As for Libya...

Here we go again, only five days after Egyptian President Mubarak was forced to step down by protesters calling for his resignation, another Middle Eastern country has demonstrators in the streets of its cities. This time, the setting is Libya, domain of Mubarak supporter, Muammar Gaddafi.

And while protests in Egypt may have garnered nice words about supporting democracy from the west, the situation in Libya is likely to resonate even more deeply in the western media, largely because of Gaddafi himself.

Often seen in bizarre outfits, and bearing the self-styled title of ‘Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution,’ Gaddafi seems made for the role of cartoonish evil dicatator, someone the west can get on board with unilaterally hating. The Libyan protestors are much more likely to find sympathy for their cause simply based on the fact that their leader seems more concerned with theatrics and dramatic flair than with seeing to the affairs of Libya.

That said, Gaddafi also seems even less likely to resign without putting up a fight than Mubarak, who stubbornly clung to power for almost a month while Egypt fell into chaos around him. Right now, Libyans’ futures are about as predictable as their leader’s next wardrobe choice.

As for the future of Egypt...

Well, ding dong, the witch is dead, and all that jazz. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has finally stepped down after trying every half measure in the book to quell the protests that have rocked his country since last month.

Mubarak sacked his cabinet, had his son, who was in position to take over after his father’s rule, and other top official resign. He instituted a curfew and enforced it with water cannons and tear gas. His Vice President, Omar Suleiman, met with opposition parties and announced reforms to the constitution, including instituting free elections And none of that was enough to save the job of the man who ran Egypt for 30 years. Egyptians had simply had enough of Mubarak and continually demanded his resignation right up until he finally stepped down two days ago.

Egypt celebrated and has been in the process of cleaning up ever since. But the future isn’t really any clearer than it was when the protests first began.

Because of the strict restrictions on opposition parties under Mubarak, there is no natural successor for power in the country, nor even any real procedures for electing one. So, in the interim, the military is in charge. They’ve dissolved parliament and will be running the country until elections or held, or for the next six months. The emergency laws that have been in place since the beginning of Mubarak’s reign are still in place, and the constitution has been suspended pending a vote on amendments suggested by a committee.

It’s unclear where the country is headed next, but it seems likely enough that it will be in a brighter direction.

As for the cost of going online...

Apparently consumers in Canada are less than eager to live in a world where the government doesn’t regulate prices on consumer services, at least when it comes time to foot the bill for internet usage.

That was the message the CRTC surely took from the recent backlash of opinion against their decision that would allow big internet providers that, by law, must lease bandwidth to smaller companies, to base their rates on usage. Doing so would likely cause huge spikes in cost for consumers who get their internet from small service providers, while at the same time drastically decreasing the amount they can download without incurring additional charges.

This decision spurred tens of thousands of Canadians (according the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/932571--ottawa-to-reverse-crtc-decision-on-internet-billing) to sign petitions are write the government demanding that the CRTC decision be reversed.

Ottawa- probably shocked by response from a country that has become almost too disengaged to vote in significant numbers- promptly complied, coming out strongly against the decision and stating that they would overturn it if the CRTC didn’t do so themselves.

Apparently the key to motivating the Canadian public to actively engage with their government is threatening to send them a bigger bill each month.

As for separate schooling...

Apparently, every group society needs its own school. The Toronto Star reported this week that plans currently underway to build a school in Niagara specifically for students from low income families whose parents didn’t attend college or university are being criticised for segregating and isolating students. (http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/932340--debate-heats-up-over-niagara-school-for-poor-kids )

Well, of course they are. These schools are purposely segregating and isolating particular students in an attempt (misguided or not) to increase their chances of graduating and escaping from the stigma of being poor, and people like Ontario Education Minister Leona Dombrowsky have every right to call them out on it.

But it isn’t as if Canadian schools don’t already have a precedence for separating and isolating students based on labels that are pretty much irrelevant to education. In Quebec, there are language laws that prohibit francophone children from attending English primary and secondary schools. Elsewhere in Canada, there are Catholic schools, and sure, a parent elects to send their child there or not, but its still a case of segregating students.

It’s harder to fight the fact that a parent wants their child to attend a school that emphasises particular aspects of education over others, but the fact remains that students might be better served by time and money spent creating a single school system that educates everyone rather than dividing everything down random, superficial lines.

