th century saw the disastrous effects of centrally planned socialism, then the early 21st century has shown us the disastrous effects of unfettered capitalism. Neoliberal capitalism “has ended the dream of human emancipation”; said David Schweickart, author of After Capitalism, at a conference in Prague yesterday. And, as we move beyond the spectacle of the election, into what will surely be more extreme versions of the same neoliberal policies, we must remember that that is the goal; human emancipation – for what else do we have if we don’t have that.
As the country moves further into opposite directions, all of us who believe this dream, must attempt to continue speak of it, to share its discourse, and seek alternatives that enable this reality – for if we fall into a circle of hatred, the future is far from rosy. As Chris Hedges writes about America, but can equally be applied here:
The coup d’etat we have undergone is beginning to fuel unrest and discontent. With its reformist and collaborative ethos, the liberal class lacks the capacity or the imagination to respond to this discontent. It has no ideas. Revolt, because of this will come from the right, as it did in other eras of bankrupt liberalism in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Tsarist Russia. That this revolt will be funded, organized, and manipulated by the corporate forces that caused the collapse is one of the tragic ironies of history.
We must find our commonality again, but in new forms, and we must find it quickly. But above all, we must find a way to rebel – together.
I’d like to thank Natalia Jakubek for pointing me to the work of Prof. David Hulchanski and recommend for further reading the following article by Keith Jones, national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party: Canada: NDP will abet big business in imposing its class war agenda (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/cndp-m02.shtml)
Freedom for Egypt, Hope for All
- Emilio Morenatti, Associated Press
“Mass hurra, Hosni barra!“ (Egypt is free, Hosni is gone!).
This is the chant reportedly being sung throughout the night sky across Egypt this evening, and in some form, across the world. And it is in that light, that I would like to take the chance to thank the Egyptian people for giving me, and hopefully many others, a real sense of belief, hope, and inspiration. Belief in the power that we, as people, hold. Hope that this power can actually effect real change. And inspiration to go out and make that change happen. Thank you Egypt.
But what is this feeling of gratitude anyway? Why am I, and the rest of the world, so happy for a people we‘ve shown little interest in for the past thirty years? Afterall, Mubarak was our ally wasn’t he? We haven’t spent the last thirty years trying to get rid of him. Instead he’s been helping us fight the war on terror, keeping “peace in the middle east“. So why are we celebrating?
Last night I thought I knew the answer. I was going to write about the romance of revolution. But now, I think perhaps that is making things too simple. Perhaps the real romance that is drawing people to watch the Egyptians overcome tyranny, is the idea of democracy itself, the idea of self-rule, ownership, participation, of living without fear. Freedom. Those of us that have it, know what it’s like, and we know, regardless of what our own leaders national interests might be, this is what all people deserve. We know it makes the world more peaceful, we know it brings real stability, we know it brings real security. And so, when we see the Egyptians fighting for their freedom, we are looking a little bit at ourselves.
But, even that is not going to cut it, is it? No, I think this love afair is likely about more than just the idea of freedom for the Egyptian people. This is about the Middle East, and what a revolution there means for democracy worldwide.
By standing up to Mubarak, the Egyptians have proved to the world that the Middle East yearns for the right to freedom just as much as the rest of us do, and that, despite our western fears, their freedom is peaceful, pluralistic, and liberal – pretty much everything we are told in the west the Middle East is not. And due to the dilly-dallying, and the disapointing support of fascism by our own leaders, not only were those fears struck from the record, the lies behind them were exposed too.
Where were the crowds when Saddam was toppled? Where has the revolution been in Afghanistan? The past decade has shown us that fear doesn’t bring freedom, and instead, in only a few short weeks, the people of Egypt and Tunisia have shown us that being courageous can. If 9/11 started us down the path of fear, than this revolution is the end of that road.
There are other acts of courageousness that must be acknowledged too. Ones that show us signs of what the future has in store, and ones that can allow us to believe in a world in which all people are free.
Al-Jazeera. While having already covered events in the Middle East for a decade, with Egypt, they’ve shown themselves not only to be a valuable source of news, but have demonstrated the value of a free press. Despite intimidation, it has presented issues, topics and coverage that go beyond party and national lines and have been fearless in presenting it. Our tax dollars should fund these kinds of initiatives, not wars.
Wikileaks. No one can say that the leak of US diplomatic cables led to the revolutions, but they have been shedding light on the systems of power every step of the way. The U.S. says they have a trusted partner in Omar Sueliman, and Wikileaks reveals to us why. Say what you want about Julian Assange, Wikileaks is the context the world needs when lies get told.
Social Media. And I don’t mean Mark Zuckerberg, but the people who use the tools. The Green Revolution in Iran showed how great a tool social media networks can be for organizing people, and the people who continue to use them at their own peril (like the Google Inc executive, Wael Ghonim, who was detained and blindfolded for 2 weeks for starting an anti-torture facebook group which helped start the Egyptian revolution), have demonstrated again how important and powerful these tools are for the new democracy.
Protesters. Again, as they did in the lead up to the Iraq war, people worldwide backed this movement. They wrote to their politicians, they tweeted, they blogged, they talked, and they took to the streets. They too, showed that fear was not going to control them. And, although we‘ve had to endure the Iraq War for almost a decade, tonight we too won a battle.
