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.

As for a strategic attack...

Watching the first attack ads of election season usually inspires just as much excitement in me as offended ideological outrage. Attack ads are the first sign that its time to gear up for the fun to be had debating the merits of party platforms and dissecting the subtle (or blatant) political ploys on offer by the latest batch of Prime Ministerial hopefuls with other people who enjoy that sort of debate.

The most recent ones inspire something more akin to weariness.

 The jist of one of the ads is that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is an outsider who didn’t come back to Canada for the good of the county, but rather to collude with the Bloc Quebecois and the ‘high-tax NDP’ to form a ‘reckless coalition’(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urPwfuOWRSE&feature=relmfu ). Others focus on Prime Minister Harper in hard-at-work poses. All of them, with tired out, predicable messages and personal attacks, fail to do much but beg the question; does anyone actually buy into this stuff?

Obviously, Canadian political parties think that Canadians do, or they wouldn’t bother to run them. I, on the other hand, have trouble seeing attack ads as a constructive tool for an election. They more or less pander to ideological extremists, and have a high potential to backfire if deemed to offensive by the publics, like when the Conservatives questioned whether Jean Chretien had the ‘face of a Prime Minister’ in 1993.

But perhaps Harper isn’t looking for early advantage in a Spring election, hoping to get the jump start on badmouthing the opponent. Maybe Harper is only looking to remind the opposition that an election would be a hard fought battle, one that, if recent elections are anything to judge by, will likely yield indifferent results from the increasingly disinterested public.    

As for the State of the Union...

Last night’s State of the Union Address delivered by President Obama was a well crafted speech, chockfull of just the right kind of pageantry to seem powerful and uplifting, despite the fact that the president is now facing two years where every little thing is likely to be an uphill battle. Obama covered a vast range of topics in the hour he spoke, touching on education, immigration, the health care bill repeal. He spoke about trade agreements and curbing the sky-rocketing national debt by creating a government that doesn’t spend trillions of dollars more than it takes in. Obama talked about ending big oil subsidies, while offering a beautifully crafted comparison between developing clean energy now and the 1960’s space race to the moon.

It was inspiring, uplifting, and so full of promise that is was nearly empty of meaning.

But maybe that is all it was supposed to be. In his first two years in office, Obama managed to get universal health care legislation through congress, an accomplishment several decades in the making. It’s a feat to be proud of, certainly, but it was by no means an easy go, despite the Democratic majority in the House. Now, facing a Republican majority in Congress, Obama will have to cut more deals and make a lot more compromises in order to get any legislation at all passed, let alone anything with such blatantly partisan appeal.

And Obama’s speech did acknowledge that, opening with a quip about working together rather than just sitting together, but the speech that followed the joke made light of the fact that Obama will have to work a lot harder in the next two years to accomplish much less.

(Watch the speech on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZdEmjtF6HE)