As for where I stand...

I have just received some interesting insight into my character from that font of all modern knowledge, the internet. If I’m reading the results of the quiz I just took on politicalcompass.org, I am, politically speaking, some combination of Stalin and Ghandi.

According to the results of the test, based on my answers to six or so pages of questions meant to gage political leanings, I’m about as leftist as the Russian dictator and even more Libertarian than the Indian spiritual leader. Apparently this position on the spectrum puts me in good company, with Nelson Mandela and the Dhali Lama occupying similar spots on in the same quadrant.

The puzzling thing is, going into the quiz, I would have guessed that my results would have been significantly less extreme, as I find that my take on given issues tends to be more scattered than in line with any particular ideology. In an attempt to discover whether the test was designed to put you at one extreme or another, rather than accurately reflect your ideals, I went back redid the quiz, ‘disagreeing’ with all the statements, no matter if they contradicted each other or not. This way, I ended up with much more moderate results on the spectrum, and was forced to reflect that, at least in terms of those particular fifty or so questions, my views are much more extremist than I realised.

The thought then occurred that perhaps this it is perfectly natural to assume that one’s views are moderate and centrist than they really are. After all, any human being starts out with the assumption that their way of looking at things, their personal ideology is ‘right’ and perhaps it’s a natural leap from there to assume its therefore widely shared. It could be that people realise their extremist only by closely reflecting on the things that they believe, and that internet spectrum compass quizzes are potentially a great tool for getting people to moderate their views.

It is, after all, a rather upsetting thing to have your political leanings linked to the ‘bad guys’ in history. I certainly don’t want to think of myself as likely to have voted for Stalin, if given the opportunity.

(The quiz I took is at http://www.politicalcompass.org/test )

As for idealising democracy...

While browsing the Maclean’s magazine website today, I came upon an interesting article concerning Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s response to the Egyptian protests currently taking place. The author, Aaron Wherry, detailed discussion during question period in the House of Commons where Leader of the Official Opposition, Michael Ignatieff called on Harper to more adamantly ‘renew our commitment to democracy’ especially in Egypt. (http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/31/the-commons-let-us-renew-our-commitment-to-democracy-at-least-in-egypt/#more-169417 )

That made me wonder, is Harper- or any Western leader, for that matter-  really in any position to recommend democracy to a populace seeking a better way to govern?

Over many decades, and through many wars, the West has always firmly stood on the idea that democracy is the best way to govern a state, which most people, in Canada and elsewhere, seem to believe as a matter of course. I’m not saying democracy isn’t the best way of running things, or quibbling with any of its cherished underpinnings, I’m just wondering if countries like Canada, that are facing staggering declines in voter turn out, should really be standing up and shouting about how Egypt ought to run things.

Maybe if the western world leaders keep quiet long enough for the Egyptian populace to work out its own system, then the world will end with the elusive next step, the way of governing that is one better than democracy.

Or maybe Churchill’s famous line will prove to be true indefinitely, and democracy will always be the worst system, except for all the rest.  

As for Egyptian unrest...

(Mubarak’s speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DtOr6BBOHg )

Yesterday, after weeks of rampant protesting in his country, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak made a speech announcing he had fired his whole Cabinet in an acknowledgement of the ‘legitimate demand’ for governmental reform.

This attempt at appeasement seems to have had little more calming effect on the revolting populace than Mubarak’s earlier efforts to shut down unrest by shutting down text messaging and internet, and authorising the army to enforce curfew in major cities like Cairo, Alexandria and Suez.  Firing government officials is apparently too little, too late for citizens of Egypt who want to see the end of Mubarak’s thirty years as President of the country.

The only thing surprising in the situation would be if Mubarak thought the ploy would be enough to save his position amid calls for his dismissal. History shows once a population is incensed enough to take to the streets in a riot, not a lot can be done to keep a leader in power except swiftly putting down the protest with a show of brutal violence. To his credit, and the credit of the Egyptian army, Mubarak has kept well away from that mark in policing the chaos in the cities.

And yet, there is little chance that Mubarak’s refrain from out and out violence will do him much good. There’s little chance that the man will outlast the civil unrest with his power in tact. The best he should hope for is to avoid the Mussolini treatment and get out of Egypt while the getting is good.