And so yes, maybe it is romantic. But maybe the romance comes because what’s going on in Egypt really is “Farewell Friday“. But farewell not just to Egypt’s fears, but to our own as well. The tools are growing, the power is being chipped away, and we have the Egyptians, and the Tunisians, and the Iranians, and the other fearless people of the world who promote freedom and democracy, to thank. They are spreading the idea, and you can’t kill an idea.
Finally, let me offer a final tiny detail of this revolution, which I think fits the new age we live in so well. Wikipedia, a non-profit volunteer based charity, open-source in nature, and the 7th most popular site in the world, had within minutes of having stepped down updated Hosni Mubarak‘s profile to read: “former President of Egypt, serving from 1981 to 2011“.
No more lies.
Selling Fear and the “Status Quo”
There was a joke recently made on the Colbert Report, where Stephen retorted to Fox News commentator Sean Hannity’s question, daring his guests to name a single uprising in history that had ended in democracy other than Iraq, as if it weren’t possible. Stephen named six countries, the most prominent and laughter grabbing, being the United States itself. Then he said that Hannity wins this round because he was able to name six, not one. LOL.
But, the seriousness of Hannity’s question, and the depth of the ignorance it displays, echo the propaganda currently coming out of Washington, and the western media, about the dangers of an immediate transition of power in Egypt, and even the progress towards that transition.
The big talk is about “stability”. If Mubarak leaves, there will be a “vacuum of power”, radical Islam could take over – or worse, another dictator! The Egyptian people will never be free! So instead we’re told to buy into “slow change”, and “orderly transition”. We’re told of “unprecedented concessions” having been made by the regime and how Egypt is “forever changed”.
But wait. Why don’t we ask the new Egyptian Vice-President Omar Suleiman what he thinks? You know who I’m talking about, right? You know, the guy who ran the current dictator’s secret service for all those years during the dictatorship. The guy all the western powers say is their new “trusted partner”. Yeah, that guy! Let’s ask him if things are “forever changed”. This as reported in the New York Times this morning by David D. Kirkpatrik:
“Mr. Suleiman has said only that Egypt will remove the emergency law when the situation justifies its repeal, and the harassment and arrest of journalists and human rights activists has continued even in the last few days.” Mr. Suleiman warned the protesters, most of whom are opposed to any negotiations while Mr. Mubarak is in power, that the only alternative to talks is a “a coup.”…“There will be no ending of the regime, nor a coup, because that means chaos,” Mr. Suleiman said. And he warned the protesters not to attempt more civil disobedience, calling it “extremely dangerous.” He added, “We absolutely do not tolerate it.”
Excuse me, while I get rid of the bile building up inside my mouth.
So this is the guy we’re all supposed to be championing right now, that we’re supposed to trust in bringing freedom to the Egyptian people. A guy who is openly threatening those very same people, declaring things will not change, all the while still shunning the very basics of human rights and free speech. Is this what the US and EU mean by slow change? I think I hear another joke coming from Stephen Colbert.
Consider these words written by the Egyptian twitterer and blogger, Sandmonkey (www.sandmonkey.org), who’s rocked to fame over the past few weeks covering events on the ground:
Mubarak is still President, Emergency law is still in effect, the parliament hasn’t been dissolved, new elections haven’t been called for and the constitution is still that flexible document that the ruling party can change whenever they see fit. Even though we appear to be winning, we are not by a long shot. “
My friends, we have been down this path before. We’ve listened many times to the powerful make their claims and use this kind of language. And we’ve seen the results. We’ve watched as wars have been started and hundreds of thousands of people were killed in our names to bring about democracy. We’ve sat by while our own governments have taken our rights and freedoms away for reasons of security. And we’ve sat still while our leaders have given away the untold wealth of the citizenry to corporations because of what would happen if these companies were to fail. It’s the same shit, not even a different pile.
Obama says Mubarak recognizes ‘the status quo is not sustainable, change must take place”. Yet, this is exactly what is being protected, the status quo. There can be little doubt that a quick transition of power would be dangerous for the pro-democracy movement. But of course! Any revolution is bound to be fraught with danger. But the opposite question is just as valid; who is a slow transition of power dangerous for? And here, there is only group of people that face any sort of real danger, at least in the short-term: the pro-democracy crowd themselves.
Vaclav Havel, Czechoslovakia’s most heralded revolutionary made this ominous warning earlier in the week to the Associated Press: “mass demonstrations against entrenched rulers need to succeed quickly or they risk degenerating into thuggishness”, following with, “the best solution is for Mubarak to step down right away rather than try to serve the rest of his term.”
Having listened to the inaction of the current regime over the past week, I have serious doubts that any of what’s going on in right now in the halls of Washington, Brussels or the Presidential Palace in Egypt is benefiting the Egyptian people. And far from it, I would suggest we are watching our own governments sell out the Egyptian people, ensuring their own interests are protected.
Mark LeVine, author of Heavy Metal Islam and Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989, has been writing great opinion for Al-Jazeera throughout the current revolution, and in a recent piece, The shaping of a New World Order, he writes this:
“For those who don’t understand why President Obama and his European allies are having such a hard time siding with Egypt’s forces of democracy, the reason is that the amalgam of social and political forces behind the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt today – and who knows where tomorrow – actually constitute a far greater threat to the “global system” al-Qa’eda has pledged to destroy than the jihadis roaming the badlands of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen.”
And I’ll quote further, because he explains it so well:
Whether Islamist or secularist, any government of “of the people” will turn against the neoliberal economic policies that have enriched regional elites while forcing half or more of the population to live below the $2 per day poverty line. They will refuse to follow the US or Europe’s lead in the war on terror if it means the continued large scale presence of foreign troops on the region’s soil. They will no longer turn a blind eye, or even support, Israel’s occupation and siege across the Occupied Palestinian territories. They will most likely shirk from spending a huge percentage of their national income on bloated militaries and weapons systems that serve to enrich western defence companies and prop up autocratic governments, rather than bringing stability and peace to their countries – and the region as a whole.
There was more I could have quoted, and I urge you to read the whole article because it gives much need context to the geo-political crimes currently being perpetrated, however, I think it this makes the point well enough. What we are witnessing is an attempt by our leaders to maintain power, not to transition from it.
Yesterday, the Egyptian people showed up in the largest crowds so far. A clear sign that their concerns are not being met in anyway. It should not be lost on readers that the one line the American’s have refused to back away from for fear of losing face (or friends, should the protesters win) is that “this is not us making some kind of decision; this is the people of Egypt making a decision” (John Kerry). And deciding they are. They are deciding to tell the emperor, and the citizens of the world, that they want the emperor gone, and they are willing to face any dangers that come their way because they are not afraid of the emperor anymore.
And in the west, we’re once again hearing the language of fear, fear of the consequence, fear of change; and thus being offered our own choice. To be afraid of change, or face our own fears.
To read Mark LeVine’s full article, The shaping of a New World Order, go to: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112611181593381.html
America’s Irrelevance in the Age of Global Democracy
I’m drinking beers in a smoky basement pub in the city center of Prague, discussing politics with an American I’ve met only a few hours ago. It is the kind of heated debate where voices are raised and faces are getting red. Of course, we are talking about Egypt, and ultimately America, and their role in the current conflict. I feel bad for my new friend, she’s been forced to defend herself, as most Americans are when living or traveling abroad, because my accusation, and that of others at the table, is that Obama must shoulder some of the blame for some of the violence that has been committed in Egypt.
My argument was this. The American government sat on the fence for far too long in deciding to stand up for the pro-democracy movement, and call for Mubarak to step down. Obama’s decision to at first back the regime, than plead with it to reform, not only missed the opportunity to stand up for the ideals of America (and by this I mean liberal democracy), but could also have led directly to the violence. The lack of fortitude on Obama’s part to stand up for democracy must have left Mubarak feeling empowered. His biggest ally, his economic benefactor does not want him to go. “They’ve got the biggest military in the world, why on earth should I step down?” he must have thought. At this point, the government everyone looks towards for approval was still legitimizing him. What would Mubarak have done 5 days ago, if he knew he was alone on the throne? And so yes, when I hear Obama finally decide to call for an immediate transition of power only after violence erupts, I feel strongly that he should shoulder some of the blame for the violence happening in the first place.
My friend sat in opposition to me, and at the risk of misrepresenting her, I’m going to try and explain her arguments; many of which I think speak volumes of where we are in the world and America is today:
- Time. There simply was not enough time to put together an official policy.
- Domestic Problems. Obama is simply stretched to thin domestically, the US is in such chaos this couldn’t be a top priority.
- The Republican Factor. The Republican Party is so strong at the moment, and the people so misinformed, that Obama cannot risk making the wrong move, because the possibility of another Republican presidency is tantamount to disaster.
- No Real Power. Obama simply does not have the power to say what he thinks; he’s just a figurehead for the competing voices inside the White House.
- Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t. The US can no longer be seen to be meddling in the affairs of others.
- Why us? Why should the US have to stand up for other people’s rights?
The first thing I find fascinating about the arguments is the degree of sympathy accorded to Obama. He’s too busy with domestic problems? He’s can’t risk it politically? He doesn’t have any real power? From an outsiders perspective it’s easy to balk: this is the most powerful man in the world! If he doesn’t have the power to stand up for what he believes than who does! But there is some truth to the arguments. The US does have a tremendous amount of domestic problems, all of which undermine the Presidents political power because of their importance to ordinary Americans. And I’m not just talking about the economic burdens, but the press, education, health care and most definitely, the political situation. America is a divided, corrupted, and troubled nation, and the reality is: Obama might not have any of the clout that a real President should. And so I can understand her sympathy in a way. She knows the man has his hands tied, that he is forced to bite his tongue, that to a certain extent he’s become removed from his ideals.
“The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”
-Barak Obama, Cairo, 2009
But sympathy is about as far as I can go with Obama – it doesn’t cut him loose at all, and it certainly doesn’t dismiss his inaction, or that of his administrations. Regardless of the political situation at home, America is still involved in two wars, and as we’ve seen through the US diplomatic cables leak, they are still intricately involved in the politics of almost every government in the world, including Egypt and Mubarak’s regime. It is impossible to allow the US domestic situation to be the excuse for a President who on one hand is fighting two wars for the supposed purpose of bringing democracy to countries, while on the other hand, supporting a President who has ruled under emergency law for 30 years. The domestic situation might be the reason for this hypocrisy, but it shouldn’t be accepted as the excuse. And so we have to ask ourselves the next question. Why?
Why do we bother listening anymore to what this once great country has to say? If the US political situation is so tenuous as to deem it’s own President irrelevant, than why do we care what he says at all? If the great leader cannot even muster the strength to stand up for it’s own ideals – the ones it’s supposed to be fighting both its wars for – why are we even bothering?
The answer is simple. As I write these words, the US administration is, as reported in the New York Times, “discussing with Egyptian officials a proposal for President Hosni Mubarak to resign immediately and turn over power to a transitional government headed by Vice President Omar Suleiman with the support of the Egyptian military.” Using, as Newsweek put it on December 13th, 2010, “geopolitical muscle like no one else”. If there is one thing the Wikileaks cables presented to the world, it is the amount of influence the United States still wields around the world, and how much the other powers in the world still need their support. And so maybe that is what America has come to encompass; muscle. Governments still look towards the US, not because of the ideal of America, but because of the muscle they still wield.
And if muscle is what the United States now represents, rather than the ideal, than the global civil society needs to check it’s own hypocrisy and stop asking a country that has, for generations now, destroyed and undermined the democratic aspirations of countless people, to back them up. This is the 21st century. Democracy, and civil society with it, is now the force de jour. It’s gone global, connecting the international with the local. It exists on the web, and in the kitchens of dwellings the world over. Even dictators in the Middle East are now in fear of it. Global democracy is growing up, and it needs to start wielding some of it’s own muscle.
My American friend said one other thing that still resonates with me today. She said, we’re living in “dangerously exciting times”. And it’s true, like any coming of age, the future is uncertain, and it is changing. And so, as we watch what is likely to be another American stool put into power in Egypt, I think it’s time the world finally admit the new reality. America still holds the muscle, but the hope it once gave of a democratic future is now what the world offers, and maybe, given America’s own perilous position, it could use some of our ideas.
The Ugly Side of Revolution
As news broke about violence in Cairo yesterday and the images began being transmitted, my thoughts instantly turned dark. Just hours ago I had been blogging about the hope that was being offered by the protesters in Egypt, and than suddenly I am watching a war-zone; what Robert Fisk labeled “as close to civil war as Egypt has ever come”. Somehow, the great Middle Eastern democracy movement was in tatters and the idea of a global grassroots democracy movement seemed, in one word: naïve.
This morning Julie Burchill from The Independent called us western bloggers and intellectuals “armchair revolutionaries”, warning us to “be careful what you wish for in the Middle East”? And while she may be wrong about her analysis, her label is right. That is exactly what I am as I sit drinking a laté, watching the revolution via internet, writing words like “maybe we can also share the power they’ve demonstrated to not be afraid, to stand up for our rights, to say loudly to our leaders that enough is enough!”
My whole adult life I’ve surrounded myself with people who’ve been politically active, more often than not, left leaning progressives, many labeling themselves anarchists or communists. I associate myself with many of these views and together with them have fantasized about a better and more just world. And – with the exception of Toronto’s billion dollar micro-squabble last year – I’ve never witnessed, been part of, or even seen televised a real revolution, and therefore, it has been simple to romanticize the image.
But watching Al-Jazeera yesterday – live coverage of a revolution in progress – as both sides literally beat each other up, fist on fist, a battle instead of a demonstration, the idea of revolution lost a little of its glitter. Hearing a reporter cry while giving you a report from the front lines, watching as men literally are battered to death, one group of people storming another; this is a revolution which is messy, dangerous and violent. And these are the images we do see…
Here is another image – actually two – from Amnesty International’s Urgent Actions, released on Tuesday:
The fate of detainees Mohamed Abu Essaoud Ismail and Mohamed al-Fateh Basyouni is unknown after riots broke out in the prisons of Natroon II and Fayoum. The two men were being held in administrative detention without charge or trial, and the courts have repeatedly ordered their release.
Fifty-year-old Mohamed Abu Essaoud Ismail phoned his brother, Ahmed, from outside Wadi Natroon Prison II, north west of Cairo, on 30 January as prison guards reportedly abandoned the prison following riots by inmates. According to Ahmed, he drove to collect Mohamed from the prison, but on their way back they were stopped by a State Security Information (SSI) officer together with a group of people armed with sticks. Ahmed requested that his brother be allowed to return home until the prison administration is able to guarantee his safety…this was refused and Mohamed was taken by the SSI officer. Ahmed was given no information as to what would happen to Mohamed.
On 29 January, Mohamed Abdel Fattah Basyouni, aged 24, phoned his brother from the Fayoum Prison, south of Cairo, and told him that the cells were on fire and that the prison was burning. There has been no news from him since then.
Another example from a report on the ground in Cairo by Gregory Johnsen, who works in the Near Easter Studies department at Princeton University:
Saturday night was the worst in terms of gunfire and chaos. A number of young men and some older men from the neighborhood banded together and started to build some roadblocks. With no police it was up to the neighborhood to protect itself. After one intense period of gunfire myself and two other foreign males went outside…we pitched in…Most of them had sticks and clubs, but one guy had a golf club and someone else had a pistol. Myself and another friend went back inside to arm ourselves. I found a wooden club with four nails that had fallen off the bottom of a bureau in my apartment. My friend found a metal pole…There were rumors that men on motorcycles were going around scouting neighborhoods for looting…With sticks and clubs, we were only a deterrent. If someone with a gun showed up, we were in trouble. We could only hope that our deterrent would force the would-be looters on to another, softer target.
The point of these stories is that the glorified revolution is not as cut and paste as it seems from a desk in Prague. There should be no shiny red ribbon to be put around a revolution. A revolution is, after-all, preceded by times of suffering and oppression, as we’ve seen in Mubarak’s Egypt, and everywhere else revolution has taken place. At its heart, a revolution is a challenge to the powerful, no matter how peaceful it may be. And a challenge to that power will inevitably put lives at risk.
This isn’t to say that revolution must always be accompanied by violence, there are many revolutions that are testaments to that fact. But what is happening in Egypt right now, or Belarus in December, or Iran in 2009 and even Toronto last year, underscores the fact that just because it is intended to be peaceful does not mean it will remain so. There are many factions, actors, classes and desires – from the shopkeepers, the police, activists, and indeed, the President – all of whom are being thrown into the mix, all of whom feel a sense of threat, and all of whom need to keep a cool head for peace to prevail.
At last years G20 in Toronto, instead of uniformed police officers, there were riot police, squads carrying assault rifles, gas mask clad men on horseback; all running coordinated operations between and around the protesters. I remember how quickly the air turned from peaceful to violent as soon as the Black Bloc started its antics. It wasn’t a demonstration anymore, it was now a security situation – at least to the security forces. And for the rest of the weekend it was limited warfare on the streets of Toronto. What would it have taken for it to turn into what we’re now seeing in Egypt? The sentiment was certainly there: angry sometimes-violent protesters, police with absurd powers of arrest, residents divided in fury towards the Black Bloc and the government. What if it had gone on for 9 days? What would have happened then?
As a person who would like to call himself non-violent, and who thinks of himself as at least an armchair revolutionary, the romantic idea of wanting a revolution is a little less present today that it was yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind that when it’s needed, a revolution should come, as it should have and has in Egypt. But the reality of the images being broadcast from Cairo this morning makes it clear – a revolution is not about sitting in an armchair, it’s about standing up. It is a last ditch, desperate resort and a small step away from civil war. It is about facing tyranny, but it might also mean facing your neighbor. So you better damn sure you believe there is no better way when you do stand up.
Enough is Enough: Egypts Challenge to the West
Here’s a thought, however unpopular it may be: could the events in Egypt actually be the call to action for a worldwide people’s movement. You know the kind I’m talking about, a civil society or a ground level expression of democracy.
Yes, I can already hear the naysayers now – every time there is some sort of popular revolt the times are right for the socialists to once again storm the world. Yet, what we are seeing in Egypt could never be labeled as socialist, even if it is a people’s movement. The events in Egypt, or the “Revolt on the Nile” if you will, is at its base, a revolt against tyranny. It is best summed up by a protesters sign that’s made its rounds around the world “Enough is Enough. 30 years of corruptions, 10 different governments, one President. 80 Million suffering.”
But, in addition to the rage that comes with this kind of oppression, the protesters (regardless of leaders) have made it clear that it is a call for liberal democracy, and one that could possible lead to a liberal Islamic democracy.
I don’t know what a liberal Islamic democracy is really. It’s not a term you ever hear when you turn on the radio. The terms have been divergent in western discourse for a longtime now. Yet, the people in Egypt have swallowed the idea of democracy full force, they have seen the images of the free for decades now, and with a successful revolt in Tunisia, can also see their own democratic right at the end of the tunnel. But, I think there is little doubt, that Islamism will be part of the Egyptian future, even if it is similar to our liberal Christian democracies in the west. The Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized and influential political opposition group in the country and it would be naive to think they won’t have a part in whatever system of government comes next for the Egyptians.
And so it brings up dangerous questions, ones that are perhaps real threats to western powers, and messages of hope to the western people. If our great enemies, the terrorists and the fundamentalists who’ve morphed over a decade to encompass all the people of the Middle East, are somehow able to overthrow their own fascist governments, and create democracies in spite of our leaders best efforts to avoid this, what is the west to do than? Will the same lies about Islamic hatred continue to be spread? Can we believe anymore that people who are fighting to achieve our own free status as beings, are really our enemies? Or by enemies are we really talking about ordinary people against oligarchic pariah governments? You know? Like the ones many of us in the West now find ourselves in!
I’m not the most elegant writer and others have said it better than me, so let me quote from an article posted on Al-Jazeera (one of the most beloved enemies of the West, and certainly the fascist dictators of the Middle East) by Mark LeVine, a professor of history at UC Irvine and the author of Heavy Metal Islam:
Why would Obama, who worked so hard to reach out to the Muslim world with his famous 2009 speech in Cairo, be standing back quietly while young people across the region finally take their fate into their own hands and push for real democracy? Shouldn’t the president of the United States be out in front, supporting non-violent democratic change across the world’s most volatile region?
And than more directly he asks:
The question really needs to be asked – whose interests is President Obama serving by remaining silently supportive of the status quo…Is it companies like Lockheed Martin, the massive defence contractor whose tentacles reach deep into every part of the fabric of governance…Is it the superbanks who continue to rake in profits from an economy that is barely sputtering along, and who have joined with the military industrial complex’s two principal axes-the arms and the oil industries-to form an impregnable triangle of corrupt economic and political power?
I’ve quoted this article in depth because I believe it truly gets to the heart of the matter. The western world has watched over the past decade as our own liberal democracies have been taken apart, our most fundamental rights such as Habeas Corpus trampled over, the welfare state dismantled, and the value of our future labour literally stolen away, even a new trillion dollar cold war started because of one horrendous crime carried out by a nutcase living in a cave. Even if our leaders were to support the overthrow of Mubarak like they did Khamenei last year, with what legitimacy could our leaders stand on by saying anything anymore about liberal “Christian” democracy.
The people of the west, if asked, would probably always associate their governments with liberal democracies, maybe even liberal Christian democracies, but I suspect that they would also support of people against the kind of government I described above (and, as the protests last year all across Europe indicate, many are).
And this is the paradox the people of the west are confronted with when watching the events in Egypt. The people of the Middle East, like South America before them, are standing up to the powers that be and calling for liberal democracy, the great pride of the West. Meanwhile the people of the West have been told for years to fear these people because they are a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Orwell anyone?
As we look across the ruins of North America, we have to ask ourselves who is the real threat, and not to our leaders, but to us – the people. That, to me, is the final lesson I’ve learned from the people in the Middle East this week. If we can see past the lie that these are our enemies, that they indeed are our brothers in peace, than maybe we can also share the power they’ve demonstrated to not be afraid, to stand up for our rights, to say loudly to our leaders that enough is enough! Or as LeVine so rightly puts it Kefaya!
To read Mark LeVine’s full article It’s time for Obama to say Kefaya! go to: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112518178586889.html
Favorite Photographs of 2010
As a sometimes filmmaker and journalist, I often see much of the world through the lens of the camera. I try my hardest to carry a camera at all times and spend a lot of my time snapping photo’s of my travels and exploits. It’s to the point where I could maybe, just maybe, call myself a photographer…sometimes.
This past year has been exciting for my photography. I moved to the Czech Republic, and have been traveling around Central Europe, allowing me to photograph events and places I’ve never had the opportunity to before. I’ve also had the companionship of my partner Michaela, who as you’ll notice, appears in many of my photographs as a subject. Finally, I’m in the middle of my first serious photography project, and while the project is not yet complete, next year should be a lot of fun on this front.
So, in the spirit of the sometimes, and the end of the year, here are my favorite shots from 2010. Hope you enjoy.
23. Romtek 2010, Romania. Aug 2010
A Better World. G20, Toronto, Canada. June 2010
The Art Market. Krakow, Poland. Nov 2010.
Barbed Wire. Prague, Czech Republic. Nov 2010.
Budapest Sunrise. Budapest, Hungary. Aug 2010.
Castle in the Mist. Rožumberk, Czech Republic. Aug 2010.
Christmas Eve. České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Dec 2010.
Dead End. G20, Toronto, Canada. June 2010.
Dearborn. Dearborn, United States. June 2010.
Detroit. Detroit, United States. June 2010.
Disco. Parts Unkown, Czech Republic. July 2010.
End of the Tunnel. Prague, Czech Republic. Oct 2010.
Central Europe. Prague, Czech Republic. Oct 2010.
Guma Guar. Berlin, Germany. February 2010.
In the Clouds. Romtek 2010, Romania. Aug 2010.
Jet Set. Prague, Czech Republic. February 2010.
Bathtub. Krakow, Poland. November 2010.
Eye Over London. London, United Kingdom. Jan 2010.
Love. London, United Kingdom. Jan 2010.
Masarkyovo. Prague, Czech Republic. Sept 2010.
Ondrej. Parts Unknown, Czech Republic. July 2010.
Power Of God. Berlin, Germany. February 2010.
Punk Forever. Visaci Zamek at Vagon, Prague Czech Republic. February 2010.
Rock Star. Visaci Zamek live at Lucerna, Prague, Czech Rebublic. Dec 2010.
Spires Over Krakow. Krakow, Poland. Nov 2010.
Teknival Sunset. Romtek, Romania. Aug 2010.
Thumbs Up. Visaci Zamek at Lucerna, Prague, Czech Republic. Dec 2010.
Thunder. Prague, Czech Republic. Aug 2010.
Never Forget. The New Guard House. Berlin, Germany. February 2010.
The Treehouse. Parts Unknown. July 2010.
Planet Eden and The Quest for a Technological Utopia
Rockets, moon bases, emerald cities of the sky, voyages to far and distant planets; regardless of what side of the iron curtain you happened to be living on during the 50’s and 60’s it must have been a great time to grow up as a space nut. Recently, I got a taste of this when I visited an extraordinary exhibition at DOX, Prague’s Center for Contemporary Art, entitled Planet Eden. The gallery curators, Tomáš Pospiszyl and Ivan Adamovič, have brought together an amazing collection of Soviet era memorabilia, demonstrating visions of the future that were prominent during the Czechoslovak communist period. These visions, when shown together, paint a picture of a technological; and industrial dream future that was not only desired, but that brought with it the hopes of a golden age of communism, human harmony and utopianism. And, as a North American in the 21st century, this picture presented me immediately with two thoughts; the first was how similar the design felt to those same space-aged times in North America; and, the second was how ludicrous and unrealized the dream was.
This is not the first time I’ve felt similarities between the the East and the West. When you first view the communist architecture in Prague, expecting the brutally oppressive utilitarian buildings we’d been told about, you are instantly struck with familiarity. A building is a building is a building, and when they are both from the same period, a utilitarian office building in Prague, looks much like utilitarian office building in Ottawa. Upon entering the space age of Czechoslovak imagery, I was struck again by this sense of familiarity. The children’s television programs consisted of cityscapes that fit right into my memories of the Jetson family flying through the sky and robots helping Mom with the chores. The rocket ship toys and ray guns would, with some small changes, have been welcome in a North American toy box too.
But, more curious were the adult versions of these utopian visions of the future. Whether it was magazine covers, or book illustrations, scenes of inner city space launches, interstellar travel or hyper-modern cities; all of these I can associate with a familiar western aesthetic.In a nuanced essay by Walter A. McDougall, entitled The Space Age That Never Arrived, he notes the enthusiasm in North America for the future:
In the months and years after the initial satellite launches a long queue of scientists
such as Edward Teller, engineers such as Wernher von Braun, generals such as
James Gavin, futurists such as Robert Jastrow, and prophets of popular culture such
as Walt Disney assured Congress, the press, and the public that by the year 2000
lunar colonies, elaborate space stations, and military space armadas would be
commonplace. (November 2007)
It would seem that regardless of our differences, the East and West were both caught up in the hopes and aspirations of human exploration, achievement and utopianism.
I use the word utopianism often because it so permeated all the imagery presented in the exhibit. It was as if an entire population collectively believed human beings had no limit to what could be accomplished, they carried with them only the shear hope of a bright and beautiful future. That hope, without time to reflect on its realization, seems to have justified the ideology behind it, allowing communism to be the vehicle through which this technological utopianism would arrive. Indeed, much of the space age was about national and ideological prestige. Both sides of the East/West divide claimed the success of their missions as proof of the success of their political economic systems, the Soviets with Sputnik and Mir, and the Americans with the Apollo program, essentially using the imagery of the space age to continue and promote their respective ideology.
However, the similarity doesn’t end there. While the ultimate method of achieving this technological utopia might have been through opposing ideologies, the goals stated by both sides weren’t terribly different either. Here are a few examples of that futuristic rhetoric:
• Harness the natural forces of the earth, wind, solar, subterranean
heat and atomic energy.
• Predict and diffuse natural catastrophes
• Cultivate new types of plants and animals.
The above example is the first thing you see upon entering the Planet Eden gallery and it is communist, part of excerpt from a letter by the Soviet academic V.A. Obruchu written in 1954. Sounds familiar though doesn’t it? Hopefully, you’ve clued into the same thing I have. It doesn’t just seem like communist rhetoric, instead it sounds like the same proclamations we hear today. These same goals are still promoted and pursued by modern science, only for what are presented as entirely different reasons.
Which brings me to my second thought. These visions and ideologies were promoted for national prestige but also because the great thinkers of the time believed that technological innovation and supremacy would usher in the dawn of a utopian society. They were just as much a part of the collective orgy as the rest of the population. Ideology aside, there was an unmistakable belief that technology would save us; that technology would set us free. And so where are we now, almost 50 years later? Communism has fallen, and the great technological revolution has given us a much different vision of the future. The sci-fi films that surround us now, aside from the ever- enduring Star Trek enterprise, are of a much starker future. Try The Day After Tomorrow, where the world is lost to human-induced climate change, or even the popular kids’ film Wall-e, where the world of tomorrow is a garbage dump, uninhabitable by humans. No, today’s visions of the future are much more serious, fitting the host of global problems that we now find ourselves in.
However, despite this gloomy reality, there is still an enduring conviction that technology will bring about the ultimate solutions, a hope that has continued past the turmoil of the 20th century and the unfulfilled promises of that time. The list above summarizes some of our goals to save the earth now, the aspirations of a new green age. While our world appears to be falling apart around us, we cling to the promise of a techno-infused green economy to save us from despair. Even those who’ve rejected the rules of mainstream society look towards technology. In the Zeitgeist movement, we’re told of another beautiful future, based around the resource-based, and highly technical, economy of The Venus Project, which projects a world filled with sustainable cities, energy efficiency, natural resource management and advanced automation.
And so I ask, why can’t we let this dream go? What is it about technology that keeps us so fascinated, and at the same time, so bound to its grip?
I suspect it is about control. Technology allows us the ability to manipulate the world around us, and we would like to think this gives us control over our lives and our future. Nevertheless, while we can dream big, our consequential foresight is often limited. Humans can endlessly explore the possibilities for manipulation, but control is something else entirely. We know the truth is much more complicated. The systems on this earth have proven to be far more interconnected and dynamic than we are able to anticipate, and there is much that we don’t understand. Our technological innovations have helped massively in many aspects of our lives, yet they have rarely done so without adversely affecting another. Is it too much to say we’ve been fooling ourselves?
McDougall’s essay is a retrospective look at why we don’t champion the great space age now as we did then, and as you near the end of the Planet Eden exhibit you can see the cracks already appearing. The great future couldn’t arrive quickly enough and instead, the geo-political realities of the time became too apparent. McDougall notes that, “the disillusionment does not stem from humanity’s failure to transform technology. It stems from space technology’s failure to transform humanity.” Indeed, instead of creating a utopia all those years ago, our two great systems were busy using space technology to build up an arsenal of nuclear weapons that could destroy the world a thousand times over. Our industries were found to be responsible for all kinds of ecological horrors. Even the simple problem of feeding the poor proved elusive.
Today, when we hear the same messages, could it be we’re buying into the same false ideology? We’re told to buy into the dream of a green future with marvelous technologies like carbon sequestration, smart grids and clean cars and yet no one seems willing to pose the difficult but necessary questions. Despite the warnings from our scientists, academics, public representatives, environmentalists, activists and others, that there is more to the story, that in fact our very ideological systems are primarily to blame, we still believe in this same failed hope that we can control our destinies.
As I watch the final film, which features among other things, crumbling communist housing and a new Ikea lamp with a post-it note saying “Revolution”, I can only take from this exhibit a warning. As magnificent and retro as the art was, it felt chilling in its similarities to our continued utopian dream. For all those beliefs, the dream has never felt so far away as it does today, and in a world where technology seems to mediate most aspects of our waking lives, I have to be at least a little skeptical about new technological revolutions promising a bright and glorious future. We’ve seen this story before, regardless of where, or when, we are.
Planet Eden is showing at DOX until Dec 13th, 2010. For more information please visit: http://www.doxprague.org/cs/exhibition?36
To read Walter A. McDougall’s full article, The Space Age That Never Arrived, please visit: http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200711.mcdougall.sputnikanniversary.html
Woe, Is Democracy
Woe is democracy in so much of today’s world, and most certainly here in the Czech Republic. Today is the 17th of November. International Students Day, a day remembered here because of the courageous students who stood up to oppression from the Nazi’s and the Communists at the cost of lives, but gaining not just their own personal freedom, but a government and a nation they could call their own.
But there is something missing when looking at the government and nation that now exists. There is a disconnect between what it means to have a government and what the responsibilities the citizenry have to police it. The Czech people seem to have forgotten, or perhaps never learned, that you have to manage your own government, you have to apply pressure, and you have to demand justice. The unions here get it. They have no problem taking to the streets when they see injustice being met. But the people themselves seem to accept the dilution of the very democracy they fought to achieve, and without the support of the people, it doesn’t matter how many times the unions go to the streets, the government knows they can just continue as usual.
I know this is a lot of rhetoric and Czech bashing, but over the past month I have witness events in which I would argue that democracy has either been subverted, or directly snubbed in an attempt to either gain power, or institutionalize a way of thinking in opposition to the desires of the electorate, and the values of democracy.
Here is a small list of a few things;
1. Following the majority victory of the Social Democrats in the Senate, the coalition government declares a legislative emergency in order to pass unpopular austerity measures before the Senate could stop them.
2. The constitutional court strikes down the ability for the police to search offices without a warrant, a good thing – but then makes it retroactive, making previous prosecution of corruption virtually invalid.
3. The federal ODS announces that they will provide benefits such as cheaper cell phone rates and insurance to registered members of their party – meanwhile, an entire election was declared invalid because of parties offering money to voters. What’s the difference?
4. In Prague, voters make it clear that they want change by giving the most seats to TOP 09, but through an electoral system that was manipulated before the election, an oxymoronic grand coalition is created between two opposition parties with nothing in common except that they’ve done it before. The social democrats even had to depose its own Mayoral candidate in order to succeed.
I’m not going to suggest that the Czech Republic is the only one with problems controlling their government, they most definitely are not, but the shunning of the democratic system is so blatant, so obvious, that I’m surprised the Czech people will stand for it. We’ve now seen the same thing happen in the United States, in Canada, and elsewhere, and we’re watching it happen here. The government is allowed to get away with precedents that undermine the legitimacy and function of a democratic constitution. Of what worth is a constitution if it can’t control the government to meet the desires of the people.
Perhaps there is a feeling of hopelessness like there has been in Canada and the US, an apathy that pervades the citizenry into inaction. But for a people that fought so hard to achieve the goal of freedom, it is even more unfortunate that it is now left unprotected and unprotested; because there is no illusion that a government can’t be stopped here, many have lived that dream. And yet, perhaps because it is nowhere near as bad as the evils of Communism or Totalitarianism, the people have yet to grasp the true meaning of democracy.
On Students Day today, where the majority of citizens either relax or remember the sacrifices that led to the Velvet Revolution, there will be very few events that demand an accountable government, that are still continuing forward to protect their rights as people, though there will be some thankfully. There will be a handful of students who are demanding that the government doesn’t commercialize education, as they have planned. There will be another group criticizing and protesting the coalition in Prague mentioned above. And I trust there are others I’m not aware of. It seems to me that by continuing the struggle for a just and open society, a requirement for a good democracy, they are doing more to remember those who’ve come before them, than any ceremony ever could. Perhaps instead of a day of remembrance, this day might be better served as a day of action.
